Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Davian]

Why assume evolution is true? You (nor anyone else) have not proven that fact That is the central problem...evolutionists want Creationist to prove something false that has never been proven true. That is your god...

EVOLUTION is your RELIGION...

'Religion' used as an insult by a theist. Bizarre.

What you need to show is that God can not create the physical world in 6 days.

Okay.

In every objective way so far, this 'God' appears to be just character in a book. That pretty much rules out him creating anything in the physical world. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[Belk]

Why assume evolution is true? You (nor anyone else) have not proven that fact That is the central problem...evolutionists want Creationist to prove something false that has never been proven true. That is your god...

EVOLUTION is your RELIGION...

What you need to show is that God can not create the physical world in 6 days.

Because of the mountains of evidence and the observed instances of evolution. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity. That their are people who rail against it because they feel it contradicts their religious beliefs does not change that.

 

[idscience]

What you do need to show, is that evolution Cannot have produced every life from the original cells. You have not done this.

Evolution science has been doing that for 150 years. It can't get beyond a couple steps of mutation. As cited in earlier post. Evolution science has done nothing in 150 years except waste millions of dollars.

4 wings on a fruit fly? impressive proof of your hypothesis.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

See, that is exactly what I am talking about. I say that I want proof of I.D. and you go off on a rant against evolution. Let us suppose for a minute (and this is just a rhetorical device, not an admission of anything) that evolution is false. Why does I.D. get to step into it's shoes? What proof is there that I.D. is the truth?

I asked that same question about 20 opages back. Stand by for insults against your comprehension ability and repeated claims that the requested evidence has been posted repeatedly.

 

[Incariol]

Evolution science has been doing that for 150 years. It can't get beyond a couple steps of mutation. As cited in earlier post. Evolution science has done nothing in 150 years except waste millions of dollars.

4 wings on a fruit fly? impressive proof of your hypothesis.

It's sad to see you trying to belittle things you clearly don't understand, let alone grasp the significance of.

 

[idscience]

Somehow he already thinks that common descent has been falsified. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to get anywhere by asking him to show us an example of this.

He's probably just going to copy/paste some ancient debunked article from a creationist website.

The funny thing is not only have we not found evidence against common descent, but we've found modern evidence SUPPORTING it.

My two favorites are:

1. DNA Sequencing -where we can use sequence comparison to show where we are in relation to other species. For example, we are 1.2% divergent from chimpanzees, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons, and so on.

2. Endogenous retroviruses or ERVs -where remnants of ancient viral infections are passed on to the next generation; and since this is so rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of this in two different species suggests common ancestry.

Trade in your school books young fella. 1.2%?

I cite source after source and it is just ignored then you say "never happened". Can't argue with people who close their eyes, cover their ears and yell, Jinglebells.

Reply aftr reply has no source, no cite, no nothing. Similarity may suggest something, doesn't prove anything. What do you do with the problem of population genetics? Even according to evolutionary biologists, there isn't enought time for between human / chimp divergence to have occurred.

I know what you do with this, ignor it, because it doesn't fit your ideology.

Suggests? Not proves? There is much more about DNA that suggests design, but lets ignore all that. evr's are a construct not a fact of orgin.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Trade in your school books young fella. 1.2%?

I cite source after source and it is just ignored then you say "never happened". Can't argue with people who close their eyes, cover their ears and yell, Jinglebells.

Reply aftr reply has no source, no cite, no nothing. Similarity may suggest something, doesn't prove anything. What do you do with the problem of population genetics? Even according to evolutionary biologists, there isn't enought time for between human / chimp divergence to have occurred.

I know what you do with this, ignor it, because it doesn't fit your ideology.

Suggests? Not proves? There is much more about DNA that suggests design, but lets ignore all that. evr's are a construct not a fact of orgin.

*facepalm* I forgot, when in doubt creationists/IDers demand "proof", and cite the fact that real scientists don't talk about "proof" of evolution, as de facto evidence against evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

Evolution science has been doing that for 150 years. It can't get beyond a couple steps of mutation. As cited in earlier post. Evolution science has done nothing in 150 years except waste millions of dollars.

