Is evolution a fact or theory?

[joshua 1 9]

The Hebrew word to create -'bara' - speaks of Elohiym -plurality, creating something out from nothing.

Just the opposite. Bara means to create out of something already existing. This is a very short version of the word and only used 5 times in the Bible. A variation of this word has 55 Occurrences.

This morning I was doing a study on "Hibbaraam" when God created man & "Hibbaraak" when God created Lucifer. The only difference is the last letter in the word. I do not know Hebrew that well but I know every letter is a symbol that adds meaning to the word.

Job talks about how the angels sang together and shouted for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid. So we know that the angels were created before God created the Earth.

Job 38 "6 On what were its foundations laid, or who set its core in place — 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

 

[GenemZ]

Just the opposite. Bara means to create out of something already existing. This is a very short version of the word and only used 5 times in the Bible. A variation of this word has 55 Occurrences.

Its you who just created something out of what is not existing. Genesis one's use of the word 'bara' is exactly as I told you. Jatsar and asah are used in what you wrongly claimed about bara. When spoken in relation to God, "bara" means to create something out from nothing... 'ex nihilio.'

Variations on the word takes on different meanings, and in a way, into a new word in Hebrew usage. You need to learn this? I can tell you about an excellent teacher if you want to PM me.


When God said? "Let us *make* (asah) man in our image? That was the planning stage. Its was the designing stage. 'Asah means to manufacture or design. It was not the actual creating (bara) of bringing what was designed into existence. After God decided how He was to design man, it followed with God creating man, male and female.

.​

 

[2tim_215]

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...flood-geology-are-false-what-is-next.8077526/

 

[The Barbarian]

OK. Let's use your first statement about horse and dunkey as an example. That does not prove human genes can survive the same.

It merely means chromosomes can do that. If you want to claim humans chromosomes are somehow different, by all means show us your evidence.

The issue with taking evolution (specifically that humans are evolved from some primates) as fact is that most of it is just speculation

Even some of your fellow creationists say that's false. Kurt Wise, for example, says the transitional fossils in the hominid series are strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. (among many other series that he mentions)
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

we are claiming just because one piece of code can do something, the other piece of code can do it too

All DNA is made of the same stuff, put together the same way, and functioning the same way. We can even insert DNA from one organism into the genome of another, and it works.

So unless you have something to support your belief...

 

[The Barbarian]

A million subjective speculative possibilities become nullified once someone faces the realty that Nothing is nothing. Nothingness can not produce anything. Let alone the mega genius design found in DNA.

Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life or the universe, or the Earth. It's about living things and how they vary over time. However, Darwin, in his book, suggested that God just created the first living things.

Its takes someone who has a half sided IQ to think it could have. Intelligent enough to see how intricate and involved in function it is... And, stubbornly flipping a switch to turn off all reasoning when the sound of goose steps are heard in the distance

Sounds like a YE creationist meeting, um?

 

[dcalling]

It merely means chromosomes can do that. If you want to claim humans chromosomes are somehow different, by all means show us your evidence.

Here is my question that you tried to answer (with another question) "OK. Let's use your first statement about horse and dunkey as an example. That does not prove human genes can survive the same.". What I asked is, just because A->B, it does not mean A'->B' is also true. Am I not right?

Even some of your fellow creationists say that's false. Kurt Wise, for example, says the transitional fossils in the hominid series are strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. (among many other series that he mentions)
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Here again, you are quoting "some" creationists. does the word of some creationists make it more right? Is that thought process logical?

All DNA is made of the same stuff, put together the same way, and functioning the same way. We can even insert DNA from one organism into the genome of another, and it works.

So unless you have something to support your belief...

All computer codes are made of the same stuff, seemingly put together the same way since they are just 1s and 0s. Yet looks can be very deceiving as they do all sorts of different things and if you mix them in slightly different ways they crash.

 

[Jayfrost123]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" is either true or false.

Whether it's true or not, billions of people are wrong either way, and that tickles my fancy

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
It merely means chromosomes can do that. If you want to claim humans chromosomes are somehow different, by all means show us your evidence.

Here is my question that you tried to answer (with another question) "OK. Let's use your first statement about horse and dunkey as an example. That does not prove human genes can survive the same."

