If you don't accept common descent...

[Biblewriter]

Citation?

I'll try to look it up. It will take a while.

 

[Smidlee]

...how do you explain human chromosome 2?

evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

There is a possibility that humans once had 48 instead of 46 chromosomes. When we see examples of people who different number of chromosomes is has a very nagitive effect.

There seems to be a lot more differences between man and chimps than first lead to believe. Also there are around 100 genes unique to humans. As someone noted there are examples of neighboring species having profound differences at the same time distant species having profound similarities.
Can everything in nature be explained away mechanical especially dealing with origins?

 

[Darkness27]

As I said, I personally know many of them, and I know about very many more. In fact, one of the items I discovered when writing on evolution was that a full third of the books published on the subject of evolution in the twenty years preceding the date of my paper were attacks on the theory. But where were these books? Not even one in the university bookstore, or in the university library. And the reference I used (Cumulative List of Books In Print) did not even list "cheap and paper bound editions."

And how many of these findings made their way into the peer review section of the scientific literature?

I already told you what it involved. It was called a science area.

You got a degree in science area.

I would be interested in seeing the alleged documentation of this mutation. Unless this included documentation that no individual in the parent stock was able to survive in this cooler environment, no mutation was demonstrated.

I don't know if no one in the parent generation could survive the new temperature, but speciation was observed either way.

In order to document the fact that a beneficial mutation has occurred, it is necessary to first establish as fact that the alleged mutation did not previously exist within the available gene pool for the species in question. Unless this has been rigorously established, the allegation that a beneficial mutation has occurred is pure fiction.

And speciation was observed, and has been observed myriads of times in both the lab and natural settings. Your refusal of these facts does not make them go away.

I have never seen even one allegation that such a beneficial mutation has occurred that was not based on an assumption that evolution is indeed a fact, and therefore the alleged new characteristic must have been absent from the previously available gene pool and have arisen through beneficial mutation.

Are you saying that no beneficial mutations have ever occurred? Do you even accept mutations?

This is an unproven hypothesis based on the assumption that evolution is a proven fact.

So if are in Europe and you have a lot of melanin, and then your offspring have a mutation that makes them produce less melanin increasing the production of vitamin D, it is not a beneficial mutation? While if you were in Africa when this happened, while increased vitamin D would be nice, the increased chance of melanoma would make it a harmful mutation. It is really not that hard to show that the environment largely determines what counts as beneficial, neutral or harmful mutation.

If you wish to see examples of objectivity, you need to carefully read the scientific journals I have read, such as the following note I found in the journal of geology concerning hominoid footprints found in carboniferous strata over a wide area of the eastern United States.

"If man, or man's early ape ancestor, of that early ape ancestor's early mammalian ancestor, lived as far back as in the carboniferous period, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these footprints in the mud of the carboniferous period with his feet." (This is an approximate quote made from memory. I did not bother to look it up again for this post.)

I already said what I would say on another post to you, possibly on the other thread, so I'll just say this: Evolution explains things so well, while we don't know everything, and the ToE will probably be fine tuned for years, the basic principles has stood the test of time and have only been confirmed by new scientific research. Even if this evidence is valid it will not turn over the ToE, it will be an anomily, and anomilies don't make up theories.

I have read articles in scientific journals calling for boycotts against publishers who dared to publish books questioning the theory of evolution.

Based on what I've seen of the creationist movement I can see why.

I have known professor level university instructors to teach items as proof of evolution to beginning biology students, and teach their advanced students that these fare not actual facts.

And they should be fired.

I have known professor level university instructors to publicly rage against students who dare to say they do not believe in evolution, and then privately tell their advanced students that "actually, evolution is not a very good explanation of the facts. It's just the best one we have."

That is a hard sell as the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the modern ToE.

I am not the only one who has been threatened with termination for daring to voice his opinion. This practice has been widespread, and I have heard many complaints of such treatment from others who do not believe in evolution.

As always creationists are free to submit their findings to the peer reviewed literature.

 

[Biblewriter]

And how many of these findings made their way into the peer review section of the scientific literature?

When the "peers" are unreservedly committed to the concept that everything can be explained by natural processes, nothing that suggests the possibility that something supernatural was involved can ever pass peer review.

You got a degree in science area.

More correctly I was awarded a degree with an area in Science and a minor in mathematics.

I don't know if no one in the parent generation could survive the new temperature, but speciation was observed either way.



And speciation was observed, and has been observed myriads of times in both the lab and natural settings. Your refusal of these facts does not make them go away.

A species is defined as a biological group having unique characteristics which does not breed in nature with other groups. Since the words "in nature" are a part of this definition, this cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory.

Are you saying that no beneficial mutations have ever occurred?

I am saying that the beneficial mutation remains a theoretical necessity that has never been proved to exist. I am not aware of even a single occasion in which a beneficial mutation has ever been documented beyond question.

To be documented beyond question, it is necessary to establish as unquestionable fact two distinct points. First, that the alleged "new" characteristic was not present in any individual in the parent population. And second, that the alleged "new" characteristic gives those individuals that possess it a distinct reproductive advantage.

Do you even accept mutations?

That mutations occur is unquestionable. But the essence of a mutation is what makes the concept of a beneficial mutation so exceedingly unlikely.

A mutation is simply a mistake, an error, in the transmission of genetic material. As a mistake, the probability that such a mistake would actually improve the code is infinitesimal.

Now that we understand genetic code (even though we still cannot read it) we know that it is digital, somewhat similar to a computer program. But the amount of material contained in a single gene is comprable to the amount of material in a very long and complex computer program. I have read that the simplest gene contains about as much code as a three thousand page computer program.

When we realize this, we realize the impossibly small possibility that a mistake in copying such a code would actually make it work better.

So if are in Europe and you have a lot of melanin, and then your offspring have a mutation that makes them produce less melanin increasing the production of vitamin D, it is not a beneficial mutation? While if you were in Africa when this happened, while increased vitamin D would be nice, the increased chance of melanoma would make it a harmful mutation. It is really not that hard to show that the environment largely determines what counts as beneficial, neutral or harmful mutation.

Provided, of course, that such mutations have actually occurred, and that the various genetic codes that produced these differences were not present in the original human population.

I already said what I would say on another post to you, possibly on the other thread, so I'll just say this: Evolution explains things so well, while we don't know everything, and the ToE will probably be fine tuned for years, the basic principles has stood the test of time and have only been confirmed by new scientific research. Even if this evidence is valid it will not turn over the ToE, it will be an anomily, and anomilies don't make up theories.

Evolution appears to explain things so well because so many people simply assume it is true and reason from that assumption. But in truth evolution cannot explain most of the organs of most of the organisms.

In most organisms, most of their organs are of such a nature that, in anything less than a complete state, they would be a liability, rather than an asset. Thus they would have to have arisen in a more or less complete state by somekind of a monstrous super-mutation. If they had started to arise gradually, natural selection would have rejected them.

Based on what I've seen of the creationist movement I can see why.

Here you convict yourself of being so prejudiced that you would be willing to attempt to forcibly shut down debate on this issue.

And they should be fired.

But the point is, they weren't. "Ontology recapitulates phiologony" continued to be presented as "proof" of evolution long after the fraud of the "research" on which it was based had been exposed.

Similarly, "the Piltdown man" continued to appear in textbooks long after its fraud was exposed, and I think Java man is still in many. (The anthropologist who found the Java bones admitted that he had found the simeon skull and the homonoid femor two years apart, and twenty feet apart, in a live stream bed, and that he had also found two homonoid skulls even closer to the homonoid femor than the simeon skull!)

