How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Brightmoon]

And the link in post 347 from the abstract of pax gene formation . I’m going to advise you to look up the definitions of anything you don’t understand . Because if you can’t understand an abstract which is a brief summary of what’s in a scientific paper, then you have no basis for complaining about the science involved. Yes I understood it, no, I’m not going to explain it . You’re the one who needs the knowledge. Google those terms . And understand that all scientific knowledge is based on this-is-what-we-know-today

I will tell you this though . The insect eye gene and the mammal eye gene had different names,because for a very long time, we didn’t know that they were the same gene. In the 1990s they did an experiment switching eye genes between a mouse and a fruit fly.They didn’t think the experiments would work;that the mouse gene would work in a fly or vice versa. The switched genes worked beautifully . And they also did this experiment with other basic body plan genes: limb formation , nervous system formation, gut formation etc. and they all worked . Now vertebrates have been separated from arthropods since the Precambrian so they had no idea that these experiments would demonstrate common descent so vividly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Frankly scientists, nor any one else, cares what you "think".

Nobody cares what anybody thinks.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I didn't say anything of the sort. Here's what I wrote:



This was directly in response to your posts asking for unreasonable evidence of evolutionary details and providing no evidence yourself for even the most basic part of your argument: that there is a God.

So, we can see that you have mis-quoted me.



This is one small step in evolution. There is no need for a believer in evolution to be aware of every single step in evolution. There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution beyond any reasonable doubt, and this is far from the most important.



You call this 'supposition', but this is actually creating theories that match the evidence. They are nothing like 'holy writ' and they don't 'save' anybody. You are confusing science with claims for religion.

In science, we have evidence (e.g. sequencing of the genes to identify the evolutionary history of genes) and supported theories for even small details of evolution. Where is your evidence for God? I've asked you for a testable model of God. So far: crickets.

You are trying to play the creationist game of claiming that exceptional knowledge is required for evolution (with the bar reset higher when you are provided with that evidence), but you don't have ANY testable evidence for your own view. I specifically point out the hypocrisy of that.

To the OP. My testable evidence is anatomy; the irreducible complexity thereof.

 

[VirOptimus]

To the OP. My testable evidence is anatomy; the irreducible complexity thereof.

Irreducible complexity has never been shown in any creature why its not "a thing".

The argument was even tried in court, it didnt hold up (se Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia).

 

[bhsmte]

To the OP. My testable evidence is anatomy; the irreducible complexity thereof.

Go ahead and provide us with the scientific definition of this.

Also, provide the falsifiable test, to determine when this irreducible complexity, is present.

 

[bhsmte]

Nobody cares what anybody thinks.

Judging by the content of this and many other forums on CF, I think a lot of people care what other people think.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OldWiseGuy is countering me saying that he is not intimidated by the terms, but he then goes to you for an explanation?

I'll summarise for OWG. The paper is being intellectually honest and properly characterising our state of knowledge concerning these genes. Which is not complete, but there is sufficient evidence to have some confidence that we know where the genes came from.

Which compares very well to the utter lack of evidence for YEC. Ball is firmly in the court of the YECs.

I'm an OEC.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Judging by the content of this and many other forums on CF, I think a lot of people care what other people think.

They care in a negative sense mostly.

 

[Speedwell]

They care in a negative sense mostly.

That's right. Nobody would care about creationism or creationists if they weren't trying to push it into public school science classes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Go ahead and provide us with the scientific definition of this.

I'll give you an example. A blood clot causes a stroke, not only shutting down the brain but often the whole body. This of course is extreme and sudden. Cataracts would be a slow developing example of the failure of one part of the eye causing the whole visual function to eventually fail.

Many such organs would fail if just one small part malfunctions. It has been sarcastically suggested by evolutionists that the organ would then assume a different but useful function, such as the mousetrap, minus the trigger and latch, would make a fine tie clasp.

Also, provide the falsifiable test, to determine when this irreducible complexity, is present.

See above comment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's right. Nobody would care about creationism or creationists if they weren't trying to push it into public school science classes.

I agree that creation(ism) shouldn't be taught in public schools. That's the province of parents, private religious schools, and the church. I think the two beliefs can coexist peacefully as long as neither are mandated upon the other, and that opposing arguments are conducted courteously, as they generally are on these forums.

 

[bhsmte]

I'll give you an example. A blood clot causes a stroke, not only shutting down the brain but often the whole body. This of course is extreme and sudden. Cataracts would be a slow developing example of the failure of one part of the eye causing the whole visual function to eventually fail.

Many such organs would fail if just one small part malfunctions. It has been sarcastically suggested by evolutionists that the organ would then assume a different but useful function, such as the mousetrap, minus the trigger and latch, would make a fine tie clasp.



See above comment.

This doesn't provide what I asked for.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This doesn't provide what I asked for.

What you asked for was a concession. You'll have to infer an answer from what I gave you.

 

[bhsmte]

They care in a negative sense mostly.

Well, many on this site seem to care a whole lot, when someone does not agree with their personal faith beliefs and they are taken aback by the same. No matter how the other person explains why they disagree, the defense mechanisms kick in, full bore.

For myself personally, I could care less what someone believes. I only engage, when people claim their beliefs are based on evidence they don't possess and or, they claim if others disagree with them, they are blind.

 

[bhsmte]

What you asked for was a concession. You'll have to infer an answer from what I gave you.

I asked for a falsifiable test.

 

[Brightmoon]

OldWiseGuy you gave him a somatic mutations and medical emergencies that just happen to be common in human individuals . That isn’t evidence against evolution .

 

[xianghua]

The watch you showed has none of those traits.

so if that watch had those traits you will say its just evolved?

 

[xianghua]

. There are no steps in the process that are so big that they need individual explanation or further details. At least for anyone that understands evolution in general and the evidence for it. (Which might not include you of course.)

so show me how the first light detector evolved. if its not realy a big step as you say it should be very easy to show that.

If the watch had ALL the traits that I list, then that would be enough to conclude that it evolved by a natural process.

fine. so basically you have no problem to believe that a watch can evolve naturally (of course only if it has all the traits you have point to).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OldWiseGuy you gave him a somatic mutations and medical emergencies that just happen to be common in human individuals . That isn’t evidence against evolution .

It's evidence of irreducible complexity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I asked for a falsifiable test.

That test doesn't apply to something that isn't falsifiable. An apple will still be an apple regardless of how many tests it is given.

Let's say we test the eye for falsifiability. In order to prove it is falsifiable we have to go back to it's evolutionary past and prove that it may have developed into a foot, or something else, instead.

As another pointed out all the parts of the eye must come together within the gestation period, fully functional, or no eye. Organisms don't build their working parts over time.