4 wings on a fruit fly? impressive proof of your hypothesis.

Nothing in 150 years? WOW. Now you are just engaging in blatant falsehoods.

Since Darwin:

1. Nested Hierarchical trees based on morphology have been confirmed with those based on genetics.

2. Addition of Genetic drift to the list of mechanisms of evolution.

3. Development of Molecular Clocks based on the rate of mutation.

4. Discovery of numerous intermediates in the fossil record including mammal-like reptiles with both reptilian and mammalian jaw joints, fishapods, whales with four legs, etc.

5. The discovery of multiple Mass Extinction events in earth's history.

6. An understanding of the reasons for the evolution of resistance to pesticides, anti-biotics, etc.

7. The discovery of numerous extinct hominids in the fossil record, and that man originated in Africa.

8. The discovery of the molecular basis of phylogenic changes.

9. The discovery of horizontal gene transfer, most prominently in microorganisms.

10. Numerous observed speciation events both in the lab and in nature.

etc., etc.

All you have to do is show us anything that evolution could not have produced. Just one example, please.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Nothing in 150 years? WOW. Now you are just engaging in blatant falsehoods.

Since Darwin:

1. Nested Hierarchical trees based on morphology have been confirmed with those based on genetics.

2. Addition of Genetic drift to the list of mechanisms of evolution.

3. Development of Molecular Clocks based on the rate of mutation.

4. Discovery of numerous intermediates in the fossil record including mammal-like reptiles with both reptilian and mammalian jaw joints, fishapods, whales with four legs, etc.

5. The discovery of multiple Mass Extinction events in earth's history.

6. An understanding of the reasons for the evolution of resistance to pesticides, anti-biotics, etc.

7. The discovery of numerous extinct hominids in the fossil record, and that man originated in Africa.

8. The discovery of the molecular basis of phylogenic changes.

9. The discovery of horizontal gene transfer, most prominently in microorganisms.

10. Numerous observed speciation events both in the lab and in nature.

etc., etc.

All you have to do is show us anything that evolution could not have produced. Just one example, please.

I'd still be happy with a single example of ID.

 

[Split Rock]

Why assume evolution is true? You (nor anyone else) have not proven that fact That is the central problem...evolutionists want Creationist to prove something false that has never been proven true. That is your god...

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity. Common descent is inferred from multiple lines of evidence.

My point about proving evolution cannot have produced all life on earth had to with the basis of the I.D. argument. I did not set the standard, they did. I am just trying to hold them to it.

EVOLUTION is your RELIGION...

This is just a falsehood. Continuing to assert it is true won't help you.

What you need to show is that God can not create the physical world in 6 days.

Not at all, I am not the one using a Negative Argument... idscience is.

 

[idscience]

Because of the mountains of evidence and the observed instances of evolution. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity. That their are people who rail against it because they feel it contradicts their religious beliefs does not change that.

Ah, a new guy with a comment right out of the evolution hand book.

The mountains of evidence is for variation, and there is no dispute about that. No one is arguing this fact. The opposition is to common descent for which there is no evidence, just inference from evidence. Most of which can be inferred common design as well.

If it wasn't for ad hoc excuses and explanations, common descent would have been falsified long ago.
fossil stasis, "stabilizing selection"
Genes in organisms and not in ancestral organism "horizontal gene transfer"
no transitional fossils
jumping genes
phylogenetic tree is dead
population genetics shows no time for transitions
biology unable to produce many steps of change using mutation, selection
still, no consensus on what a species is
DNA and RNA point to different lineages

common descent is pretty much a mess, held together with (mEDT) and hope. Every piece of evidence that points away from it, is met with some sort of logicalism to make sense of it. Like, well, there is a real problem with transitional fossils in the record, so that must mean evolution happens too fast for us to see it. Yeh, that's it. After all, we have shown in the lab how fast we can evolve organisms.

