How to choose between creation and evolution.

[mark kennedy]

So you see nothing about the phrase "I may be a step or two ahead of you" that would indicate an attitude of superiority, arrogance, and condescension? That would be a very impressive abandonment of introspection.

I'm consumed with introspection and I actually care about the subject matter. I'm often annoyed with apologists for science that haven't the time or the patience to actually explore the subject. I'm not superior, I have just done the reading.

I feel no need to justify myself to you by rattling off my credentials, so if you believe you can write me off without justification, so be it. Biogenesis is not a law. It is the only way we have seen life arise, but to claim that direct observation is necessary to understand the world is to deny an enormous body of human knowledge. We have no directly observable evidence of humans building the pyramids, but we don't believe they came about by themselves (as just one example). Obviously I know Mendel's work and the laws associated with it. What's your point there?

What's the point of the Mendelian laws of inheritance? Really? It's how life works, don't you think it might have to do something to do with how life evolves? Life comes from life, there is no directly observed or demonstrated event to the contrary. That's not even the point.

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)​

That's the father of modern genetics telling you before there was such a thing as genetics, there are limits.

​

 

[USincognito]

So you see nothing about the phrase "I may be a step or two ahead of you" that would indicate an attitude of superiority, arrogance, and condescension? That would be a very impressive abandonment of introspection.

Don't let Mark's ersatz air of superiority get to you. He's been doing it for over a decade now, while at the same time repeating the same errors, fallacies and misuse of words and phrases. It's actually quite humorous.

Just wait until he tells the actual working scientists here that they don't know what they're talking about. It's a hoot.

 

[mark kennedy]

Don't let Mark's ersatz air of superiority get to you. He's been doing it for over a decade now, while at the same time repeating the same errors, fallacies and misuse of words and phrases. It's actually quite humorous.

Just wait until he tells the actual working scientists here that they don't know what they're talking about. It's a hoot.

Well thanks for the vote of confidence, appreciate that. He's not the first to tell me I'm condescending, really don't know how people get that impression. It's probably because the don't know as much as me.

 

[USincognito]

{snip same tired shtick}
This is in addition to no less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.

This sort of dishonest garbage however does get a little annoying. Mark has had it explained to him over and over and over that mutations are the "molecular mechanism" that produces novel genes. At this point he's simply lying when he makes this claim.

 

[mark kennedy]

This sort of dishonest garbage however does get a little annoying. Mark has had it explained to him over and over and over that mutations are the "molecular mechanism" that produces novel genes. At this point he's simply lying when he makes this claim.

Wow, you just responded to my post directly in the third person, now that's disingenuous. This is perfectly honest, it's just not substantive. I know there is such a thing as novel, actually the word is de novo, gene. But the best example I've ever seen was simple repeats and it was the antifreeze gene of the arctic cod. With brain related genes it simply dosen't happen and by now you know it.

 

[LordKroak10]

I'm consumed with introspection and I actually care about the subject matter. I'm often annoyed with apologists for science that haven't the time or the patience to actually explore the subject. I'm not superior, I have just done the reading.

What's the point of the Mendelian laws of inheritance? Really? It's how life works, don't you think it might have to do something to do with how life evolves? Life comes from life, there is no directly observed or demonstrated event to the contrary. That's not even the point.

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)​

That's the father of modern genetics telling you before there was such a thing as genetics, there are limits.

After just saying I was not going to rattle off my credentials, I will assure you that I have done substantial reading (and authoring, for that matter) on biology. To claim that I have neither the time, patience, nor interest to study it would be an affront to my greatest passion, and I must refute such a claim.

Also, I must point out that the "Laws of Inheritance" are not actually laws. Non-Mendelian inheritance is more common, and genetics is far more complex than he ever realized. Mendel's work opened the eyes of the world to the idea of inheritance, paving the way for a more correct understanding, but his work only scratched the surface. His findings are no longer the most accurate understanding of genetics. He believed that species had limits to how much they could change, but then he was wrong about many things.