Similar frauds have been repeatedly exposed.

That is a hard sell as the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the modern ToE.

It was a candid moment by an expert who believed he was speaking to one of his loyal followers. But he was actually talking to a girl I was dating at the time.

As always creationists are free to submit their findings to the peer reviewed literature.

The problem is not presenting them, it is getting the "peers" to review them objectively. This is nearly impossible, because any suggestion that evolution even might not have occurred is considered heresy. And in this religion, as in Christianity, heresy is punishable by excommunication!

 

[Darkness27]

When the "peers" are unreservedly committed to the concept that everything can be explained by natural processes, nothing that suggests the possibility that something supernatural was involved can ever pass peer review.

As someone familiar with science you should know that science is a methodology to understand the natural, not the supernatural. Any mention of the supernatural must be immediately rejected because the scientific method cannot engage the supernatural.

A species is defined as a biological group having unique characteristics which does not breed in nature with other groups. Since the words "in nature" are a part of this definition, this cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory.

Even if we had this big battle over equivocation and you won, it still wouldn't matter because we have observed speciation in nature as well.

I am saying that the beneficial mutation remains a theoretical necessity that has never been proved to exist. I am not aware of even a single occasion in which a beneficial mutation has ever been documented beyond question.
To be documented beyond question, it is necessary to establish as unquestionable fact two distinct points. First, that the alleged "new" characteristic was not present in any individual in the parent population. And second, that the alleged "new" characteristic gives those individuals that possess it a distinct reproductive advantage.

Nylon eating bacteria.

That mutations occur is unquestionable. But the essence of a mutation is what makes the concept of a beneficial mutation so exceedingly unlikely.

A mutation is simply a mistake, an error, in the transmission of genetic material. As a mistake, the probability that such a mistake would actually improve the code is infinitesimal.

While many mutations can be harmful, the majority are neutral, and some are beneficial.

Now that we understand genetic code (even though we still cannot read it) we know that it is digital, somewhat similar to a computer program. But the amount of material contained in a single gene is comprable to the amount of material in a very long and complex computer program. I have read that the simplest gene contains about as much code as a three thousand page computer program.

Genomes aren't digital, they're molecules. If you sequenced out the entire human genome base by base, you could store the information on a 750MB CD.

When we realize this, we realize the impossibly small possibility that a mistake in copying such a code would actually make it work better.

Since you like to use computer stuff, shall I bring up genetic algorithms? They are a great example on how random changes(mistakes) in computer programs can create outstanding performances that in most cases surpass human designed programs to do the same thing!

Provided, of course, that such mutations have actually occurred, and that the various genetic codes that produced these differences were not present in the original human population.

My point was that the environment largely determines which mutations are beneficial/neutral/harmful, which you blew off as wishful evolutionist thinking. Still, are you saying that skin color can't mutate to be lighter or darker?

Evolution appears to explain things so well because so many people simply assume it is true and reason from that assumption. But in truth evolution cannot explain most of the organs of most of the organisms.

In most organisms, most of their organs are of such a nature that, in anything less than a complete state, they would be a liability, rather than an asset. Thus they would have to have arisen in a more or less complete state by somekind of a monstrous super-mutation. If they had started to arise gradually, natural selection would have rejected them.

Eyes have been thoroughly debunked as IC, and the heart and brain show a nice progression from comparative anatomy. I can see the digestive system evolving nicely with what I know. Specifically what organs do you see that prove too high a mountain for evolution to climb?

Here you convict yourself of being so prejudiced that you would be willing to attempt to forcibly shut down debate on this issue.

Creationists routinely lie about known facts, evolution, and a lot of their biggest promoters don't understand the basic concept of evolution. I saw a recent discussion with Ray Comfort (very famous creationist) and a laymen. Comfort didn't understand speciation, and when the laymen told him what it was Comfort protested that speciation isn't evolution. I am prejudice to big names in the creationist movement because it has been shown time and time again that most of them are lying and morally bankrupt. I also admit that I am very skeptical of anyone who claims to have evidence for creation as depicted in Genesis. I am still willing to hear out their evidence and if they are correct I hope it finds its way into the peer reviewed literature where it (hopefully) will be recognised as valid information that needs to be adressed.

But the point is, they weren't. "Ontology recapitulates phiologony" continued to be presented as "proof" of evolution long after the fraud of the "research" on which it was based had been exposed.

I have no idea what Ontology recapitulates phiologony is. I can assure you it is not being taught in introductory biology classes.

Similarly, "the Piltdown man" continued to appear in textbooks long after its fraud was exposed, and I think Java man is still in many. (The anthropologist who found the Java bones admitted that he had found the simeon skull and the homonoid femor two years apart, and twenty feet apart, in a live stream bed, and that he had also found two homonoid skulls even closer to the homonoid femor than the simeon skull!)

Piltdown man is an interesting case, but as far as I know no scientist talks about Piltdown man as an actual organism anymore, and I'm not aware of its appearance in textbooks after it was discovered to be a fraud (it's not an opposing statement, I really don't know anything about it being in textbooks). As for Java man, isn't it just another name for H. Erectus, which is a valid hominid species from multiple specimens.

Similar frauds have been repeatedly exposed.

Other than Piltdown man I'm not aware of any fraud that got the best of the scientific community, and no other frauds were supported by the scientific community before they were uncovered as frauds.

It was a candid moment by an expert who believed he was speaking to one of his loyal followers. But he was actually talking to a girl I was dating at the time.

Even if it was true that must have happened at least three decades ago, science has made a lot of progress in those years. Even five years can be enough time for information to become outdated, especially in a fast growing field like biology.

The problem is not presenting them, it is getting the "peers" to review them objectively. This is nearly impossible, because any suggestion that evolution even might not have occurred is considered heresy. And in this religion, as in Christianity, heresy is punishable by excommunication!

Creationism as we know it today has been around for a hundred years or so, in that time they have had scientists who agree with them. Now there is the ICR, and with all the money and time they have had they could have given grants to researchers and have done so many experiments and research that the main-stream scientific community would have to surrender their position and accept creation. Yet over 99% of scientists accept evolution, and even some YEC scientists say that if it wasn't for their religious belief they would accept an old Earth and evolution because that is what all the evidence points to.

 

[Biblewriter]

As someone familiar with science you should know that science is a methodology to understand the natural, not the supernatural. Any mention of the supernatural must be immediately rejected because the scientific method cannot engage the supernatural.

This is simply incorrect. Science is not a methodology to understand the natural. It is a methodology to understand facts. If the evidence leads to an understanding that no natural phenomena can explain the observed facts, then science must conclude that something supernatural caused them.

The obvious fact that science cannot explain the supernatural does not mean that science cannot accept the existence of supernatural phenomena.

Even if we had this big battle over equivocation and you won, it still wouldn't matter because we have observed speciation in nature as well.

Only since speciation was re-defined in a way that could be easily demonstrated.

Nylon eating bacteria.

Such bacteria cannot be demonstrated to be mutant until it is established that none of their root stock could eat nylon.

While many mutations can be harmful, the majority are neutral, and some are beneficial.

This is absolutely incorrect. Of the five thousand mutations I personally studied, 90 % were lethal and 90 % of the non-lethal ones were crippling, such as missing wings or legs. Only about 1% were even questionable, and none were unquestionably beneficial, although at that time there was, as I said before, one undocumented allegation that one beneficial mutation had been observed.

Genomes aren't digital, they're molecules. If you sequenced out the entire human genome base by base, you could store the information on a 750MB CD.