Fascinating, with all the evidence out there how non of it has showed up here?

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE
EVOLUTION IS A FACT
Also, post #360

 

[idscience]

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity. Common descent is inferred from multiple lines of evidence.

The mountains of evidence is for variation, and there is no dispute about that. No one is arguing this fact. The opposition is to common descent for which there is no evidence, just inference from evidence. Most of which can be inferred common design as well.

If it wasn't for ad hoc excuses and explanations, common descent would have been falsified long ago.
fossil stasis, "stabilizing selection"
Genes in organisms and not in ancestral organism "horizontal gene transfer"
no transitional fossils
jumping genes
phylogenetic tree is dead
population genetics shows no time for transitions
biology unable to produce many steps of change using mutation, selection
still, no consensus on what a species is
DNA and RNA point to different lineages

common descent is pretty much a mess, held together with (mEDT) and hope. Every piece of evidence that points away from it, is met with some sort of logicalism to make sense of it. Like, well, there is a real problem with transitional fossils in the record, so that must mean evolution happens too fast for us to see it. Yeh, that's it. After all, we have shown in the lab how fast we can evolve organisms.

Fascinating, with all the evidence out there how non of it has showed up here?

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE
EVOLUTION IS A FACT
Also, post #360

 

[FreethinkerWWJD]

Trade in your school books young fella. 1.2%?

I cite source after source and it is just ignored then you say "never happened". Can't argue with people who close their eyes, cover their ears and yell, Jinglebells.

Reply aftr reply has no source, no cite, no nothing. Similarity may suggest something, doesn't prove anything. What do you do with the problem of population genetics? Even according to evolutionary biologists, there isn't enought time for between human / chimp divergence to have occurred.

I know what you do with this, ignor it, because it doesn't fit your ideology.

Suggests? Not proves? There is much more about DNA that suggests design, but lets ignore all that. evr's are a construct not a fact of orgin.

I wasn't aware of a problem in chimp to human divergence... Although common sense would tell me than millions of years is plenty of time to account for a 1.23% divergence.

...and since you won't accept anything I say without sources although you expect us to bow to your every word without a shred of proof, I get you this:

1. Britten, Roy J. 2002. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 99: 13633-13635.
2. Chen, F.-C., E. J. Vallender, H. Wang, C.-S. Tzeng, and W.-H. Li. 2001. Genomic divergence between human and chimpanzee estimated from large-scale alignments of genomic sequences. Journal of Heredity 92(6): 481-489.
3. Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437: 69-87.
4. Sibley, C. G. and J. E. Ahlquist. 1987. DNA hybridization evidence of hominid phylogeny: Results from an expanded data set. Journal of Molecular Evolution 26: 99-121.

 

[Split Rock]

If it wasn't for ad hoc excuses and explanations, common descent would have been falsified long ago.
fossil stasis, "stabilizing selection"

Nothing ad hoc about it.

Genes in organisms and not in ancestral organism "horizontal gene transfer"

Horizontal gene transfer occurs today.

no transitional fossils

We've already discussed plenty of these.

jumping genes

Transposible elements are real and they replicate themselves.

phylogenetic tree is dead

No, sorry it isn't.

population genetics shows no time for transitions

No time? I asked you before to calculate the minimum time for us.... where are the calculations?

biology unable to produce many steps of change using mutation, selection

You want every single evolutionary step charted out for you? How about you show us ONE for I.D.?

still, no consensus on what a species is

This is a consequence of the constant evolution of populations and the fact that nature doesn't create "species." Does the Designer create species? Yes or no?

DNA and RNA point to different lineages

Not sure what this means.

common descent is pretty much a mess, held together with (mEDT) and hope. Every piece of evidence that points away from it, is met with some sort of logicalism to make sense of it.

So, logic is now bad and is called "logicalism" to demonize it. Great!

Like, well, there is a real problem with transitional fossils in the record, so that must mean evolution happens too fast for us to see it. Yeh, that's it. After all, we have shown in the lab how fast we can evolve organisms.