 

[USincognito]

Francis Collins was the director of the Human Genome Project,

Where did you get the impression that is was news to him? Don't you think for a moment that he might be familiar with whom Francis Collins was since, I dunno, he was the one who mentioned him first? Why would you think you need to tell him who Collins is then?

I've read the paper. I've also read the comparative genomic papers comparing the DNA of humans and chimpanzees, something I've never heard him comment on.

This is from 13 years ago.
2005 Release: New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at DNA Level

"The sequencing of the chimp genome is a historic achievement that is destined to lead to many more exciting discoveries with implications for human health," said NHGRI Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. "As we build upon the foundation laid by the Human Genome Project, it's become clear that comparing the human genome with the genomes of other organisms is an enormously powerful tool for understanding our own biology."​

This is also from 13 years ago.
Scientists decipher chimp genome

"It's a huge deal," said Dr Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, which provided some support for the project. "We now have the instruction book of our closest relative." He said the work will help scientists analyse human DNA for roots of disease.​

bold mine

 

[mark kennedy]

After just saying I was not going to rattle off my credentials, I will assure you that I have done substantial reading (and authoring, for that matter) on biology. To claim that I have neither the time, patience, nor interest to study it would be an affront to my greatest passion, and I must refute such a claim.

Also, I must point out that the "Laws of Inheritance" are not actually laws. Non-Mendelian inheritance is more common, and genetics is far more complex than he ever realized. Mendel's work opened the eyes of the world to the idea of inheritance, paving the way for a more correct understanding, but his work only scratched the surface. His findings are no longer the most accurate understanding of genetics. He believed that species had limits to how much they could change, but then he was wrong about many things.

Yea actually they are law of science but spin it any way you like, it's just ducks in a shooting gallery for me.

Let's try something else, the human lineage 2 million years ago is about, let's say the cranial capacity is, 500cc about 2 million years ago. What were the molecular mechanisms that doubled the size over night?

 

[mark kennedy]

Where did you get the impression that is was news to him? Don't you think for a moment that he might be familiar with whom Francis Collins was since, I dunno, he was the one who mentioned him first? Why would you think you need to tell him who Collins is then?

I mentioned him in passing, funny how you belabor a point you never really make.

This is from 13 years ago.
2005 Release: New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at DNA Level

"The sequencing of the chimp genome is a historic achievement that is destined to lead to many more exciting discoveries with implications for human health," said NHGRI Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. "As we build upon the foundation laid by the Human Genome Project, it's become clear that comparing the human genome with the genomes of other organisms is an enormously powerful tool for understanding our own biology."​

This is also from 13 years ago.
Scientists decipher chimp genome

"It's a huge deal," said Dr Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, which provided some support for the project. "We now have the instruction book of our closest relative." He said the work will help scientists analyse human DNA for roots of disease.​

bold mine

And yet he makes no comment on the actual comparison.

 

[USincognito]

The bible talks of people who swallow a lie. An open mind is ripe for anything to be poured in.

The irony being that so much of Creationism is lies or based on lies.

Evolution denies that God has power to create instaneousley and that He would mislead us by saying one thing but meaning something else. Just because God has left gaps in what He deems nescessary for us to know, does not mean we need to or are to fill them in.

That is false. Evolution does not address any deity period, nor how they might or might not have created. No part of science addresses the supernatural.

 

[USincognito]

I mentioned him in passing, funny how you belabor a point you never really make.

Ah yes. Mark's patented ennui response. Very tiresome and well worn at this point.

And yet he makes no comment on the actual comparison.

And here we see Mark's Nathan Thurm, "he didn't say that, you said that" shtick.

How onerously tiresome...

 

[LordKroak10]

Yea actually they are law of science but spin it any way you like, it's just ducks in a shooting gallery for me.

Let's try something else, the human lineage 2 million years ago is about, let's say the cranial capacity is, 500cc about 2 million years ago. What were the molecular mechanisms that doubled the size over night?

Mendel's "Laws" are regularly broken in real life. Hence, they are not actually laws, though they are named such. I could list off a number of examples that break Mendelian inheritance, but that is something you could easily look up if you are as interested as you say you are.

