How to choose between creation and evolution.

[VirOptimus]

Have you read any of his books? No, you are just judging from your ignorance.

I dont read religious texts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So where did you learn to understand Genetics? It's an important question to me because I would like to understand genetics and by your account, standard undergraduate genetics courses are teaching false genetics and the textbooks for those classes are a lie. What resources are there for a person who wants to learn the real genetics that you know about?

I've been through this with him already - he doesn't even know the rudiments. As they say, "Empty vessels make the most noise".

 

[pitabread]

Biology related industries use proved biology to do what they do. They do not use anything in the TOE.

The ToE has modern application. There is even an entire journal dedicated to that subject.

But that still doesn't answer the question. Even if the theory of evolution were false, would those in biology industries still not want the best understanding of biology possible?

They aren't. Institutions like ICR and Answers in Genesis, use real science to refute evolution, and they use PhD's in various discipline of science to do it.

ICR and AiG are religious institutions with statements of faith that they require their members to adhere to, and explicitly reject anything which contradicts their beliefs:

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. ​

Foundational Principles (Institute for Creation Research)

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.​

Statement of Faith (Answers in Genesis)

No scientific organization would require its members to adhere to such statements. This reinforces that the only people who seem to object are doing so because of religious beliefs.

 

[hecd2]

There is heritable random variation base on the gene pool of the parents and which gene are dominant. There can be no characteristic in he offspring that is not in the gene pool of the parents. The kid can't have fins unless it parents have the gene for fins and land animals do not have a gene for fins, They have the gene for legs. That is very basic genetics.

Then you have obviously never heard of the homeobox genes and the absolutely vast literature on body patterning in vertebrates. You have never explored the deep homology in fins and limbs, and the role of the same genes (specifically Hoxa11, Hoxa13 and Hoxd10, Hoxd11, Hoxd12 and Hoxd13) in patterning the fins of lobe finned fish and all tetrapods. Here are a few references and links to get you going:

Yano and Tamura, "The making of the differences between fins and limbs", Journal of Anatomy, here. Excellent review article, with a huge number of references.

Shubin, Tabin and Carroll, "Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty", Nature 457, 818–823 (12 February 2009), another excellent review article from some of the foremost evolutionary biologists in one of the world's premier journals, covering more than fins and limbs

Davis, Dahn and Shubin, "An autopodial-like pattern of Hox expression in the fins of a basal actinopterygian fish", Nature 447, pages 473–476 (24 May 2007). A short quote from the abstract: "Here, we report on the expression and function of genes implicated in the origin of the autopod in a basal actinopterygian, Polyodon spathula. Polyodon exhibits a late-phase, inverted collinear expression of 5′ HoxD genes, a pattern of expression long considered a developmental hallmark of the autopod and shown in tetrapods to be controlled by a ‘digit enhancer’ region. These data show that aspects of the development of the autopod are primitive to tetrapods and that the origin of digits entailed the redeployment of ancient patterns of gene activity." (The autopod is the hand or foot of tetrapods).

There is a year or more worth of reading if you start with the review articles and work forward and backward (like a new PhD student would do in their first year literature review to get them up to speed in their subject).

Rather than there being genes for fins and genes for limbs which are different, as you would have it, the reality is that the same genes pattern both the fins of fish and the limbs of tetrapods in a deep homology. Surely if you were that knowledgeable about genetics you would know this?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Many do figure it out. I graduated from a major university. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I am not ignorant. The teachers are not hiding anything, and there is no conspiricy.they have been taught by evolutionist , who have been taught by evolutionist on in to infinity.

Do you never look at the evidence they present? I know you don't because the have not. They says it happens and you accept it by faith alone.

I can point out why your argument is wrong from common sense. If many do figure it out, why don't they say anything. I'm sure the media will go crazy over an entire branch of science being fake. The teachers who teach the clubbed courses must have figured it out, why do they still teach clubbed courses, rather why do they still teach AND publish papers in journal about evolution?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Have you ever actually read what your fellow creationists are posting here?

We've had everything from people claiming rocks are alive, that the universe operated by completely different physics in the recent past, that humanity is billions of years old, that penguins are robots, and that self-replicating watches somehow prove the existence of God. If not nonsense, then what else would you call this stuff?

(And I'll be honest, half the reason I come to this forum is just to see what bat-crap crazy thing they'll say next.)

I agree with you so much that I had to quote this again.
Though, seriously I think it is a similar situation to when people start lying about everything to make up for the first lie. Except, that these lies are ridiculous

 

[Astrophile]

I have not claimed they are faked or that there is a conspiracy. The teaching of all science disciplines has been controlled by evolutionists for years. That is the only message students ever hear.

So presumably websites like this one, and creationist books, videos and DVDs, are all a figment of my imagination; students in the real world never encounter them or hear about them because they don't exist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Those verses are not irony. They all point to the accuracy of I Cor 2:14. which you also just reinforced.

"Whoosh!" - the sound of the point going over your head.

 

[Brightmoon]

The kid can't have fins unless it parents have the gene for fins and land animals do not have a gene for fins, They have the gene for legs. That is very basic genetics.