Yes, and we see how fast speciation occurs in nature... but let's not use that knowledge to understand the fossil record.....

Fascinating, with all the evidence out there how non of it has showed up here?

There are volumes of it, you just don't like it, so you Deny, Deny, Deny.

 

[Belk]

Ah, a new guy with a comment right out of the evolution hand book.

The mountains of evidence is for variation, and there is no dispute about that. No one is arguing this fact. The opposition is to common descent for which there is no evidence, just inference from evidence. Most of which can be inferred common design as well.

If it wasn't for ad hoc excuses and explanations, common descent would have been falsified long ago.
fossil stasis, "stabilizing selection"
Genes in organisms and not in ancestral organism "horizontal gene transfer"
no transitional fossils
jumping genes
phylogenetic tree is dead
population genetics shows no time for transitions
biology unable to produce many steps of change using mutation, selection
still, no consensus on what a species is
DNA and RNA point to different lineages

common descent is pretty much a mess, held together with (mEDT) and hope. Every piece of evidence that points away from it, is met with some sort of logicalism to make sense of it. Like, well, there is a real problem with transitional fossils in the record, so that must mean evolution happens too fast for us to see it. Yeh, that's it. After all, we have shown in the lab how fast we can evolve organisms.

Fascinating, with all the evidence out there how non of it has showed up here?

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE
EVOLUTION IS A FACT
Also, post #360

My reply was to jpcedotal but since you felt the need to jump in I'll ask you the same question I ask all creationists. Given the 150 + years that evolution has been the overarching scientific theory driving biology research why has it never been falsified? Is it a giant conspiracy theory or are the vast majority of scientists incompetent? Extra points if you come up with a third alternative.

 

[idscience]

I wasn't aware of a problem in chimp to human divergence... Although common sense would tell me than millions of years is plenty of time to account for a 1.23% divergence.

...and since you won't accept anything I say without sources although you expect us to bow to your every word without a shred of proof, I get you this:

1. Britten, Roy J. 2002. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 99: 13633-13635.
2. Chen, F.-C., E. J. Vallender, H. Wang, C.-S. Tzeng, and W.-H. Li. 2001. Genomic divergence between human and chimpanzee estimated from large-scale alignments of genomic sequences. Journal of Heredity 92(6): 481-489.
3. Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437: 69-87.
4. Sibley, C. G. and J. E. Ahlquist. 1987. DNA hybridization evidence of hominid phylogeny: Results from an expanded data set. Journal of Molecular Evolution 26: 99-121.

you sound pretty bitter about supplying source information. But since you did, why did you use the lowest number stated from a select group instead of their overall number 95%? not to mention, that is a fairly old paper.

2007 article in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution states:

• For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place.

(Ingo Ebersberger, Petra Galgoczy, Stefan Taudien, Simone Taenzer, Matthias Platzer, and Arndt von Haeseler, "Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry," Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol. 24(10):2266-2276 (2007).)
​

Common sense would tell you millions of years is enough time? There is nothing intelligent I can say about that statement.

In this peer reviewed paper in "Genetics" These two biologists (evolutionary biologists) critique a paper by Michael Behe on the limits of Darwinian changes. What is interesting is what they state about how long it takes to effect just a couple mutational changes in a much smaller population such as humans or chimps.
Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution
( Rick Durrett * , and Deena Schmidt)

ABSTRACT​

• "Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population. In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years. In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."

The problem here is that the available time for human/chimp divergence is only 5.4 million years according to the paper below. See the problem? If it takes less than 100 million years to effect a couple changes, how on earth to you get a complete change from chimp to human in only 5.4my? We can always just ignore it like the rest of the evidence falsifying common descent.

There are other problems as well. In the first paper above, it shows how genetic lineages seem to go in different directions making a mess of the phylogenetic tree and confusing ancestry. Though, they try to explain it, maybe by using common sense?