This is utter nonsense. The DNA molecule is a twin spiral ladder with four different types of rungs, which are abbreviated as A. G. C. or T. Each rung is one of these four types, either an A, a G, a C, or a T. The gene sequencing is the order in which these rungs are arranged. This is digital code, with a quaternary basis, rather than a binary basis, as computers use.

Quaternary code stores twice as much information in each digit as binary code, because there are four possibilities for each digit instead of two. But it is indeed digital.

In the most common form of DNA, the individual rungs of these ladders are spaced at a distance of 3.4 angstroms. A single DNA strand is thought to be around 10 centimeters long. An angstrom is a millionth of that distance, so an individual DNA molecule is thought to contain one million divided by 3.4 = 294 thousand individual ladder rungs. Since each rung contains twice as much information as binary code contains, 284 million rungs contain as much information as 86.5 gigs of binary code.

It is obvious that a random change in a computer code 86.5 gigs long could possibility make it work better. But the possibility that such a change would improve it is so small that it is not even worth discussing.

But the possibility that an intelligent designer could modify such a computer code to make it work better in a new application is 100%.

Since you like to use computer stuff, shall I bring up genetic algorithms? They are a great example on how random changes(mistakes) in computer programs can create outstanding performances that in most cases surpass human designed programs to do the same thing!

Someone's imagination is running wild. I believe you are referring to neuron networks. Neuron networks are basically and essentially different from genetic code, and are thought to replicate the activity in brain tissue.

The information obtained from neuron networks is not derived from errors in copying information. It is derived from analysis of input information. And the information obtained from neuron networks is not superior to the information derived from human analysis. It can simply do a specific task much faster than a human can. But this is simply because they are so small. A neuron network large enough to replicate a human brain would be very, very far slower than a human brain at accomplishing a similar task.

My point was that the environment largely determines which mutations are beneficial/neutral/harmful, which you blew off as wishful evolutionist thinking.

I did not blow this off as wishful thinking. I ignored it as an extremely minor point. There can be no doubt that a mutation which changes an organism's color would be either beneficial or detrimental depending on its environment. But such mutations are such a small portion of the full range of mutations as to be negligible.

Still, are you saying that skin color can't mutate to be lighter or darker?

No, of course not. But it has not been demonstrated that the possible variations in human skin color were not alwaus there from the beginning. Of course, you assume that humans evolved. But without that assumption, you cannot prove that the human root stock did not always have the full range of skin color that we observe today.

Eyes have been thoroughly debunked as IC, and the heart and brain show a nice progression from comparative anatomy. I can see the digestive system evolving nicely with what I know. Specifically what organs do you see that prove too high a mountain for evolution to climb?

Eyes have most certainly not been debunked as IC., nor has the heart. The progressive development charts shown for both of these are so grossly oversimplified as to be humerous, if the subject were not so important.

Let's discuss the possible evolution of the eye, as it is more easy to discuss.

The common line of reasoning is that the eye began as a light sensitive spot. But this neglects the fact that light sensitive nerves are basically and radically different from nerves which sense other factors, such as heat, pressure, and pain.

For a light sensitive spot to have evolved, a light sensitive nerve must have suddenly appeared in a workable form as a single mutation. If a mutation produced a nerve that was only partly light sensitive, natural selection would reject it as useless.

Next, this light sensitive spot is assumed to have gradually developed into a recess that eventually became an eye socket. While it is correct that after this recess had become so deep that it could focus like a pinhole lense, this could be beneficial, before it got that deep thie resess would be detrimental, nor beneficial. As it first began to develop, it would be a place to cach dirt. That would be detrimental, not beneficial. As it further develpoed, it would restrict the field of view. That would be detrimentaal, not beneficial. But it would not be beneficial until the recess was so deep that it began to focus incoming light.

This this assumed sequence does not work. The original origin would have to have been an entire new organ (a light sensutuve nerve) and every step along the assumed developmental path would have been increasingly detrimental, so natural selection would have rejected every one of the assumed gradual steps along this path.

This is true of every step along the imagined evolutionary path of the eye. For instance, a transparent cornea is useless without transparent retinal fluid. And transparent retinal fluid is useless without a transparent cornea. But I have said enough on this point for now.

Creationists routinely lie about known facts, evolution, and a lot of their biggest promoters don't understand the basic concept of evolution...I am prejudice to big names in the creationist movement because it has been shown time and time again that most of them are lying and morally bankrupt.

I am aware of a great number of lies about the basic facts in evolutionary literature. I suppose that some creationists have also lied about the facts, but I am certain that most of their alleged "lies" were mistakes at the worst. For the basic moral mindset that underlies the basis of religious creationism also condemns lying. I say the basis of religious creationism, because creationism is not necessarily religious in nature. IC does not imply a God. It could imply space aliens. It only examines the basic impossibility that random chance could have produced the life forms we observe today.

I saw a recent discussion with Ray Comfort (very famous creationist) and a laymen. Comfort didn't understand speciation, and when the laymen told him what it was Comfort protested that speciation isn't evolution.

I agree with comfort, that speciation, as evolutionists now choose to define it, is not evolution at all. This is only one of many concepts that have been re-defined in recent years to get around obvious problems in evolutionary thought.

My favorite among these is the (relatively new) definition of evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population. When this definition of evolution was adapted, it suddenly became relatively easy to demonstrate evolution in action.

But when the old definition of evolution, that the wide variety of life forms we observe today all came about as a product of gradual changes from previous life forms, cannot be demonstrated at all.

I also admit that I am very skeptical of anyone who claims to have evidence for creation as depicted in Genesis. I am still willing to hear out their evidence and if they are correct I hope it finds its way into the peer reviewed literature where it (hopefully) will be recognised as valid information that needs to be adressed.

I also am very skeptical of those who claim to be able to prove that the earth is only six thousand or so years old. I believe that, when the ancient Hebrew words are properly understood, the Bible actually teaches that the earth itself is much older than that. But the Bible very clearly teaches that the ecosystem found on the earth today has only been here for approximately six thousand years.



I have no idea what Ontology recapitulates phiologony is. I can assure you it is not being taught in introductory biology classes.



Piltdown man is an interesting case, but as far as I know no scientist talks about Piltdown man as an actual organism anymore, and I'm not aware of its appearance in textbooks after it was discovered to be a fraud (it's not an opposing statement, I really don't know anything about it being in textbooks). As for Java man, isn't it just another name for H. Erectus, which is a valid hominid species from multiple specimens.



Other than Piltdown man I'm not aware of any fraud that got the best of the scientific community, and no other frauds were supported by the scientific community before they were uncovered as frauds.



Even if it was true that must have happened at least three decades ago, science has made a lot of progress in those years. Even five years can be enough time for information to become outdated, especially in a fast growing field like biology.



Creationism as we know it today has been around for a hundred years or so, in that time they have had scientists who agree with them. Now there is the ICR, and with all the money and time they have had they could have given grants to researchers and have done so many experiments and research that the main-stream scientific community would have to surrender their position and accept creation. Yet over 99% of scientists accept evolution, and even some YEC scientists say that if it wasn't for their religious belief they would accept an old Earth and evolution because that is what all the evidence points to.[/quote]

 

[juvenissun]

I worked for many years as a designer of machinery.

Two concepts dominated my design work. I went out of my way to design parts that could be used in as many ways as possible, and new designs were developed from previous designs.

Evolutionists insist that similarities indicate common ancestry. But that is only obvious if your logical system is based on an assumption that there is no God. If we instead admit that there might be a God that designed the universe and everything in nature; then the manifold similarities observed in nature can just as logically be concluded to be evidence of an intelligent designer who used just such design principles.