First of all, the master gene is for making limbs not legs . When fish first evolved that gene, they had one long ridgelike fin on the ventral side. Either the area duplicated or the gene turned on in a second parallel ridge in sections ( which makes it easier to steer) we know this because we find the fossils . Same gene turns on and off .in other words, the ridges fragment and parts disappear so you eventually have paired fins The fish lineage that leads to modern fish have bones inside fleshy fins . These split into lobefins ,ray fins, land vertebrates . Both ray fins and land tetrapods evolved from lobefins but they are from two separate lineages. (Some people think that the cartilageous fish evolved from bony fish as well but this isn’t my area of expertise )

 

[Brightmoon]

L

 

[Brightmoon]

I have no idea why that repeated and I’m not sure how to delete

 

[Brightmoon]

)

 

[mark kennedy]

)

Well said.

 

[Job 33:6]

Then you have obviously never heard of the homeobox genes and the absolutely vast literature on body patterning in vertebrates. You have never explored the deep homology in fins and limbs, and the role of the same genes (specifically Hoxa11, Hoxa13 and Hoxd10, Hoxd11, Hoxd12 and Hoxd13) in patterning the fins of lobe finned fish and all tetrapods. Here are a few references and links to get you going:

Yano and Tamura, "The making of the differences between fins and limbs", Journal of Anatomy, here. Excellent review article, with a huge number of references.

Shubin, Tabin and Carroll, "Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty", Nature 457, 818–823 (12 February 2009), another excellent review article from some of the foremost evolutionary biologists in one of the world's premier journals, covering more than fins and limbs

Davis, Dahn and Shubin, "An autopodial-like pattern of Hox expression in the fins of a basal actinopterygian fish", Nature 447, pages 473–476 (24 May 2007). A short quote from the abstract: "Here, we report on the expression and function of genes implicated in the origin of the autopod in a basal actinopterygian, Polyodon spathula. Polyodon exhibits a late-phase, inverted collinear expression of 5′ HoxD genes, a pattern of expression long considered a developmental hallmark of the autopod and shown in tetrapods to be controlled by a ‘digit enhancer’ region. These data show that aspects of the development of the autopod are primitive to tetrapods and that the origin of digits entailed the redeployment of ancient patterns of gene activity." (The autopod is the hand or foot of tetrapods).

There is a year or more worth of reading if you start with the review articles and work forward and backward (like a new PhD student would do in their first year literature review to get them up to speed in their subject).

Rather than there being genes for fins and genes for limbs which are different, as you would have it, the reality is that the same genes pattern both the fins of fish and the limbs of tetrapods in a deep homology. Surely if you were that knowledgeable about genetics you would know this?

Man, this guy is on a role...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes and that gravitational pull is observable, testable and verifiable.

So is evolution.

Evolution from common ancestry is not.

Except that it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

double post

 

[DogmaHunter]

Collins is a brilliant Christians scientists, but he is not the only Christians scientists, and most others disagree with him

That is simply not true.
Honestly, I wonder how you can say that with what-I-imagine-is a straight face...

How does he explain how the offspring can get a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents? That is the key in genetics.

accumulation of mutation + selection

Are you really suggesting that a Christian scientist is not as qualified as Collins.

The guy was the leader of the human genome project.
I think he's pretty qualified to talk about DNA.

And no, that was not what I was suggesting.
I was saying that there is a thing that ALL evolution deniers (not just the biologists) have in common. And that is that they are all theists. And this is not a case of "correlation doesn't imply causation". In this case, their variation of theism is the cause of their evolution denial. Just like your particular variation of your theism IS the cause of your denial.

The denial is not rooted in actual evidence against evolution - because there is no such evidence.
The denial is rooted in a priori religious belief, which isn't compatible with evolution theory.

That's it. You can't accept evolution, because you have already decided to believe something else, religiously.

The ICR includes Lane P. Lester who has a PHD in genetics from Purdue and has written several books on creationist biology. He would disagree with Colins.

The guy is a nobody with 0 publications in "creationist biology" (there is no such thing), who's part of a fundamentalist propaganda machine of religious believers, who don't even try to hide their religious agenda.

ICR is not a science institution. It is a religious institution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They aren't. Institutions like ICR and Answers in Genesis, use real science to refute evolution, and they use PhD's in various discipline of science to do it.

LOL!!! Ow my.

AiG.... the guys who literally say "if science contradicts the bible, then science is wrong".

Uhu.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Have you read any of his books? No, you are just judging from your ignorance.

Publications on biology are to be reviewed by actual biologists.
But they don't publish in actual biology science journals.

That's because they don't have any science to publish. They only have lies, strawmen and religious preaching. That's why they started their own "journals", where only like-minded people publish so that they can all happily agree with eachother, and dishonestly make their flock believe that they are "doing science and publishing papers".

Then they tour churches and do "seminars", where you can buy their books and dvd's and whatnot. Or they build ridiculous "replica's" of mythical boats that aren't seaworthy. Or they build a "creation museum", which looks like a set of the next Flinstones movie. Or they build a themepark like "dino land", righteous fun for the whole family. All with gift shops, off course. And charge an entry fee for all those places.

And that's how they live in mansions with pool.

 

[omega2xx]

No, he's right. It is just religion painted as science.

Actually it science based on science not the guessing game played by the evangelist of Darwin.

 

[omega2xx]

Im not interested in games.

Evolution is a game of no evidence which you are playing.

 

[omega2xx]

I dont read religious texts.

Yes you do. One is called "The Origin of the Species." An amusing and telling title since it doesnot address the origin of the species.