How to choose between creation and evolution.

[tas8831]

I think early man was an inferior product.

Like you mean Adam?

 

[tas8831]

what about the possibility that retroviruses were created from a genome parts?

What about it?

Let's see your analysis - I would like to see your calculated odds for 'genome parts' in different taxa somehow recombining to produce a common sequence that bears a striking sequence similarity to known viral sequences.

Get to it!

 

[tas8831]

It's those generational mutations that give us our individuality, otherwise we might look like clones. Clever of God to do that.

Yawn....

Question begging one-liners from the guy that claimed anatomy proves creation...

 

[tas8831]

Some things are obvious.

How right you are...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, you did offer your "fitness" up as an argument against things concerning anatomy.
If you weren't, then I can only wonder why you brought it up.

I think the tangent had to do with longevity, health and fitness.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Let me tell you a little something about two things:
1. Mendel's Law of Independent Inheritance
What it pretty much means is that during cell division, chromosomes are inherited separately.
Eg: Let us say you have 2 sets of chromosomes i.e. Aa, Bb. During meiosis (anaphase 1), the homologous (paired) chromosomes separate.
Your gametes could have AB, Ab, aB, ab i.e. Each chromosome is inherited independently. Pair it with the other parent's independently inherited chromosome, and you have got a lot of differences.

2. Crossing Over
In order you know this, you would first have to know about the cell cycle, mitosis (to make understanding meiosis easier) and meiosis. I would have to draw diagrams to show you. I am too lazy to do that. So, in a nutshell, crossing over involves exchange of genetic material between non-sister chromatids of homologous chromosomes.

Together, these are called Recombination.
Also, mutations.

That's pretty complicated.

 

[CrystalWolf]

Or what...

That I agree with.

If one says "Oh look at all the wonderful stuff around us, so the creator is good!", we could also point all of the bad/scary things in nature (like at the bottom of the ocean), that could point toward the opposite. Or that the creator got things started but ultimately doesn't interfere, like even some scientists proposing the simulation theory.

 

[Speedwell]

That I agree with.

If one says "Oh look at all the wonderful stuff around us, so the creator is good!", we could also point all of the bad/scary things in nature (like at the bottom of the ocean), that could point toward the opposite. Or that the creator got things started but ultimately doesn't interfere, like even some scientists proposing the simulation theory.

Naw. Here it's not about God, but just about the Bible. You can believe what you want about God, but if it doesn't agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis it's a lie from the pit of Hell.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's pretty complicated.

If you believe that is complicated it would go a long way to explaining why you don't understand evolution. It really wouldn't hurt to undertake a program of serious study. (Alpha males are not afraid of challenges.)

 

[tas8831]

I think the tangent had to do with longevity, health and fitness.

So.... You think your personal 'fitness' is the same thing as the 'fitness' discussed in evolutionary biology?

 

[tas8831]

You didn't miss taking your 'nasty pill' this morning (you might even have taken two). If you don't like my thread go find one that you agree with, sit on your blanket, fire up a joint, and sing Kumbyah.

I love watching once-arrogant creationists wither on the vine.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

That's pretty complicated.

Well, that's biology for you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you believe that is complicated it would go a long way to explaining why you don't understand evolution. It really wouldn't hurt to undertake a program of serious study. (Alpha males are not afraid of challenges.)

I've perused many evolution papers. None make sense to me. In fact it seems they want to draw one into the minutiae, the 'trees' if you will, so we will ignore the 'forest'.

I think it's safe to say that history will judge this debate (in the future of course).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I love watching once-arrogant creationists wither on the vine.

Dream on.

 

[VirOptimus]

I've perused many evolution papers. None make sense to me. In fact it seems they want to draw one into the minutiae, the 'trees' if you will, so we will ignore the 'forest'.

I think it's safe to say that history will judge this debate (in the future of course).

There is no debate. Science has already won.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is no debate. Science has already won.

Not if they keep changing and rearranging their theories. Creationism doesn't change, and we're holding out that science will finally come to the same conclusion. After all they are studying the creation.

 

[bhsmte]

I've perused many evolution papers. None make sense to me. In fact it seems they want to draw one into the minutiae, the 'trees' if you will, so we will ignore the 'forest'.

I think it's safe to say that history will judge this debate (in the future of course).

The debate has been judged, with evidence.

HInt; you are not on the winning side.

 

[pitabread]

Creationism doesn't change, and we're holding out that science will finally come to the same conclusion.

Of course creationism changes. Just look at the sheer number of variations on creationist beliefs there are, not to mention shifting views within those beliefs. If anything creationist thought is far more diverse than anything you'll find in the scientific realm.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not if they keep changing and rearranging their theories. Creationism doesn't change, and we're holding out that science will finally come to the same conclusion. After all they are studying the creation.

No, science and rationality has proven to be correct.

Metaphysics is not used to describe physical reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That I agree with.

If one says "Oh look at all the wonderful stuff around us, so the creator is good!", we could also point all of the bad/scary things in nature (like at the bottom of the ocean), that could point toward the opposite. Or that the creator got things started but ultimately doesn't interfere, like even some scientists proposing the simulation theory.

I was kinda suggesting that the 'creator' could just be something like natural law; i.e. stuff exists (just is), and natural laws keep shuffling it around.