I am not a biologist. So my argument is similar to yours.

I say the chromosome_2 feature is not unique to chimp and human. It is rather a common feature to other animals (I think this recognition is true). We and ape(?) share 97% of gene(?). But this overwhelming number does not have to say that we are derived from ape. In fact, it is VERY VERY VERY obvious that we are not (on this regard, evolutionists, include TE, are blind to the utmost degree. it makes me angry to them).

 

[Darkness27]

This is simply incorrect. Science is not a methodology to understand the natural. It is a methodology to understand facts. If the evidence leads to an understanding that no natural phenomena can explain the observed facts, then science must conclude that something supernatural caused them.

Science has its roots in a very broad term used to mean any empirical data or facts. However, in the contemporary world science has changed definitions and has become the methodology to understand natural phenomenon. Because science is restricted to only the natural it cannot comment on the supernatural (i.e. God). That is why no matter what religion or faith you have, or lack of, you can still do science because science doesn't include God into their methodology.

The obvious fact that science cannot explain the supernatural does not mean that science cannot accept the existence of supernatural phenomena.

Science can't accept supernatural phenomena. If there is no known natural cause then that's all science can say. Would you have stopped Einstien from coming up with a theory to explain the path of Mercury through natural means because there was no known natural force to explain Mercury's path around the Sun as Newtonian physics wasn't good enough? Would you have been content with letting Mercury's orbit be supernatural? When has saying that the supernatural did this ever advanced scientific knowledge?

Only since speciation was re-defined in a way that could be easily demonstrated.

Speciation has always been understood as one population giving rise to one or more new species. What else has it meant?

Such bacteria cannot be demonstrated to be mutant until it is established that none of their root stock could eat nylon.

I guess it doesn't count that they know the exact mutation that produced this rare side affect? I find it odd that you show so much skepticism to beneficial mutations, to the point where it is unreasonable, yet show no skepticism for harmful mutations, to the point where it also is unreasonable but on the other side of the spectrum. So why not be so skeptical of harmful mutations, or mutations in general?

This is absolutely incorrect. Of the five thousand mutations I personally studied, 90 % were lethal and 90 % of the non-lethal ones were crippling, such as missing wings or legs. Only about 1% were even questionable, and none were unquestionably beneficial, although at that time there was, as I said before, one undocumented allegation that one beneficial mutation had been observed.

No offense, but this is 2009, you did this paper in 1965/1966 as an undergrad research paper. While I'm sure your paper was good for the time and degree, it is not rigorous science, and science has made a lot of advances in the past four decades. One of them being that the average human zygote has 128 mutations, so by your research paper, statistically we should all be dead. Not to mention the average person gets around 30 more mutations throughout their life. So lets say the average person has between 130-150 mutations, if 90% are lethal how are any of us here?

This is utter nonsense. The DNA molecule is a twin spiral ladder with four different types of rungs, which are abbreviated as A. G. C. or T. Each rung is one of these four types, either an A, a G, a C, or a T. The gene sequencing is the order in which these rungs are arranged. This is digital code, with a quaternary basis, rather than a binary basis, as computers use.

To talk about DNA as a code is only helpful up to a certain point, when going into fine detail, or beyond basic comprehension, any mention of a code is purely metaphorical to easily demonstrate chemical processes that take place.

In the most common form of DNA, the individual rungs of these ladders are spaced at a distance of 3.4 angstroms. A single DNA strand is thought to be around 10 centimeters long. An angstrom is a millionth of that distance, so an individual DNA molecule is thought to contain one million divided by 3.4 = 294 thousand individual ladder rungs. Since each rung contains twice as much information as binary code contains, 284 million rungs contain as much information as 86.5 gigs of binary code.

It is obvious that a random change in a computer code 86.5 gigs long could possibility make it work better. But the possibility that such a change would improve it is so small that it is not even worth discussing.

Well, from tmsoft.com:
In order to represent a DNA sequence on a computer we would need to be able to represent all 4 base pair possibilities in binary form. This can be done using a minimum of 2 bits, which yields 4 different bit combinations (00, 01, 10, and 11). Each 2 bit combination would represent one DNA sequence. A single byte (or 8 bits) can represent 4 DNA sequences. In order to store the entire human genome on a computer without compression would require around 3,000,000,000 / 4 = 750,000,000 bytes of storage or 750 megabytes. The human genome requires 750 megabytes of storage.


And from bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org: The inherent structure of [the human] genome data allows for more efficient lossless compression than can be obtained through the use of generic compression programs. We apply a series of techniques to James Watson's genome that in combination reduce it to a mere 4MB, small enough to be sent as an email attachment.


I don't know how you got 86.5gigs, but it looks like that Watson was able to compress it 4MB, and without compression it is 750MB.

Someone's imagination is running wild. I believe you are referring to neuron networks. Neuron networks are basically and essentially different from genetic code, and are thought to replicate the activity in brain tissue.

I am not referring to neuron networks, but genetic algorithms. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you don't know everything. Genetic algorithms take the theory of evolution and apply it to solving complex problems from everything to chemical solutions to military operations to chess. Through essentially mistakes in the code with a population all varying in code, the algorithm takes them through a natural selection type processes that weeds out those inferior and keeps those that do the best alive. After a few thousand generations you get programs that can solve some of the most complex problems in the world, all through random mistakes in the code and natural selection.

The information obtained from neuron networks is not derived from errors in copying information.

Lucky for me I'm not talking about neuron networks, but genetic algorithms.

I did not blow this off as wishful thinking. I ignored it as an extremely minor point. There can be no doubt that a mutation which changes an organism's color would be either beneficial or detrimental depending on its environment. But such mutations are such a small portion of the full range of mutations as to be negligible.

I disagree (no surprise there), for the simple fact that the environment can clearly have affects on what is good or bad mutations. Going back to skin color, any mutation (making it lighter or darker) will be determined to be good or bad based on where you live, or your environment. Another is the nylon eating bacteria. While this may seem advantageous, without nylon present in the environment, it is actually a very harmful mutation. And in all likelihood if such a trait existed before the invention of nylon (1935) it would have most certainly would have been weeded out through natural selection. Another is sickle cell anemia, in most cases it is harmful, but if your environment consists of a constant threat of malaria (like Africa), than being heterozygous to the trait is advantageous as you don't have the full disease, and are protected from another deadly disease. Is it a coincidence that the majority of cases of sickle cell anemia are in places where malaria is present? Another is lactose tolerant (talking about before modern convince), if you lived in Europe where dairy products were produced for people of all ages it would be advantageous. However, if you lived in the Americas, Asia or Africa where such products were consumed by the general population, such a mutation would be neutral, and there are so many more examples. Environment is clearly not a small factor in determining what is beneficial, neutral or harmful.

No, of course not. But it has not been demonstrated that the possible variations in human skin color were not alwaus there from the beginning. Of course, you assume that humans evolved. But without that assumption, you cannot prove that the human root stock did not always have the full range of skin color that we observe today.

Perhaps not, but just because so and so has X amount melanin, doesn't mean that another person can't have a mutation that gives him X amount as well, where as without the mutation he/she would have had X-1 melanin. There is no evidence to suggest that skin color can't mutate, after all it is part of the genome which is subjected to mutations every generation.

Eyes have most certainly not been debunked as IC., nor has the heart. The progressive development charts shown for both of these are so grossly oversimplified as to be humerous, if the subject were not so important. Let's discuss the possible evolution of the eye, as it is more easy to discuss...

If you don't mind I'll leave this in the hands of the other thread. No reason to have the same conversation twice at the same time, especially since many people have responded much better than I ever could.