Please elaborate on your point about human cranial size, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "doubled the size over night."

 

[USincognito]

Yea actually they are law of science but spin it any way you like, it's just ducks in a shooting gallery for me.

And there's the "I'm superior to you all and you're ants I trample on" shtick.

Let's try something else, the human lineage 2 million years ago is about, let's say the cranial capacity is, 500cc about 2 million years ago. What were the molecular mechanisms that doubled the size over night?

Two million years ago "human" (meaning genus Homo) cranial capacity was ~800cc. You're being dishonest yet again. And only in Marksylvania is two million years "overnight".

 

[USincognito]

Please elaborate on your point about human cranial size, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "doubled the size over night."

It's his tired, "I Can't Believe It's A Brain" shtick. He has nothing but incredulity in response to an increase in the hominin cranial capacity since our LCA with chimpanzees. He also thinks that 6 million years is "overnight" and denies that ARHGAP11B and SRGAP2C* were the genes that helped our brains to grow larger and more dense.

Spoiler: Mark's shticky response

Watch is copy and paste response to SRGAP2C. He'll ignore that allele and instead focus on a pathology associated with SRGAP2.

 

[r4.h]

The irony being that so much of Creationism is lies or based on lies.



That is false. Evolution does not address any deity period, nor how they might or might not have created. No part of science addresses the supernatural.

You dont get off that easily, What lies are you referring to?

By "Denies" i dont mean literally. Of course evolution doesnt take Gods power to create into consideration, that is what I mean by "denies".
By believing it impossible, they look to a flawed science of millions of years which is not fact as they claim.

 

[USincognito]

How? Did the animal just decide to modify its DNA?

Where do you get the crazy idea that animals (by the way, all living things have DNA, not just animals) consciously decide to modify their DNA? Do you have any idea how genetics works?

As for abiogenesis. Life arising from nonliving matter.
If this could work, scientists would have been able to produce life.

Why? Scientists are as yet unable to recreate a star system in the laboratory, but we're able to observe it happening in space.
Revolutionary ALMA Image Reveals Planetary Genesis

 

[Brightmoon]

I’m not a geologist. I’ve taken 2 geology courses. I can walk downtown look at the decorative marble, limestone or granite stone on some of our buildings and definitively say that they are older than 10000 years simply because I know how stone like that forms

 

[Speedwell]

You dont get off that easily, What lies are you referring to?

By "Denies" i dont mean literally. Of course evolution doesnt take Gods power to create into consideration, that is what I mean by "denies".
By believing it impossible, they look to a flawed science of millions of years which is not fact as they claim.

Evolutionary biologists do take God's power to create very seriously and have studied it assiduously. Many of them are atheists and don't recogniize it as God's creative power, but together with theist scientists they have formulated a theory which describes it successfully--the theory of evolution..

 

[Doug Melven]

Where do you get the crazy idea that animals (by the way, all living things have DNA, not just animals) consciously decide to modify their DNA?

It was said earlier that the animals would change over time, so I asked the question how it happened.
Do the animals modify there DNA?

 

[USincognito]

You dont get off that easily, What lies are you referring to?

That there is no evidence for evolution.
That there is evidence of the Flood.
That there are no transitional fossils.
That there are no beneficial mutations.
That evolution is a "religion".
That evolution is the same as atheism.
etc. etc.

By "Denies" i dont mean literally. Of course evolution doesnt take Gods power to create into consideration, that is what I mean by "denies".

And yet germ theory of disease doesn't take God into the equation and I bet you're fine with it. The same goes for plate tectonic theory. Heck, your local weather forecast doesn't take God into the equation, but I bet you don't complain every time you read or watch it.

By believing it impossible, they look to a flawed science of millions of years which is not fact as they claim.

You cannot merely claim something is "flawed" or "not a fact". You're going to need to provide evidence showing it to be "flawed" or "not a fact". And as far as deep time goes, that had nothing to do with whatever conspiracy theory you're alluding to. It's based on solid science over the course of 200 years.
Geologic Time: Contents