How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How far back do 'soft tissue' studies of the eye go that provide this information?

I... what are you trying to ask? What do 'soft tissue studies' have to do with genes?

 

[xianghua]

You’d have to have VERIFIABLE evidence of the designer, not faith in the designer, to be accepted as science

true. here is my evidence:

this is basically a spinning motor found in bacteria. we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design. so the best explanation for the existence of nature is the design model. (image from Museo de máquinas moleculares: El flagelo bacteriano)

The gene that makes a bacterial light sensing pigment is the same gene that is the “ master control gene” for eye formation in animals that have eyes. There is the molecular level you asked for . IIRC it’s called bacteriorhodopsin

i think that OldWiseGuy refer to the question of how many genetic information we need to evolve a simple eye\light detector. we know that even the simplest light detector required several parts, so it cant evolve by small steps.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

From other genes. E.g. PaxB. Origin of Pax and Six gene families in sponges: Single PaxB and Six1/2 orthologs in Chalinula loosanoffi. - PubMed - NCBI

It seems to be as if you believe that if you can avoid googling something, then: Goddidit.

Google has no answers for my questions. For example, where did the 'process' of evolution originate. It must have existed before the first organism appeared; waiting to pounce on it and develop it over millions of years into a critter (man) that could then explain itself to itself.

I have read many articles attempting to explain some facet of evolution. None has ever addressed the complexity of what they are trying to explain, and all were shot through with suppositions. That's why I encourage reading anatomy books wherein these complexities are explored at some depth. Here is where design is revealed to all but those who don't accept the concept of design itself in nature.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

true. here is my evidence:

this is basically a spinning motor found in bacteria. we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design. so the best explanation for the existence of nature is the design model. (image from Museo de máquinas moleculares: El flagelo bacteriano)



i think that OldWiseGuy refer to the question of how many genetic information we need to evolve a simple eye\light detector. we know that even the simplest light detector required several parts, so it cant evolve by small steps.

Irreducible complexity. I like it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i afraid that you will not get an answer since no one can answer such a question. it means that we cant realy test evolution and this is why its not a scientific theory.

The reason nobody answer such a question, is because nobody here has the energy nore time to give you people a college level crash course on genetics and bio-chemistry on an internet forum.

If you wish to learn the answer to such questions and actually understand them, you're going to have to get some books and start studying.

Don't ask us to write you guys a 1000 word thesis on how it works technically, when it's completely obvious that you don't even properly understand the basics of the basics.

In an analogy to math, you are asking us to explain to you how to solve advanced equations, while you are barely able to work out 2+2.

 

[bhsmte]

Irreducible complexity. I like it.

Very happy you like it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I just keep asking why until you have no answers, which occurs rather quickly.

Except that if you keep asking long after you've been given the answers.

E.g. here's more on the origin of Pax genes. Evolutionary History of Chordate PAX Genes: Dynamics of Change in a Complex Gene Family

We are interested in painting evolutionists into a corner. You are a slippery bunch though, like a wet bar of soap. We have a hard time 'grasping' what you are trying to put over on us.

You first need to have some understanding of painting, including which end of the paintbrush to hold. Asking us questions that we can trivially answer, and then pretending that you haven't been given an answer, isn't exactly painting us into any corner.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I... what are you trying to ask? What do 'soft tissue studies' have to do with genes?

I take back that question (although the basis of evolutionary study must be ancient soft tissue. And because there is no ancient soft tissue evolutionary study has no basis).

What is a "good chance" (percentage) that you will develop glaucoma? Do you have the 'glaucoma gene'? I have cataracts, and my doctors says that "everyone has cataracts but not everyone will suffer loss of vision because of it. So far I haven't even though many in my family have and needed the surgery. I have a very different lifestyle than they which might account for this, which of course means that I might not be affected by this 'genetic' weakness.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Very happy you like it.

I like the mouse trap example. I have caught about a dozen mice this year, and couldn't have done so if any parts were missing from my traps.

 

[bhsmte]

I like the mouse trap example. I have caught about a dozen mice this year, and couldn't have done so if any parts were missing from my traps.

Cool.

 

[Brightmoon]

Laws are just facts expressed in mathematical form. E=mc2

People use law colloquially about some well known facts or folklore opinions-Murphy’s law or more appropriately for this thread ,Poe’s law

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if you will this object. and lets say that it was made from organic components and has a self replicating system, you will not conclude design because of that?:

Let's stick to the facts, instead. And the facts are that it is a non-living object that does not reproduce and that doesn't occur naturally in the world, but needs to be manufactured by humans.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except that if you keep asking long after you've been given the answers.

E.g. here's more on the origin of Pax genes. Evolutionary History of Chordate PAX Genes: Dynamics of Change in a Complex Gene Family



You first need to have some understanding of painting, including which end of the paintbrush to hold. Asking us questions that we can trivially answer, and then pretending that you haven't been given an answer, isn't exactly painting us into any corner.

From your link. Is this your answer?

"Although the PAX family is specific to the animal lineage, the evolutionary history of these genes remains uncertain."

I'm not intimidated or bewildered by the scientific terms in these articles. They are mostly supposition. You and others throw this stuff against the wall thinking that I won't find the flaws in it. If such articles are scientific "holy writ" I'm afraid they won't 'save' you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I just keep asking why until you have no answers, which occurs rather quickly.

To paraphrase Lawrence Krauss:

"You can keep on asking 'why?', 'why?', 'why?',... till you are blue in the face. And in the end, the only proper answer will be "go to bed!"

We are interested in painting evolutionists into a corner.

This. Indeed. You aren't interested in what is actually true or what is actually supported by evidence. Nope. All you are interested in, is "painting evolutionists into a corner".

Exactly. Whatever you can do to pretend to validate your a priori faith based beliefs.

We have a hard time 'grasping' what you are trying to put over on us.

We are trying to educate you in matters of biology.
But if there is an unwillingness to learn, then it is an exercise in futility.

It would explain why you people keep on repeating the same falsehoods that have been corrected dozens of times over.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

From your link.

"Although the PAX family is specific to the animal lineage, the evolutionary history of these genes remains uncertain."

I'm not intimidated or bewildered by the scientific terms in these articles. They are mostly supposition. You and others throw this stuff against the wall thinking that I won't find the flaws in it.

Thank you for actually looking at the page.

Yes, the evolutionary history of those genes is uncertain. What conclusion do you draw from that?

 

[VirOptimus]

Google has no answers for my questions. For example, where did the 'process' of evolution originate. It must have existed before the first organism appeared; waiting to pounce on it and develop it over millions of years into a critter (man) that could then explain itself to itself.

I have read many articles attempting to explain some facet of evolution. None has ever addressed the complexity of what they are trying to explain, and all were shot through with suppositions. That's why I encourage reading anatomy books wherein these complexities are explored at some depth. Here is where design is revealed to all but those who don't accept the concept of design itself in nature.

Your questions are nonsense.

 

[xianghua]

Intelligent design is an unfalsifiable proposition.

like evolution. we cant realy test or falsify it so its no a scientific theory.

 

[VirOptimus]

like evolution. we cant realy test or falsify it so its no a scientific theory.

We have already explained that this is a lie, so why do you repeat it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thank you for actually looking at the page.

Yes, the evolutionary history of those genes is uncertain. What conclusion do you draw from that?

That evolution is an incomplete puzzle built upon crucial pieces that as yet have not been found.

 

[bhsmte]

That evolution is an incomplete puzzle built upon crucial pieces that as yet have not been found.

And we should agree with your personal opinion on this, why exactly?