I am aware of a great number of lies about the basic facts in evolutionary literature. I suppose that some creationists have also lied about the facts, but I am certain that most of their alleged "lies" were mistakes at the worst. For the basic moral mindset that underlies the basis of religious creationism also condemns lying.

While creationism is a branch of Christianity, and Christianity is against lying, it makes it all the more sad, disturbing, and harmful to Christianity as a whole when they do lie. Unfortunately I would say that the majority of creationists have been lied to by the figureheads of creationism, so technically they aren't exactly lying as they are simply regurgitating lies told to them. However, I see the majority of the creationist figureheads either lying for personal gain, or essentially brainwashed with the lies told to them and they are just as clueless as their followers.

I say the basis of religious creationism, because creationism is not necessarily religious in nature. IC does not imply a God. It could imply space aliens. It only examines the basic impossibility that random chance could have produced the life forms we observe today.

While the intelligent design movement doesn't need a God to work, it was clearly shown in a court of law that ID is just a re-branding of creationism. While I would agree that someone a-religious could accept ID, ID's roots are in creationism, and nothing can change that.

I agree with comfort, that speciation, as evolutionists now choose to define it, is not evolution at all.

Then what is speciation? What theory adequately describes speciation?

My favorite among these is the (relatively new) definition of evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population. When this definition of evolution was adapted, it suddenly became relatively easy to demonstrate evolution in action.

However, through gradual changes in allele frequencies we see the beginnings of speciation, and ultimately it is evolution.

But when the old definition of evolution, that the wide variety of life forms we observe today all came about as a product of gradual changes from previous life forms, cannot be demonstrated at all.

I wouldn't say that is the definition of evolution at all, but rather the implications of such a theory. And one that is getting more and more evidence in support of it as well. I would say the foundation of evolution comes from observing speciation by mutations and natural selection. And at its most basic evolution is changes in allele frequency plus mutation, and possibly natural selection added in as well.

But the Bible very clearly teaches that the ecosystem found on the earth today has only been here for approximately six thousand years.

What do you mean by this? And do you accept the age of the Earth as 4.5GA and the universe as 13.7GA?

 

[Biblewriter]

Science has its roots in a very broad term used to mean any empirical data or facts. However, in the contemporary world science has changed definitions and has become the methodology to understand natural phenomenon. Because science is restricted to only the natural it cannot comment on the supernatural (i.e. God). That is why no matter what religion or faith you have, or lack of, you can still do science because science doesn't include God into their methodology.



Science can't accept supernatural phenomena. If there is no known natural cause then that's all science can say. Would you have stopped Einstien from coming up with a theory to explain the path of Mercury through natural means because there was no known natural force to explain Mercury's path around the Sun as Newtonian physics wasn't good enough? Would you have been content with letting Mercury's orbit be supernatural? When has saying that the supernatural did this ever advanced scientific knowledge?

I did not even suggest that science should conclude that a supernatural power was involved in anything. You are quite correct in saying that since science involves the natural, it cannot delve into the supernatural. But that entirely misses the point. Since science can only explain the natural, it cannot rule out something it cannot explain. While science cannot say, "such-and-such was supernatural," neither can it say that anything it cannot explain could not have been supernatural. To rule out the suprenatural as a cause of something we cannot explain is no more scientific than saying that since we cannot explsin it, it must be supernatural.

The point is that science cannot rule on the question of supernaturality. It can neither confirm it nor deny it. The only thing that a true scientist can say about the supernatural is, "I don't know."

Speciation has always been understood as one population giving rise to one or more new species. What else has it meant?

If we use that (classical) definition of speciation, I deny that you can demonstrate a single case. In saying this, I mean that you cannot demonstrate a single case in which we have observed a species that is no longer able to interbreed with a population that has, within out observation, descended from the same root population.

It is true that we have observed cases in which two descendant populatiions have become sufficiently diverse that they no longer recognise each other as a common species. But there has been no case within my knowledge in which the descendant populations could no longer be successfully interbred.

I guess it doesn't count that they know the exact mutation that produced this rare side affect? I find it odd that you show so much skepticism to beneficial mutations, to the point where it is unreasonable, yet show no skepticism for harmful mutations, to the point where it also is unreasonable but on the other side of the spectrum. So why not be so skeptical of harmful mutations, or mutations in general?

I do not know what you mean about being skeptical about harmful mutations. I have recognised that they exist. I have simply reported my own personal finding that of a thousand mutations I personally studied, 90% were lethal, and 90% of those that were not lethal were crippling. This leaves only 1% that were questionable in nature.

No offense, but this is 2009, you did this paper in 1965/1966 as an undergrad research paper. While I'm sure your paper was good for the time and degree, it is not rigorous science, and science has made a lot of advances in the past four decades. One of them being that the average human zygote has 128 mutations, so by your research paper, statistically we should all be dead. Not to mention the average person gets around 30 more mutations throughout their life. So lets say the average person has between 130-150 mutations, if 90% are lethal how are any of us here?

Lethal mutations are not passed on beyond a very few generations. The 1% of questionable murtations can easily explain your data. A mutation occuring in an individual's body will affect that individual only if it occurs in the portion of the genome that controls the particular organ in which the mutation occurs. If I remember correctly, and I am not going to bother to look it up at this time, a mutation occurs on an average of once every 10,000 reproductions.

To talk about DNA as a code is only helpful up to a certain point, when going into fine detail, or beyond basic comprehension, any mention of a code is purely metaphorical to easily demonstrate chemical processes that take place.



Well, from tmsoft.com:
In order to represent a DNA sequence on a computer we would need to be able to represent all 4 base pair possibilities in binary form. This can be done using a minimum of 2 bits, which yields 4 different bit combinations (00, 01, 10, and 11). Each 2 bit combination would represent one DNA sequence. A single byte (or 8 bits) can represent 4 DNA sequences. In order to store the entire human genome on a computer without compression would require around 3,000,000,000 / 4 = 750,000,000 bytes of storage or 750 megabytes. The human genome requires 750 megabytes of storage.


And from bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org: The inherent structure of [the human] genome data allows for more efficient lossless compression than can be obtained through the use of generic compression programs. We apply a series of techniques to James Watson's genome that in combination reduce it to a mere 4MB, small enough to be sent as an email attachment.

I don't know how you got 86.5gigs, but it looks like that Watson was able to compress it 4MB, and without compression it is 750MB.

You are confusing two essentially different concepts. You are talking about how many bytes it takes to write our abbreviated code for the sequence of the rungs in the DNA ladders. I am talking about the information contained in this genetic code. A single 10 cm strand of DNA contains 294 thousand quaternary digits. 294 thousand quaternary digits contain as much information as 86 billion binary digits. This is simple math. A binary digit is either a 0 or a 1. A quaternary digit is either a 0, a 1, a 2, or a 3. Two binary digits are either a 00, a 01, a 10, or a 11. Two quaternary digits are either a 00, a 01, a 02, a 03, a 10, a 11, a 12, a 13, a 20, a 21, a 22, a23, a 30, a 31, a 32, or a 33. Thus we see that the amount of information contained in quaternary code is not twice as much information as that contained in binary code, byt the square of the information contained in binary code. the square of 294 thousand is 86 billion

And data compression is only a code by which data is reduced. The data so compressed is absolutely lost unless it is decompressed by a matching algorythm.

I am not referring to neuron networks, but genetic algorithms. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means you don't know everything. Genetic algorithms take the theory of evolution and apply it to solving complex problems from everything to chemical solutions to military operations to chess. Through essentially mistakes in the code with a population all varying in code, the algorithm takes them through a natural selection type processes that weeds out those inferior and keeps those that do the best alive. After a few thousand generations you get programs that can solve some of the most complex problems in the world, all through random mistakes in the code and natural selection.

