proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Almost there]

Attitudes, typically drive opinions.

Facts drive my opinions. attitudes about specific events will then follow

 

[bhsmte]

Facts drive my opinions. attitudes about specific events will then follow

No facts dont drive everyones opinions and human psychology bears this out. In some folks, facts are too painful to acknowledge, so they must manufacture their own personal reality (typically void of facts) to protect their beliefs. In other folks, it is too painful to have to deny facts, and play psychological gymnastics with themselves and they acknowledge facts.

Lastly, if established facts (that can be verified) drove the opinions of all, everyone would agree on most issues. Clearly, this is not the case.

 

[Almost there]

No facts dont drive everyones opinions and human psychology bears this out.

You are correct. After I posted I thought that what I should have said was "facts, as I interpret them", but I had to go to a meeting.

When I need to walk across the street and it starts raining, it causes me to form the opinion that I need to get my umbrella. But it is based on my interpretation of the facts: It will keep raining until I get to my destination and I'll get wet if I don't get an umbrella.

And then it turns out the water is just coming from the window washer directly above the door.

 

[Almost there]

No facts dont drive everyones opinions and human psychology bears this out. In some folks, facts are too painful to acknowledge, so they must manufacture their own personal reality (typically void of facts) to protect their beliefs. In other folks, it is too painful to have to deny facts, and play psychological gymnastics with themselves and they acknowledge facts.

Lastly, if established facts (that can be verified) drove the opinions of all, everyone would agree on most issues. Clearly, this is not the case.

I hit a pedestrian about 12 years ago with my car. I was driving past a long row of cars parked in the left turn lane waiting for a light to change. the guy darted out from that line of cars right in front of me. I didn't even have a chance to hit the brakes.

My mind "interpreted" the facts with two questions:

1. How did that guy get out of his car without opening his door?
2. How did he get out of his car on a dead run?

Of course, immediately afterward I realized what happened, and my opinion lined up with the "actual" facts.

I'm a pretty binary thinker - aka black and white thinker. Most people consider it a negative. But in my job in IT it is very much a positive. It makes it very easy to identify in and out of scope issues. It makes it easy to see when a meeting is going off the rails. It also makes it very easy for me to see facts and change my opinion when new facts present themselves.

I do it a lot more than most people. In fact, it becomes a challenge when, though we were all in agreement before, when a new fact presents itself that forces me to change my mind I can have a real challenge making the case for everyone else that they need to come along with me. This is why I use white boards and "bench test" theories, designs, etc. so much.

Nobody's perfect, but I have found that my opinions stick to the facts much more than most of the people I know. And it is largely because of my weakness: I'm a binary thinker. Everything is "if, then, else" for me.

One of the interesting results is that I've found that whether one comes from an ID paradigm or an evolutionary paradigm, both will serve them well regarding interpreting the makeup of DNA, usually for the most part. And in a true sense, if it WAS DESIGNED and we are witnessing permanent positive results from mutations, we can at least speculate that this may have happened in the past.

What we can't say is that it "has happened" in the past.

 

[USincognito]

so if i will test about several genes\proteins and check their phylogeny, i will get the same tree by another several genes\proteins? is that your prediction? if not: where is the limit that you will agree that those genes point to an independent design?

I don't who wrote what you have attributed to me, but it wasn't me.

 

[bhsmte]

I hit a pedestrian about 12 years ago with my car. I was driving past a long row of cars parked in the left turn lane waiting for a light to change. the guy darted out from that line of cars right in front of me. I didn't even have a chance to hit the brakes.

My mind "interpreted" the facts with two questions:

1. How did that guy get out of his car without opening his door?
2. How did he get out of his car on a dead run?

Of course, immediately afterward I realized what happened, and my opinion lined up with the "actual" facts.

I'm a pretty binary thinker - aka black and white thinker. Most people consider it a negative. But in my job in IT it is very much a positive. It makes it very easy to identify in and out of scope issues. It makes it easy to see when a meeting is going off the rails. It also makes it very easy for me to see facts and change my opinion when new facts present themselves.