So nothing. O.K.

(Barbarian observes that YE creastionists familiar with the evidence admit that the many transitional forms in the fossil record are strong evidence for macroevolution)

Here again, you are quoting "some" creationists.

Yes. In this case, Wise actually knows about the record unlike almost all other notable YE creationists.

Barbarian observes:
All DNA is made of the same stuff, put together the same way, and functioning the same way. We can even insert DNA from one organism into the genome of another, and it works.

So unless you have something to support your belief...

All computer codes are made of the same stuff, seemingly put together the same way since they are just 1s and 0s.

So any code so inserted into the string will be read and have an effect, yes. That's what I've been trying to get you to understand.

Yet looks can be very deceiving as they do all sorts of different things and if you mix them in slightly different ways they crash.

DNA doesn't work quite that way. You can insert a gene (string of DNA) into a chromosome, and it almost never messes up the other genes. (in rare exceptions, it can code for a regulatory protein that might affect other gene expression) But it still works, coding for a specific protein.

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian suggests:
It merely means chromosomes can do that. If you want to claim humans chromosomes are somehow different, by all means show us your evidence.

Human chromosome are definitely different than non-human chromosomes. Do you disagree?

So nothing. O.K.

(Barbarian observes that YE creastionists familiar with the evidence admit that the many transitional forms in the fossil record are strong evidence for macroevolution)



Yes. In this case, Wise actually knows about the record unlike almost all other notable YE creationists.

You should quote evidence, not YE creationist who agree with you. Just because other people agree with you, does not make you correct, agree?

Barbarian observes:
All DNA is made of the same stuff, put together the same way, and functioning the same way. We can even insert DNA from one organism into the genome of another, and it works.

So unless you have something to support your belief...

hmm, define "it works". Can you change the genomes of a donkey and make it a horse?

So any code so inserted into the string will be read and have an effect, yes. That's what I've been trying to get you to understand.



DNA doesn't work quite that way. You can insert a gene (string of DNA) into a chromosome, and it almost never messes up the other genes. (in rare exceptions, it can code for a regulatory protein that might affect other gene expression) But it still works, coding for a specific protein.

I am talking about code. You can't just insert random 0s and 1s into a dll, it will most likely crash (unless you inserted into some non-critical section).

And even for strings, if you insert into a pascal style string without changing the length, it may or may not show up. Or if you insert into a c style string and overrode the 0, you might crash, do you agree?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
It merely means chromosomes can do that. If you want to claim humans chromosomes are somehow different, by all means show us your evidence.

Human chromosome are definitely different than non-human chromosomes.

So nothing. O.K. All vertebrate DNA works exactly the same. Do you disagree?

You should quote evidence, not YE creationist who agree with you.

He was citing evidence. Would you like me to show you?

Barbarian observes:
All DNA is made of the same stuff, put together the same way, and functioning the same way. We can even insert DNA from one organism into the genome of another, and it works.

So unless you have something to support your belief...

hmm, define "it works".

Each gene will code exactly the same way in any vertebrate genome in which it is inserted.

Can you change the genomes of a donkey and make it a horse?

It would take a lot of insertions and deletions, but yes, it would work.

So any code so inserted into the string will be read and have an effect, yes. That's what I've been trying to get you to understand.

DNA doesn't work like binary code. You can insert a gene (string of DNA) into a chromosome, and it almost never messes up the other genes. (in rare exceptions, it can code for a regulatory protein that might affect other gene expression) But it still works, coding for a specific protein.

I am talking about code. You can't just insert random 0s and 1s into a dll

DNA isn't binary code. And it works differently than you've assumed.

it will most likely crash (unless you inserted into some non-critical section).

In fact, almost all mutations do very little. And as you just learned, inserting a gene into a chromosome, rarely causes any significant damage.

And even for strings, if you insert into a pascal style string without changing the length, it may or may not show up. Or if you insert into a c style string and overrode the 0, you might crash, do you agree?

You're still trying to think about computer code instead of a much more sophisticated and adaptable DNA code. Learn about that, and you'll see why it's a mistake to think of them as the same thing.

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian suggests:
It merely means chromosomes can do that. If you want to claim humans chromosomes are somehow different, by all means show us your evidence.