Lucky for me I'm not talking about neuron networks, but genetic algorithms.

I will admit that I never heard of them, but this sounds like science fiction to me. I will look into it.

/snip/

Perhaps not, but just because so and so has X amount melanin, doesn't mean that another person can't have a mutation that gives him X amount as well, where as without the mutation he/she would have had X-1 melanin. There is no evidence to suggest that skin color can't mutate, after all it is part of the genome which is subjected to mutations every generation.

This has no bearing on the point in question. The fact that such a mutation could occur does not prove that it did occur. That would be proof is evolution were accepted as proven fact. But since that is the subject of this discussion, it cannot rationally be used as evidence of anything (in this discussion.)

While creationism is a branch of Christianity, and Christianity is against lying, it makes it all the more sad, disturbing, and harmful to Christianity as a whole when they do lie.

I agree.

Unfortunately I would say that the majority of creationists have been lied to by the figureheads of creationism, so technically they aren't exactly lying as they are simply regurgitating lies told to them. However, I see the majority of the creationist figureheads either lying for personal gain, or essentially brainwashed with the lies told to them and they are just as clueless as their followers.

And this is how I see the leaders of the evolutionary movement. The truth is that there have been a great many willful frauds presented as proofs of evolution, and these frauds have repeatedly been accepted without question because "scientists" said these things.

While the intelligent design movement doesn't need a God to work, it was clearly shown in a court of law that ID is just a re-branding of creationism.

I do not accept this statement as factual. It would be more accurate that a judge was recently convinced to rule that intelligent design is just a re-branding of creationism. The fact that the majority of intelligent design advocates are religiously motivated does not in any way prove that religion is the basis of intelligent design.

While I would agree that someone a-religious could accept ID, ID's roots are in creationism, and nothing can change that.



Then what is speciation? What theory adequately describes speciation?

As I said above, true speciation would have to be the rise of a population that is no longer to be interbread with the parent population. Demonstrating that two populations derived from the same root population no longer recognise each other as the same species is not a demonstration of true speciation.

However, through gradual changes in allele frequencies we see the beginnings of speciation, and ultimately it is evolution.

Here, you are again going back to your elliptical logic. This is ultimately evolution if, but only if, evolution is indeed fact.

I wouldn't say that is the definition of evolution at all, but rather the implications of such a theory. And one that is getting more and more evidence in support of it as well. I would say the foundation of evolution comes from observing speciation by mutations and natural selection. And at its most basic evolution is changes in allele frequency plus mutation, and possibly natural selection added in as well.

The basic theory, from the very beginning, is, and has always been, speciation through natural selection of chance variations.

What do you mean by this? And do you accept the age of the Earth as 4.5GA and the universe as 13.7GA?

I accept the age of the earth as much older than the age of the current ecosystem. But I do not accept the concept that we are able to reliably measuse such time spans. Although there have been new dating systems developed in recent years, at the time I was concentration on these things, most dating system in use was based on unprovable assumptions. And I have my doubts that things have changed that much since then.

 

[Smidlee]

Genetic algorithms is simply "trial and error" programs. (calling them genetic algorithms sound more sophisticated) If you load a computer with enough information then it can search through all possible variables in a given amount of time. A chess program works this way , searching through every possible move up to a number of plys. More time the programs has the deeper the search.

The Wright brothers use genetic algorithms (trial and error) in their wind tunnel trying different shapes to test the drag and lift of each shape. With computers a good program can preform "trial and error" a lot faster than let say the Wright brothers.

 

[Darkness27]

A genetic algorithm is much more complicated than a simple 'trial and error' program, they are used for complex problems that have multiple solutions. Basically there is a problem and they start with a parent generation of randomly put together programs. They run the parent programs and the codes that do the best are preserved and the ones that do the worst are discarded. Sometimes they also discard random codes and save random codes from discarding (to simulate the effect of slight randomness in nature). Of the ones that are saved they essential make them sexually reproduce and throw in some random mutations. After that they repeat the original steps with the new generation and continue to do this thousands of times. While the actual algorithms are much more complicated than what I presented here, it is the basic idea.

P.S. for those of you who do research this on your own, you will notice (hopefully) that some of the things they put into the algorithm are violations of nature (like preserving some of the previous generation's codes), but remember the idea of genetic algorithms are not to support evolution, but to make very good programs to solve complex problems. However, because they work so well, and are basically derived from the theory of evolution and what we see in nature, they show that random mutations plus natural selection can and does work. Genetic algorithms have created IC systems with parts that seem not to function but when taken out the whole thing collapses. People that have created these algorithms and have studied them cannot always explain how certain programs work the way they do, which can be a good parallel to the eye thread.

 

[Darkness27]

I did not even suggest that science should conclude that a supernatural power was involved in anything.

Yes you did, you wrote that "science must conclude that something supernatural caused them" if we can't find a natural reason for the evidence. But science cannot even say that. Either you were tired or something and didn't write exactly what you meant, or you changed your position because you then contradicted yourself with your next post.

Since science can only explain the natural, it cannot rule out something it cannot explain. While science cannot say, "such-and-such was supernatural," neither can it say that anything it cannot explain could not have been supernatural. To rule out the suprenatural as a cause of something we cannot explain is no more scientific than saying that since we cannot explsin it, it must be supernatural.

The point is that science cannot rule on the question of supernaturality. It can neither confirm it nor deny it. The only thing that a true scientist can say about the supernatural is, "I don't know."

If this is your true position I will support it, as it closely aligns with my own, and I do feel it is the scientific response to the supernatural.

If we use that (classical) definition of speciation, I deny that you can demonstrate a single case. In saying this, I mean that you cannot demonstrate a single case in which we have observed a species that is no longer able to interbreed with a population that has, within out observation, descended from the same root population.

Sure we can, just google instances of observed speciation, and you get a whole list of new species arising.

It is true that we have observed cases in which two descendant populatiions have become sufficiently diverse that they no longer recognise each other as a common species. But there has been no case within my knowledge in which the descendant populations could no longer be successfully interbred.

Yes we have, how do you think scientists say that one population gave rise to two separate species?

I do not know what you mean about being skeptical about harmful mutations. I have recognised that they exist. I have simply reported my own personal finding that of a thousand mutations I personally studied, 90% were lethal, and 90% of those that were not lethal were crippling. This leaves only 1% that were questionable in nature.

And I'm saying that this isn't to the standards of the scientific community and it is way out-dated. Did you sequence the genomes of all individuals in each generation to know when a harmful mutation was really a mutation?

Lethal mutations are not passed on beyond a very few generations. The 1% of questionable murtations can easily explain your data. A mutation occuring in an individual's body will affect that individual only if it occurs in the portion of the genome that controls the particular organ in which the mutation occurs. If I remember correctly, and I am not going to bother to look it up at this time, a mutation occurs on an average of once every 10,000 reproductions.

By your data, on average every human should have around 115 lethal mutations. A mutation isn't found once every 10K reproductions, but over a hundred in every human. Luckily most of them are neutral.

You are confusing two essentially different concepts. You are talking about how many bytes it takes to write our abbreviated code for the sequence of the rungs in the DNA ladders. I am talking about the information contained in this genetic code.

As am I, the 'abbreviated code' still had the information. Understanding that information is a hard process, and it is complicated.