I do it a lot more than most people. In fact, it becomes a challenge when, though we were all in agreement before, when a new fact presents itself that forces me to change my mind I can have a real challenge making the case for everyone else that they need to come along with me. This is why I use white boards and "bench test" theories, designs, etc. so much.

Nobody's perfect, but I have found that my opinions stick to the facts much more than most of the people I know. And it is largely because of my weakness: I'm a binary thinker. Everything is "if, then, else" for me.

One of the interesting results is that I've found that whether one comes from an ID paradigm or an evolutionary paradigm, both will serve them well regarding interpreting the makeup of DNA, usually for the most part. And in a true sense, if it WAS DESIGNED and we are witnessing permanent positive results from mutations, we can at least speculate that this may have happened in the past.

What we can't say is that it "has happened" in the past.

Completely irrelevent.

 

[Almost there]

You are correct. After I posted I thought that what I should have said was "facts, as I interpret them", but I had to go to a meeting.

When I need to walk across the street and it starts raining, it causes me to form the opinion that I need to get my umbrella. But it is based on my interpretation of the facts: It will keep raining until I get to my destination and I'll get wet if I don't get an umbrella.

Completely irrelevent.

It was addressing the issue of the brain misunderstanding or misinterpreting facts. And it was an anecdotal example of exactly that.

Or were you talking about something else?

 

[tas8831]

Yes, really, you simply refuse to accept emperical observation of how new forms arise.

I don't think you understand what "emperical evidence" [sic] is.

Interesting. Usually they argue against biblical accounts and what supporting evidence ffrom other sources. Then when given other sources complain its not from the Bible. interesting.

Not as interesting as implying that a Chinese myth that does not mention ANYTHING but a flood somehow props up a middle eastern tall tale. Interesting. Sort of like if I were to present Lamarck's claims regarding acquired characteristics in support of Darwinian evolution.

Then how do you propose 'new races' came to be?

You refuse to say or provide any evidence.


You say an Asian and an African mating becomes an Afro-Asian - great!

You answered the question. You propose mutation when no new race has been observed to come about except by mating, regardless oif mutations at every birth. Interesting.

Not as interesting as your inability to explain whee the Asian and the African came from in the first place, seeing as how if we are to accept the bible tales, the first humans were basically Arabs.
Interesting. Most interesting.

WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN ALL HUMANS, ACCORDING TO YOUR MYTHS, AROSE FROM A CLONED INBREEDING PAIR WITH 'PERFECT' GENOMES??????

Hmm, interesting. Where did you get the idea of cloned?

Hmm... Most interesting. From creationists. Interesting.

Clearly God took half the chromosomes from that perfect genome and used it to create the woman.

Interesting. So are you saying that Adam was created a tetraploid?

And perfect - EVIDENCE PLEASE.

Interesting.

You know, half the chromosomes from the male, half from the female, make one flesh?

So where did God get the other half from to make Eve? interesting. Interesting - the tangled webs of internal contradiction the creationist weaves.

And where did Africans come from in your bible-based beliefs?

EXPLAIN how we got the "allies" associated with being African from a cloned inbreeding pair (Adam and Eve) without mutation.

I have, you just havent been paying attention.

No, you just keep writing 'Asian + African = Afro-Asian.'

That does not explain how we got an Asian in the first place from a "perfect" cloned inbreeding pair.


Interesting.

Right - the whole Asian+African=Afro-Asian.

WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE?????

From Noahs descendants.

Interesting.

How did Noah's descendants acquire the alleles required to produce the characteristics of Africans and Asians when they were all directly related an in the line from perfect Adam and cloned Eve?

Where does that NECESSARY diversity come from?

Saying Asian + African = Afro-Asian does not even begin to answer that simple question - it in fact makes it worse.

So now you are arguing FOR mutations?

Whats this? Misrepresentation? Strawman nonsense? Shocking!


