How to choose between creation and evolution.

[USincognito]

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?

Again, Doug, neither animals nor any other living thing (because we all have DNA) modified their DNA consciously or willfully. Mutations happen naturally. Most are neutral when it comes to fitness. Some cause diseases which might or might not be fatal I have an autoimmune disorder called Ankylosing Spondylitis which causes my bones to fuse. It has a genetic component, but it's not fatal. Finally a small percentage of mutations cause an increase in fitness in a particular environments.

 

[USincognito]

Wow, you just responded to my post directly in the third person, now that's disingenuous.

It's not always about you buddy.

This is perfectly honest, it's just not substantive.

And here's the same hand waving shtick we've been seeing for 15 years...

I know there is such a thing as novel, actually the word is de novo, gene.

De novo would mean from from the beginning and not every gene that manifests in a change to phenotypic change is de novo. Most of them are alleles of existing genes.

But the best example I've ever seen was simple repeats and it was the antifreeze gene of the arctic cod.

I've been posting about genome duplication and the development of the four hemoglobin gene variants in humans for a few years now. I'm surprised you never saw when I did so.

With brain related genes it simply dosen't happen and by now you know it.

An assertion that flies counter to the actual evidence. And sorry Charlie, I know that novel brain genes happen. I mentioned two of them earlier - SRGAP2C and ARGHAP11B.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's not always about you buddy.

Vintage ad hominem.

And here's the same hand waving shtick we've been seeing for 15 years...

Same old clutch phrases, some things never change.

De novo would mean from from the beginning and not every gene that manifests in a change to phenotypic change is de novo. Most of them are alleles of existing genes.

No, actually they are brand new genes.

I've been posting about genome duplication and the development of the four hemoglobin gene variants in humans for a few years now. I'm surprised you never saw when I did so.

Probably seemed unrealted.

An assertion that flies counter to the actual evidence. And sorry Charlie, I know that novel brain genes happen. I mentioned two of them earlier - SRGAP2C and ARGHAP11B.

Those aren't novel, just unique to the human genome. Variations result in disease and disorder

 

[Brightmoon]

Variations result in disease and disorder? On who’s planet ? Not this one ! Variation can reduce fitness but beneficial genes enable survival or they result in more healthy offspring

 

[pitabread]

Wow, you just responded to my post directly in the third person, now that's disingenuous.

It's also worth noting that mark kennedy does not like to be referred to in the third person. It seems to set him off.

 

[pitabread]

No I know what I was saying and I would call it dialectical materialism.

Then just say so. Constantly using other terms incorrectly doesn't do the conversation any favors, unless you're trying to be confusing on purpose.

The subject of origins is not a scientific one, it's a metaphysical question.

If we're talking the origin of life, it's most certainly a scientific one. Although naturally there are going to be philosophical implications based on the answers, that doesn't change the scientific pursuit of life's origin on this planet.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

All evolutionary biologists had to study plant and animal anatomy(and morphology and physiology) at one point with an open mind. So.. ..

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If you take a good hard look at evolution you will see that it cannot supply the answers to where we came from.
Even if you don't take into account first life.
Evolution says that animals evolved because they had to in order to survive.

Well, no. Animals could survive without evolving. However, evolving helps them reproduce the next generation in an improved way.

What I would like explained from Evolutionists is that if an animal did not have what it took to survive in a hostile environment, how did that animal thrive to produce offspring?

Evolution doesn't make successes out of failed stock. Evolution makes alternate stock out of successful stock, alternate stock that succeeds in a new way.

In one single generation it had to have mutated offspring while unable to survive.
Why wouldn't the animal just move to a different environment?

There you go again, asserting "unable to survive". Those unable to survive died, leaving only survivors to evolve.

Now here's another mind blowing fact for you. A species can have another species evolve off of it and still have lots of the original species still around still being the same species. After all, a species has lots and lots of individuals in it, and they don't have to ALL evolve away into a new species.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The simple words about how God caused Adam to sleep and removed a bone from his side and built Eve, was not even understandable until we understood scientifically that rib bones contain multipotent [edited: stem cells] DNA from which God could build Eve and that rib bones grow back if the sheath which houses it is left intact by the surgeon.

Naah. It took a miracle, no way out of that. The idea that it had to come from stem cells is silly. God could have done it without stem cells. Stem cells wouldn't be able to make an adult human in a single day all by themselves, either. Since it was a miracle, the provision of stem cells is irrelevant.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

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

If scientists do make life from non living chemicals, will you on that day accept evolution?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

DNA RNA and the Flagellin motor are not something that time energy and matter are possible of generating.

Sure they are. Your denials don't change the facts.

 

[juvenissun]

If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

No. The more one studied, the more questions about evolution come up. That is NOT a right situation.

 

[Gene2memE]

How to choose between creation and evolution?

Here's a thought experiment. Suppose overnight, every text on evolution and all knowledge of evolutionary theory disappeared from the minds of man. Suppose at the same time, every religious text and all knowledge of religious accounts of the creation of life disappeared as well.

If this situation were to eventuate, I posit that evolutionary theory would be reconstructed and end up basically similar to what we have now, via study of the physical evidence available. I posit that the creation stories of religions would either disappear completely, or if they were developed, be so completely different to their predecessors that they would not be recognizably the same.

That's one reason why I accept evolution as the best supported account for the development of biological diversity on the plants, and why I dismiss all religious creation accounts as unsupported fictions.

 

[bhsmte]

I see the defense mechanisms have been fully engaged, to ward off evolution, at all costs.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You don't, you seem preoccupied with personal taunts, it's called an ad hominem argument and it's fallacious. I'm not incredulous, just reserve the right to remain unconvinced.

I've never directed a negative comment about evolution toward any person. I'm convinced of special creation so the idea of being "unconvinced" about evolution doesn't even come into the picture. I'm incredulous that such a theory even exists.

 

[mark kennedy]

I've never directed a negative comment about evolution toward any person. I'm convinced of special creation so the idea of being "unconvinced" about evolution doesn't even come into the picture. I'm incredulous that such a theory even exists.

I'm not sure what you mean but if you saying special creation seems legitimate and the, 'theory of evolution', seems false I would agree. I believe in a radical kind of evolution, in the space of 4000 years from the Ark were the predecessors of all the species of mammals, reptiles and birds in all it's vast array. If I have a problem with evolution it's that my issue is not with evolution per se. My differences are at the point of origin.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's also worth noting that mark kennedy does not like to be referred to in the third person. It seems to set him off.

I've never liked that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[mark kennedy]

Then just say so. Constantly using other terms incorrectly doesn't do the conversation any favors, unless you're trying to be confusing on purpose.

I make every effort to be clear.

If we're talking the origin of life, it's most certainly a scientific one. Although naturally there are going to be philosophical implications based on the answers, that doesn't change the scientific pursuit of life's origin on this planet.

Science is focused on natural phenomenon, this much I'm sure of. In order to deal with the subject of origins you have to leave the empirical confines of science and learn to explore metaphysics:

The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. (Metaphysics, Oxford Dictionary)
​

I've always believed that.

 

[pitabread]

I make every effort to be clear.

Does this mean you're going to stop using your own private definition of "Darwinism" or "Darwinian evolution"?

Science is focused on natural phenomenon, this much I'm sure of. In order to deal with the subject of origins you have to leave the empirical confines of science and learn to explore metaphysics:

The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. (Metaphysics, Oxford Dictionary)
​

I've always believed that.

If you're talking about the origin and nature of existence itself, then sure.

But just for the origin of life on Earth, that's not a metaphysical question. Just a chemical one.