A single 10 cm strand of DNA contains 294 thousand quaternary digits. 294 thousand quaternary digits contain as much information as 86 billion binary digits. This is simple math. A binary digit is either a 0 or a 1. A quaternary digit is either a 0, a 1, a 2, or a 3. Two binary digits are either a 00, a 01, a 10, or a 11. Two quaternary digits are either a 00, a 01, a 02, a 03, a 10, a 11, a 12, a 13, a 20, a 21, a 22, a23, a 30, a 31, a 32, or a 33. Thus we see that the amount of information contained in quaternary code is not twice as much information as that contained in binary code, byt the square of the information contained in binary code. the square of 294 thousand is 86 billion

You can express the genetic code through binary sequencing, as anything can be expressed by it. You don't need a quaternary code to digitalize the information of DNA. If you can reference a valid scientific source for a 86 GB DNA code for humans I'll look into it.

I will admit that I never heard of them, but this sounds like science fiction to me. I will look into it.

Invisibility sounds like Sci-Fi, but there's promise that such a material can bend the visible part of the EM spectrum. Such a material already exists that can do it for micro-waves.

This has no bearing on the point in question. The fact that such a mutation could occur does not prove that it did occur. That would be proof is evolution were accepted as proven fact. But since that is the subject of this discussion, it cannot rationally be used as evidence of anything (in this discussion.)

Human skin color is expressed through certain genes on the human genome. They are subject to mutations just as any locus on the genome is, and you accept mutations. But when you see that skin color is largely due to where a population lives it isn't logical to assume that through selective pressures the population adapted to fit their environment?

And this is how I see the leaders of the evolutionary movement. The truth is that there have been a great many willful frauds presented as proofs of evolution, and these frauds have repeatedly been accepted without question because "scientists" said these things.

And what have scientists said that are frauds showing evolution?

I do not accept this statement as factual. It would be more accurate that a judge was recently convinced to rule that intelligent design is just a re-branding of creationism. The fact that the majority of intelligent design advocates are religiously motivated does not in any way prove that religion is the basis of intelligent design.

I would say the vast majority of ID advocates are religiously motivated, and all the figureheads of ID are religiously motivated. The book of Pandas and People showed that ID is a re-branding of creationism. Judge Jones is a Christian, a republican, and was appointed by president George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the senate. Before the trial ID advocates were happy that he was going to be the judge. But because he decided to go against popular will and uphold the constitution creationists now dislike him.

As I said above, true speciation would have to be the rise of a population that is no longer to be interbread with the parent population. Demonstrating that two populations derived from the same root population no longer recognise each other as the same species is not a demonstration of true speciation.

Well of course you can't have the the thousandth generation breed with the original parent generation and get infertile offspring as the original generation would be dead. You ask unreasonable proof for things you just don't want to be true.

Here, you are again going back to your elliptical logic. This is ultimately evolution if, but only if, evolution is indeed fact.

How do you account for the diversity of life?

The basic theory, from the very beginning, is, and has always been, speciation through natural selection of chance variations.

And we've observed speciation countless times, you claiming that we haven't doesn't change that fact.

I accept the age of the earth as much older than the age of the current ecosystem. But I do not accept the concept that we are able to reliably measuse such time spans. Although there have been new dating systems developed in recent years, at the time I was concentration on these things, most dating system in use was based on unprovable assumptions. And I have my doubts that things have changed that much since then.

Dating is a tricky thing to measure, and I haven't studied any methods of dating the Earth, so I can't comment too much on any dating methods.

 

[Smidlee]

I would say the vast majority of ID advocates are religiously motivated, and all the figureheads of ID are religiously motivated. The book of Pandas and People showed that ID is a re-branding of creationism. Judge Jones is a Christian, a republican, and was appointed by president George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the senate. Before the trial ID advocates were happy that he was going to be the judge. But because he decided to go against popular will and uphold the constitution creationists now dislike him.

Everybody have motivates for what they do including Judge Jones. It was shown later that Jones replied came straight from the ACLU website.
Judas was one of the 12 disciples, did miracles in the Lord's name, seems to care about the poor yet betrayed the Lord with a kiss.

It like arguing that ID advocates in doing it for the money as even they admit they have made money. So you don't think evolutionist have religious (religion in the general sense) motivates and making money as well from the debate?

 

[Darkness27]

Everybody have motivates for what they do including Judge Jones.

Very true, Judge Jones wasn't there to represent the ID movement but to asses if ID was legal to teach in the science classrooms of public schools in the Dover district. It was clearly shown to him that ID was religiously motivated and wasn't a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. So as a federal judge Jones felt it was his duty to uphold the constitution (government can't support any one religion), and rule against ID.

Judas was one of the 12 disciples, did miracles in the Lord's name, seems to care about the poor yet betrayed the Lord with a kiss.

You don't have to ascribe to the creationist movement to be a Christian, most don't. Judge Jones didn't betray Christianity or anything else. He never had a duty to the ID movement, he had one to uphold the constitution which he did. If you don't like how the U.S. constitution was put together that is your problem not mine.

It like arguing that ID advocates in doing it for the money as even they admit they have made money. So you don't think evolutionist have religious (religion in the general sense) motivates and making money as well from the debate?

What does money have to do with anything were talking about?

 

[Smidlee]

Very true, Judge Jones wasn't there to represent the ID movement but to asses if ID was legal to teach in the science classrooms of public schools in the Dover district. It was clearly shown to him that ID was religiously motivated and wasn't a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. So as a federal judge Jones felt it was his duty to uphold the constitution (government can't support any one religion), and rule against ID.

Everyone knows that the constitution is badly abused to even support child porn. They are just like the Pharisees as they pretend they are for the law yet when it for their best interest broke the law in order to send Jesus to the cross. There is absolute nothing in the constitution about teaching ID or evolution.

You don't have to ascribe to the creationist movement to be a Christian, most don't. Judge Jones didn't betray Christianity or anything else. He never had a duty to the ID movement, he had one to uphold the constitution which he did. If you don't like how the U.S. constitution was put together that is your problem not mine.

the point everyone has their motivates so don't pretend those who support TOE don't.

What does money have to do with anything were talking about?

In the real world money (and power) has a lot to do with everything.

 

[Darkness27]

There is absolute nothing in the constitution about teaching ID or evolution.

Not directly, but the constitution is opposed to religious favoritism, and supporting ID would be religious favoritism.

the point everyone has their motivates so don't pretend those who support TOE don't.

I don't know what Jones motive(s) was for his ruling, but it is clear that he upheld the constitution by not supporting government favoritism.

In the real world money (and power) has a lot to do with everything.

That doesn't say anything. What specifically does money have to do with this? Perhaps that that the ID side purged themselves in court by lying about where they got the money for the textbook Of Pandas and People?

 

[Biblewriter]

Yes you did, you wrote that "science must conclude that something supernatural caused them" if we can't find a natural reason for the evidence. But science cannot even say that. Either you were tired or something and didn't write exactly what you meant, or you changed your position because you then contradicted yourself with your next post.

I stand corrected.

If this is your true position I will support it, as it closely aligns with my own, and I do feel it is the scientific response to the supernatural.

Yes, I should have stated it this way the first time.

Sure we can, just google instances of observed speciation, and you get a whole list of new species arising.