• "To understand why regions in the human genome can differ in their evolutionary history, it needs to be acknowledged that genetic lineages represented by DNA sequences in the extant species trace back to allelic variants in the shared ancestral species. In here, these variants persist until they join in their most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Some genetic lineages, however, do not coalesce in the progenitor exclusively shared by humans and chimpanzees. They enter, together with the lineage descending from the gorilla, the ancestral population of all 3 species, where any 2 of the 3 lineages can merge first. Thus, in two-thirds of the cases, a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each other's closest genetic relatives. The corresponding genealogies are incongruent with the species tree. In concordance with the experimental evidences, this implies that there is no such thing as a unique evolutionary history of the human genome. Rather, it resembles a patchwork of individual regions following their own genealogy." (Ingo Ebersberger, Petra Galgoczy, Stefan Taudien, Simone Taenzer, Matthias Platzer, and Arndt von Haeseler, "Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry," Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol. 24(10):2266-2276 (2007).)
  

 

[idscience]

My reply was to jpcedotal but since you felt the need to jump in I'll ask you the same question I ask all creationists. Given the 150 + years that evolution has been the overarching scientific theory driving biology research why has it never been falsified? Is it a giant conspiracy theory or are the vast majority of scientists incompetent? Extra points if you come up with a third alternative.

read the links I posted. It will give you all the information you need. I don't think I need to restate is all again here as it is in previous posts.

 

[Belk]

read the links I posted. It will give you all the information you need. I don't think I need to restate is all again here as it is in previous posts.

So you are unable or unwilling to state in simple terms why evolution continues to be the driving theory behind biology even though you claim it is incorrect?

As far as your links go I'll pass. I started my forum experience on an ID site to see if there was any good science behind it. On the whole board there was one individual who attempted to do actual science with ID ideas. He was unable to produce any kind of applicable results.

 

[idscience]

Nothing ad hoc about it.


Horizontal gene transfer occurs today.
We've already discussed plenty of these.
Transposible elements are real and they replicate themselves.
No, sorry it isn't.
No time? I asked you before to calculate the minimum time for us.... where are the calculations?
You want every single evolutionary step charted out for you? How about you show us ONE for I.D.?
This is a consequence of the constant evolution of populations and the fact that nature doesn't create "species." Does the Designer create species? Yes or no?
Not sure what this means.
So, logic is now bad and is called "logicalism" to demonize it. Great!
Yes, and we see how fast speciation occurs in nature... but let's not use that knowledge to understand the fossil record.....
There are volumes of it, you just don't like it, so you Deny, Deny, Deny.

HGT is used to account for problems in the tree. It has nothing to do with inherited traits, so renders descent useless at the bottom of the dead tree.

Please point me to the "plenty" of transitional fossils we have already discussed? post the post #'s.

And we are to take your word for this? and that it relates to common descent how?

"No, sorry it isn't." Brilliant! I post several papers, and news articles saying it is, and come back with "No, sorry it isn't"?

Post #637, and that dismal Whale thread.

Now don't go all emotional on me and blowing things out of proportion. Not every step, but more than a couple would be a good start.

Constant evolution except for the stasis of no change that is the rule?

There you go again. I didn't say logic was bad. It just isn't a basis for proving your position. You have been screaming for evidence this whole thread, but require non to defend your position? The OP of this thread has a list of posts and the major information I have not stated.

"Yes, and we see how fast speciation occurs in nature" Really? where? how? again, no cite, no source, just commentary. in posts 65, and 467, I discussed speciation.

"There are volumes of it" So I keep hearing. The problem is the volumes are for variation within species, small changes that just lead to more variation. Non that point to common descent. Please list the post # where I have refused to listen to all this evidence. List any posts that are something other than opinions and hear say? That will really bring the number down.

 

[idscience]

So you are unable or unwilling to state in simple terms why evolution continues to be the driving theory behind biology even though you claim it is incorrect?

As far as your links go I'll pass. I started my forum experience on an ID site to see if there was any good science behind it. On the whole board there was one individual who attempted to do actual science with ID ideas. He was unable to produce any kind of applicable results.

You want to know but you won't read? Can't help ya M8. binthere donethat.