It is hilarious that you expend so much energy arguing AGAINST mutation-based change, and then argue FOR mutation when you are stuck.


You people are something else.

you are confused, I understand. No it is you that purposes if I randomly acquire a mutation it somehow becomes fixed in the entire population.

I never said any such thing.

You are claiming that a mutation-free breeding pair of incestuous origin will magically produce Asians and Africans.

HOW????

I propose only my descendants share that mutation. So if only my descendants share this mutation, then how do mutations in your fantasy world get fixed in the entire human population if that population doesn't come from just my descendants?

Wow - such linear thinking is a wonder to behold.

Well you see, you are not the only person reproducing. Other folks do that, too, and they also produce offspring that have their own sets of mutations. So down the line, the extant population will not all be just your descendants, they will be the descendants of those that contributed to the gene pool of the population.
There is no guarantee that a mutation will become fixed, by the way - sometimes it is random, sometimes it is due to selection., This is what empirical evidence tells us.

And empirical evidence also tells us that the variation has to come from somewhere, and sexually reproducing populations, it comes both recombination events and mutations - but, of cours,e the new alleles arise via mutation, as well.

I keep asking you and you keep writing the same thing that generated the question in the first place, not grasping that re-stating the original claim that I am asking you to justify does not answer the question - WHERE did an African and an Asian come from in the first place, if the original created humans were 'identical' and had perfect genomes?

Oh that's right, the only ones are from before recorded history, from Noah and their descendants.

So tell me where the OT mentions Africans and Asians in the OT.

Scratch that, I don't care.

Tell me where the African came from, and the Asian came from, seeing as how, according to your tales, ALL humans were middle eastern (Arabic) up to and then, obviously, after the flood for which there is no evidence.

HINT:

Just writing African+Asian=Afro-Asian does not explain the genetics behind your repetitious, naive mantra.

 

[tas8831]

What appearance of evolution? Asian remains Asian. African remains African. Husky remains Husky. Mastiff remains Mastiff.

Such amazing genetics insights... NOBODY has ever noticed that asians are asian!

But you mean how a genetic engineer might splice in genes from different pea varieties, call it a new species, then evolutionists claiming it supported evolution while ignoring it supported an intelligent designer?

Interesting.

So yoiu also support the notion that human intelligent design = God Intelligent Design - argument via analogy.

Interesting.

Have you forgotten already that Asian remains Asian despite mutations at every birth in every generation?

So i think part of your several problems is your total lack of understanding of basic genetics.

Yes, every person born has 100-200 new mutations.

Why do you think that this should produce new species willy nilly?

200 mutations = 0.000006% of the genome.

What do you think should be happening?


Where did the new alleles required to get an Asian from a middle eastern? if you say from Noah's descendants, then you will have admitted that you have no clue.

 

[tas8831]

What does my post have to do with Trump. I've been saying this for over 15 years. And what attitude? I'm stating an opinion, not an attitude. It is an opinion on how our government should protect its citizens from hostile outside forces. It is why the Federal Government exists.

So, you are one of those folks that picks and chooses which biblical teachings to ascribe to depending on the situation. Got it.


I thought you were out of here?

Or did you mean that you were just not going to open yourself up to us asking you to support your scientific claims with science?

 

[tas8831]

How doe one differentiate between Asian and African, since they are the same subspecies then?

Where did the Mastiff and the Husky come from?

We know that they came from the wolf.

Do you really think that wolves were storehouses for the alleles that are required to get Chihuahuas as well as Mastiffs?

If so, please provide the genetic evidence for this, and especially the mechanism whereby the alleles for making a Chihuahua are suppressed in the Mastiff.

I mean, surely you have thought this all out and can provide actual evidence.


Sure, you think all dog breeds came from "one wolf gene", but that is impossible without the very thing you keep insisting does not happen.


Interesting.

 

[Almost there]

So, you are one of those folks that picks and chooses which biblical teachings to ascribe to depending on the situation. Got it.


I thought you were out of here?