I did, and found the following in the most referenced link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

2.2 The Biological Species Concept

Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.
2.2.1 History of the Biological Species Concept

The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years. The earliest precursor that I could find was in Du Rietz 1930. Du Rietz defined a species as

"... the smallest natural populations permanently separated from each other by a distinct discontinuity in the series of biotypes."
​

Barriers to interbreeding are implicit in this definition and explicit in Du Rietz's dicussion of it. A few years later, Dobzhansky defined a species as

"... that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." (Dobzhansky 1937)
​

It is important to note that this is a highly restrictive definition of species. It emphasizes experimental approaches and ignores what goes on in nature. By the publication of the third edition of the book this appeared in, Dobzhansky (1951) had relaxed this definition to the point that is substantially agreed with Mayr's.
The definition of a species that is accepted as the BSC was promulgated by Mayr (1942). He defined species as

"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
​

Note that the emphasis in this definition is on what happens in nature. Mayr later amended this definition to include an ecological component. In this form of the definition a species is

"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature."
​

Here we see that, as I had previously pointed out, evolutionists have relatively recently re-defined speciation in such a way that it becomes easy to demonstrate speciation. It is, by the way, not the way you have defined it. Speciation of the type required for evolution to proceed requires that the new species is unable to be cross bred (even artificially) with the parent species. But this definition was explored and rejected as the concept developed.

Yes we have, how do you think scientists say that one population gave rise to two separate species?

I have just explained this.

And I'm saying that this isn't to the standards of the scientific community and it is way out-dated. Did you sequence the genomes of all individuals in each generation to know when a harmful mutation was really a mutation?

Actually, my research was from published peer reviewed scientific literature, an exhaustive list of all mutations that had been observed in the fruit fly. And as I said, 90% of them were lethal, and 90% of them that were not lethal were crippling. This is simple fact, whether you care to believe it or not.

By your data, on average every human should have around 115 lethal mutations. A mutation isn't found once every 10K reproductions, but over a hundred in every human. Luckily most of them are neutral.

Your logic totally breaks down here. Mutations that are of neutral value can collect and be passed on to following generations. Individuals that receive lethal mutations cannot reproduce, and therefore cannot pass these mutations on.

As am I, the 'abbreviated code' still had the information. Understanding that information is a hard process, and it is complicated.



You can express the genetic code through binary sequencing, as anything can be expressed by it. You don't need a quaternary code to digitalize the information of DNA. If you can reference a valid scientific source for a 86 GB DNA code for humans I'll look into it.

I referenced well accepted scientific understandings about the length of a DNA molecule and the spacing between the rungs of the DNA ladder. The rest is simple mathematics. If you cannot follow the mathematics, I am sorry, but it is fact, whether or not you understand it.

Human skin color is expressed through certain genes on the human genome. They are subject to mutations just as any locus on the genome is, and you accept mutations. But when you see that skin color is largely due to where a population lives it isn't logical to assume that through selective pressures the population adapted to fit their environment?

I never denied the process of natural selection. But to imagine that this is why dark colored peoples "developed" in Africa and fair haired people "developed" in northern regions is to project your theories. We have historical data, not theories, as to the ancient movements of ethnic groups. We know, for instance, that the western Europeans migrated to that region from the steppe regions of the Ukraine, and that the dark skinned peoples migrated to Africa from what is now western Turkey.

And what have scientists said that are frauds showing evolution?

There are so many that it would take a whole book to present it. The earliest that I remember at the moment was the Piltdown man. This was followed by Java man and numerous others such as the (now well known to be) false diagrams of how embryos supposedly traced their evolutionary descent as they grew. All of these frauds continued to be presented in textbooks long after they had been exposed. Within my personal experience, I have know more than one university professor of biology to stress "proofs" of evolution to beginning students, while explaining to advanced students that these supposed "proofs" are not factual. The truth is, that every argument for evolution is debunked by leading experts in the field to which that argument applies.

Well of course you can't have the the thousandth generation breed with the original parent generation and get infertile offspring as the original generation would be dead. You ask unreasonable proof for things you just don't want to be true.

No, I am asking for proof that the members of the "branch" species can no longer be bred with current members of the "origin" species.

How do you account for the diversity of life?

This is pure nonsense. A creator could create many different life forms as easily as he could create one.

And we've observed speciation countless times, you claiming that we haven't doesn't change that fact.

I quote again from the same website I quoted from above:

3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations

The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?
In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.
Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.
Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.
Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms.

Thus, your own proponents clearly state that most of the purported cases of observed speciation were "inferred," rather that observed. I tend to believe that the word most would read all if the writer were entirely truthful, but I will not press the point at this time.

Dating is a tricky thing to measure, and I haven't studied any methods of dating the Earth, so I can't comment too much on any dating methods.

Well I have studied them, and I can assure you that every dating method applicable to living things except one includes at least one unprovable assumption. The only one that is logically rigorous is tree ring dating, and that can be extended back only a few thousand years.

 

[Biblewriter]

Very true, Judge Jones wasn't there to represent the ID movement but to asses if ID was legal to teach in the science classrooms of public schools in the Dover district. It was clearly shown to him that ID was religiously motivated and wasn't a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. So as a federal judge Jones felt it was his duty to uphold the constitution (government can't support any one religion), and rule against ID.

Actually, that is exactly the opposite of what Judge Jones did. He ruled in favor of one religious belief (evolution) at the expense of another.

You don't have to ascribe to the creationist movement to be a Christian, most don't. Judge Jones didn't betray Christianity or anything else. He never had a duty to the ID movement, he had one to uphold the constitution which he did. If you don't like how the U.S. constitution was put together that is your problem not mine.

Your understanding of American law is as bad as your understanding of science. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify a banning of religious speech from the classroom. This has its source entirely in fairly recent Supreme Court decisions, beginning with the court of Earl Warren. These recent decisions were reached in explicit reversal of earlier Supreme Court decisions that clearly defended the teaching of religion in schools. One of the early Supreme Court decisions went so far as to say that all public schools must teach the Bible and Christian morality. This particular decision went on to say that the teaching of these things could be banned only if no public monies were used in the funding of the school.

 

[Darkness27]

Actually, that is exactly the opposite of what Judge Jones did. He ruled in favor of one religious belief (evolution) at the expense of another.

Evolution is not a religion. The only people who claim that are creationists themselves.

Your understanding of American law is as bad as your understanding of science. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify a banning of religious speech from the classroom. This has its source entirely in fairly recent Supreme Court decisions, beginning with the court of Earl Warren. These recent decisions were reached in explicit reversal of earlier Supreme Court decisions that clearly defended the teaching of religion in schools. One of the early Supreme Court decisions went so far as to say that all public schools must teach the Bible and Christian morality. This particular decision went on to say that the teaching of these things could be banned only if no public monies were used in the funding of the school.

While I know very little about the law, one of the few things that I do know is that the government can't support any religion or deny religious freedom in public schools. The Dover trial did not ban religious speech from the classroom, only the science classroom because it was clearly shown to him that ID was religiously motivated and not a good scientific alternative to the ToE. If a school wants to make a new course about intelligent design or creationism in the religion department the government can do nothing to stop it.

 

[Biblewriter]

Evolution is not a religion. The only people who claim that are creationists themselves.

You are basically right that evolution is not a religion, as such, but it is held with religious fervor by many.

But while the underlying philosophy that drives most intelligent design proponents is Christianity, the underlying philosophy that drives evolution is atheism. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that atheism is a religion, because it is a belief about God.

While I know very little about the law, one of the few things that I do know is that the government can't support any religion or deny religious freedom in public schools. The Dover trial did not ban religious speech from the classroom, only the science classroom because it was clearly shown to him that ID was religiously motivated and not a good scientific alternative to the ToE. If a school wants to make a new course about intelligent design or creationism in the religion department the government can do nothing to stop it.

This is a new concept of law, introduced by the courts in the mid twentieth century. It has absolutely zero basis in the Constitution. When the courts introduced this concept, they reversed their own former position.