So nothing. O.K. All vertebrate DNA works exactly the same. Do you disagree?

OK, let's be more specific. "It merely means chromosomes can do that.", Can you specifi what is "That"?

He was citing evidence. Would you like me to show you?

What evidence did the YE creationist cite? Show us and let's discuss.

Barbarian observes:
All DNA is made of the same stuff, put together the same way, and functioning the same way. We can even insert DNA from one organism into the genome of another, and it works.

As I already said, all code are made of the same stuff, put together what looks like the same way (but does not function the same). DNA does not function the same, different segment do different stuff, do you agree?

So unless you have something to support your belief...



Each gene will code exactly the same way in any vertebrate genome in which it is inserted.



It would take a lot of insertions and deletions, but yes, it would work.

So any code so inserted into the string will be read and have an effect, yes. That's what I've been trying to get you to understand.

DNA doesn't work like binary code. You can insert a gene (string of DNA) into a chromosome, and it almost never messes up the other genes. (in rare exceptions, it can code for a regulatory protein that might affect other gene expression) But it still works, coding for a specific protein.



DNA isn't binary code. And it works differently than you've assumed.



In fact, almost all mutations do very little. And as you just learned, inserting a gene into a chromosome, rarely causes any significant damage.



You're still trying to think about computer code instead of a much more sophisticated and adaptable DNA code. Learn about that, and you'll see why it's a mistake to think of them as the same thing.

DNA are coding, just like computer coding (except on different material). As you know no matter how complex/simple codes are, the thing they can express are the same.

Now due to how codes are packed, you can actually insert/replace things in a dll/exec and they might stuff function or paritally function, depend on which code/data segment the insertion is. That does not mean all of them are the same, it just means by chance you didn't destroy it. Do you agree?

 

[The Barbarian]

OK. Let's use your first statement about horse and dunkey as an example. That does not prove human genes can survive the same.

Barbarian observes:
It merely means chromosomes can do that. If you want to claim humans chromosomes are somehow different, by all means show us your evidence.

OK, let's be more specific. "It merely means chromosomes can do that.", Can you specifi what is "That"?

Did you forget what you said? I retrieved it for you.

What evidence did the YE creationist cite? Show us and let's discuss.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

As I already said, all code are made of the same stuff, put together what looks like the same way (but does not function the same).

But it does. You're confused because you're thinking binary, and DNA isn't binary.

DNA does not function the same

In vertebrates, it all works the same way. In different domains, it does have a few differences, but each triplet code works precisely the same way in vertebrates. I believe that's true of all eukaryotes, actually.

CAA is always glutamine. GGA is always glycine. UAG is always a stop codon. Works the same way in very vertebrate.

different segment do different stuff, do you agree?

See above. Because you keep thinking of it as a computer code, you're having trouble getting how it works.

DNA are coding, just like computer coding

Not unless you have a computer code that uses triplet codons with a considerable amount of redundancy.

Would you consider reading up on how it works, and then get back to us?

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian observes:
It merely means chromosomes can do that. If you want to claim humans chromosomes are somehow different, by all means show us your evidence.



Did you forget what you said? I retrieved it for you.



Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

The pdf is from a creationist, but the sentences you quoted above is not in the PDF. wrong pdf?

But it does. You're confused because you're thinking binary, and DNA isn't binary.

They should be very similar. The bigger the dll, the easier to insert junk into it without breaking it

In vertebrates, it all works the same way. In different domains, it does have a few differences, but each triplet code works precisely the same way in vertebrates. I believe that's true of all eukaryotes, actually.

CAA is always glutamine. GGA is always glycine. UAG is always a stop codon. Works the same way in very vertebrate.



See above. Because you keep thinking of it as a computer code, you're having trouble getting how it works.



Not unless you have a computer code that uses triplet codons with a considerable amount of redundancy.

Would you consider reading up on how it works, and then get back to us?

The code can be done in the same way, except when you really touch the core part of it the code will break, similar to DNA sequences.