Or did you mean that you were just not going to open yourself up to us asking you to support your scientific claims with science?

No, you don't "got it". That is not who I am.

Yeah, I thought I was. I still got a post in my feed and responded to it not noticing which thread it was in. My bad.

 

[tas8831]

And yet the Bible is clear when talking of birds, specifies each after its own Kinds (plural).

Well, except for lumping bats in with them...

 

[tas8831]

Just as long as only what you believe is enforced on others through the school system, correct?

If what you believe is nonsense, why on earth should others want it in the schools?

 

[tas8831]

Because one of his sons settled in what we call Africa today, namely Ethiopia. That they may have been a mixture, the son had a wife, and then interbred specific traits to get what we see today. I expect they were neither Asian, nor African, but merely had those traits that were later fixed due to interbreeding.

Where did this wife come from?

Did she survive on Ark II - the one Gilgamesh made?

Was she a separate creation not mentioned in the bible?

At what point in this Odyssey of Gibberish did the mutation in SLC24A5 occur, contributing to the production of lighter (i.e, 'non-African') ? Dark skin ('African') is the wild type, after all (but Noah was not African... nor was Adam. Interesting...)?

 

[ruthiesea]

False since Gen 1:21 agrees with last year's discovery that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from water. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

It's proof of God UNLESS you can explain How ancient men knew and correctly wrote this and other scientific Truths, thousands of years before Science. It also defines the difference between Humans and Apes and totally destroys the false ToE. Amen?

Evolution says the same thing. We have known for a long time that life originated billions of years ago in water. Of course, if you actually read Genesis 1:21 you would see that it says nothing like your claim.

By the way, the Theory of Evolution does not deny the existence of G-d. In fact, it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of G-d.

 

[Aman777]

Evolution says the same thing.

Correction: What you call "evolution" is nothing more than genetic changes within His and Their kinds in a population over time.

We have known for a long time that life originated billions of years ago in water.

Then WHY did it take more than 3k years for scientists to confirm what Genesis one plainly states...since it only happened last year?

Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things - The New York Times
Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things
Jul 25, 2016 - William F. Martin says that the Last Universal Common Ancestor can be traced back to deep sea vents like this one off the Galápagos.

Of course, if you actually read Genesis 1:21 you would see that it says nothing like your claim.

Here's the verse:

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

This agrees with the scientific announcement made last year that L.U.C.A. can be traced back to the deep sea vents, in WATER. Now it's your time to tell us HOW ancient men who lived thousands of years BEFORE Science, got that one correct? If you can, I promise to show you many more scientific facts, which will soon be revealed, from Genesis Chapter One. It's proof of God.

 

[xianghua]

(* In practice things are admittedly a little fuzzier. For example, constructing gene phylogenies technically shows ancestral evolution of the specific gene which may not be completely in line with species divergence. As well, there are also mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer which can violate ancestral hierarchies. And of course like any statistical approach, there are going to be implicit assumptions and error margins associated with the output. All that said, we never do observe anything with respect to these reconstructions which would blatantly point to independent design.)

so if i will test about several genes\proteins and check their phylogeny, i will get the same tree by another several genes\proteins? is that your prediction? if not: where is the limit that you will agree that those genes point to an independent design?

 

[xianghua]

Evolution says the same thing. We have known for a long time that life originated billions of years ago in water. Of course, if you actually read Genesis 1:21 you would see that it says nothing like your claim.

By the way, the Theory of Evolution does not deny the existence of G-d. In fact, it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of G-d.

but according to the bible the sequence of creations is different from evolution theory. also remember that evolution is basically a natural process. so if evolution is true then we basically dont need a designer to explain nature exsitence.

 

[Astrophile]

but according to the bible the sequence of creations is different from evolution theory.

That's merely an error in the details; it doesn't disprove the existence of God.

also remember that evolution is basically a natural process. so if evolution is true then we basically don't need a designer to explain nature exsitence.

Did you personally come into existence by a natural process, or did God design and create you?