Let me ask you, can we insert glutamine or glycine into any segment of DNA? Do we understand what such insertion are doing? This is very similar in coding (after compile), that data segment useually follow command segment, but after combine them together, what they do is really matters, not how the compose. The similarity between DNA and coding is amazing (even though they use totally different mediams). In software engineer we code specific codes to be executed by the CPU to get certain results, in genetic engineering segments of DNA is coded to be executed in certain environments to build up organisms.

 

[The Barbarian]

The pdf is from a creationist, but the sentences you quoted above is not in the PDF. wrong pdf?

It's on pages 218 and 219. Take another look.

Barbarian observes:
You're confused because you're thinking binary, and DNA isn't binary.

They should be very similar. The bigger the dll, the easier to insert junk into it without breaking it

In almost all animals, there's more "junk" than DNA that codes for proteins. That alone should make you think.

The code can be done in the same way, except when you really touch the core part of it the code will break, similar to DNA sequences.

That doesn't seem to have an analog in DNA.

Let me ask you, can we insert glutamine or glycine into any segment of DNA?

You still don't get it. There's no glutamine or glycine in DNA. It's not made of protein; it codes for proteins. But if you mean, "can we insert a codon for a specific amino acid into DNA, and have it work?" the answer is "yes." It will code for that amino acid. And most likely, the protein in which that amino acid is inserted will still work as usual. You have a dozen or so changes in your genome that didn't exist in either of your parents. Everything still works, I suppose. It would be unusual if it didn't.

Do we understand what such insertion are doing?

Yes. Usually, the answer is "not much of anything." Occasionally, one makes things worse. Those tend to be removed from the population by natural selection, unless they have some other useful function. A very few of them are useful (and remember "harmful" or "useful" has meaning only in terms of the environment) and natural selection tends to increase those in the population. This is why the Hardy-Weinberg equation can be used to detect selective pressure.

This is very similar in coding (after compile),

I learned coding back when Fortran and COBOL were the hot languages. Programming was done on a keypunch with Hollerith cards. But they don't work anything like DNA.

that data segment useually follow command segment, but after combine them together, what they do is really matters, not how the compose.

Another reason that DNA doesn't work like computer code.

The similarity between DNA and coding is amazing (even though they use totally different mediams). In software engineer we code specific codes to be executed by the CPU to get certain results,

There's no CPU. It's more like running tape through the head of a VCR. Another way that it's different than computer coding.

in genetic engineering segments of DNA is coded to be executed in certain environments to build up organisms.

No. Basically, one inserts a gene into the genome.

 

[dcalling]

It's on pages 218 and 219. Take another look.

Barbarian observes:
You're confused because you're thinking binary, and DNA isn't binary.

found it, but it is the same "looks like it" thing without much deeper digging. It is like "the 386 looks like 286 and their for it must have evovled by itself".

In almost all animals, there's more "junk" than DNA that codes for proteins. That alone should make you think.



That doesn't seem to have an analog in DNA.



You still don't get it. There's no glutamine or glycine in DNA. It's not made of protein; it codes for proteins. But if you mean, "can we insert a codon for a specific amino acid into DNA, and have it work?" the answer is "yes." It will code for that amino acid. And most likely, the protein in which that amino acid is inserted will still work as usual. You have a dozen or so changes in your genome that didn't exist in either of your parents. Everything still works, I suppose. It would be unusual if it didn't.


Yes. Usually, the answer is "not much of anything." Occasionally, one makes things worse. Those tend to be removed from the population by natural selection, unless they have some other useful function. A very few of them are useful (and remember "harmful" or "useful" has meaning only in terms of the environment) and natural selection tends to increase those in the population. This is why the Hardy-Weinberg equation can be used to detect selective pressure.

The DNA is like code in the way that it is highly complex code, i.e. like in a mordern OS where you add utilties and system dlls. We can freely dump jump into the disk, as long as we don't override the core dlls.

I learned coding back when Fortran and COBOL were the hot languages. Programming was done on a keypunch with Hollerith cards. But they don't work anything like DNA.



Another reason that DNA doesn't work like computer code.



There's no CPU. It's more like running tape through the head of a VCR. Another way that it's different than computer coding.



No. Basically, one inserts a gene into the genome.

either machinacal calculator, or running card with hols, or tap through a magnetic reader, or write to SSD or insert segements of genes, it is all coding, no more no less, even if it is over different medium and looks very different.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian obseves:
It's on pages 218 and 219. Take another look.

found it,

Yep. That's what he wrote.

but it is the same "looks like it" thing without much deeper digging.

Same words. Go figure.

It is like "the 386 looks like 286 and their for it must have evovled by itself".

The usual creationist confusing designed things with natural things.

The DNA is like code in the way that it is highly complex code, i.e. like in a mordern OS where you add utilties and system dlls.

I know you want to believe it, but so far, you've been unable to make any headway on that.

We can freely dump jump into the disk, as long as we don't override the core dlls.

A little more familiarity with translation and transcription would be useful for you.

either machinacal calculator, or running card with hols, or tap through a magnetic reader, or write to SSD or insert segements of genes, it is all coding, no more no less, even if it is over different medium and looks very different.

So, for example, the arrangement of planets around the sun is "coding", and much information is available therein. But it's not like a computer language, either. Do you see why?

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian obseves:
It's on pages 218 and 219. Take another look.

Yep. That's what he wrote.

Same words. Go figure.

The usual creationist confusing designed things with natural things.

Except DNA is so similar to coding, it is almost certain by design. It is like the mordern OS, similar to their predecessors but they are designed. Good luck have an OS come together by natural evolving.

I know you want to believe it, but so far, you've been unable to make any headway on that.



A little more familiarity with translation and transcription would be useful for you.



So, for example, the arrangement of planets around the sun is "coding", and much information is available therein. But it's not like a computer language, either. Do you see why?

I have an explaination, having things to do with coding and algorithms (I think I said enough to be clear). I want to see your version of it before I totally lay mine out.

 

[The Barbarian]

Except DNA is so similar to coding, it is almost certain by design.

Here, you've assumed what you proposed to prove. As you see, it's not at all like computer code.

It is like the mordern OS

Nope. As you see, they aren't binary, and inserting a gene into the genome rarely has any effects on the output from the rest of the code.

similar to their predecessors but they are designed.

Nope. In fact, engineers are now starting to abandon design, in favor of using evolutionary processes to solve difficult engineering problems. They use random change and natural selection to find optimum solutions. God didn't use "design" for the obvious reason; it doesn't work as well as evolution.

Good luck have an OS come together by natural evolving.

It wasn't luck. It was just God, doing it the right way, as usual.

 

[dcalling]

Here, you've assumed what you proposed to prove. As you see, it's not at all like computer code.


Nope. As you see, they aren't binary, and inserting a gene into the genome rarely has any effects on the output from the rest of the code.

As I already said, coding can be done with any structure, if it is binary/mechincal or biological.

Nope. In fact, engineers are now starting to abandon design, in favor of using evolutionary processes to solve difficult engineering problems. They use random change and natural selection to find optimum solutions. God didn't use "design" for the obvious reason; it doesn't work as well as evolution. I hope you understand it.

Nope, engineers never abondoned design, the so called evolutionary process is just a per-designed way to either:
1. find less optimal solutions with quicker times under current hardware constrains,
2. accumulate states from input data to feed bad and constrain designed parameters to approximate desired outcome.

as I pointed out before. You think they are "evolutionary process" because you don't understand them. The design has to be "evolutioned" by man, the pre-designed paramters can be adjusted by the process within the design constrain, which looks like evolution.

It wasn't luck. It was just God, doing it the right way, as usual.

I definitely agree on that, we only differ on our understand of His process.

 

[The Barbarian]

ANope, engineers never abondoned design, the so called evolutionary process is just a per-designed way to either:
1. find less optimal solutions with quicker times under current hardware constrains,
2. accumulate states from input data to feed bad and constrain designed parameters to approximate desired outcome.

No, that's wrong. Check out "genetic algorithms." It's not what you seem to think it is.

as I pointed out before. You think they are "evolutionary process" because you don't understand them.

You've been misled about that. They randomly modify an feasible solution, and then use natural selection to find the best output. Then they use those surviving examples for the next generation, again randomly changing them and using natural selection to find the best. This is repeated until the optimal solution is determined.

The design has to be "evolutioned" by man,

Nope. In some cases, they don't even know for sure why the optimal solution works.