proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Almost there]

No - they will force you to conform or be subject to discrimination at the very least.

Yep, that happens. And when it does, they are violating Jesus' commandments, unless the person is a member of the church.

 

[Almost there]

Providing one approaches biology and biochemistry as a non-biologist, non-biochemist, and one who ascribes that they do not understand to their preferred deity.

I think you worship science way too much. It is a useful tool, but remember, we are modern in our understanding and knowledge. And at their time, ALL scientists were "modern" in their understanding and knowledge.

You don't know what you don't know.

 

[Almost there]

Yes.



Not even close.




Show this.

Argument from awe?

Argument from observation, which is a part of the scientific method.

 

[Almost there]

How?

How is 'complexity' evidence of 'design'?

I no longer respect your opinion on this subject.

Of education, knowledge and wisdom, the greatest is wisdom and the least is education.

All you've proven to me is that you have education. Awesome!

 

[Almost there]

Absurd analogy.

NO biologist would ever consider that a spacecraft 'evolved.'

Why do so many creationists rely on these simple-minded, silly "analogies" that no sensible person accepts as valid?



Argument from awe.

Jesus used simple parables quite effectively. I use analogies quite effectively. I know. I use them in my line of work going on 35 years now. People rave about them. The people that don't like them always have the following two attributes:
1. They are on the internet.
2. They simply do not agree with the point I'm trying to make with the analogy.

I've gotten quite used to that response when dealing with leftists, AGW proponents and evolution True Believers. It is to be expected.

 

[xianghua]

The papers don't consider that data as evidence against evolution.

of course. they believe in evolution anyway. i never said otherwise. i gave this evidence to prove that there is no realy nested hierarchy in nature. this is a false claim.

Which is the opposite of considering it evidence against evolution. Violation of nested hierarchies, would be evidence against evolution.

and this is exactly what we found:

you can see the distribution of the "alx3" gene. its clearly non hierarchical and the author try so "solve" this by convergent loss.

(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...lx-homeobox-genes-in-chordate-evolution-After)

 

[Speedwell]

Jesus used simple parables quite effectively. I use analogies quite effectively. I know. I use them in my line of work going on 35 years now. People rave about them. The people that don't like them always have the following two attributes:
1. They are on the internet.
2. They simply do not agree with the point I'm trying to make with the analogy.

I've gotten quite used to that response when dealing with leftists, AGW proponents and evolution True Believers. It is to be expected.

I like the way that you lumped all three into one grand stereotype.

 

[Jimmy D]

This is a Christian forum site. If I want to get into this stuff I don't do it here.

No problem. However, if you're not prepared to offer any evidence for your assertions they just sound like empty rhetoric and not in the least convincing.

 

[Almost there]

I like the way that you lumped all three into one grand stereotype.

It's not a stereotype. It is an axiom.

 

[Almost there]

No problem. However, if you're not prepared to offer any evidence for your assertions they just sound like empty rhetoric and not in the least convincing.

Yes. I agree. I'm new here and getting a feel for the other members and what and how they want to discuss this stuff. I actually had no intention of going beyond the specifically Christian threads and just threw something in here and got intellectually sucked in.

I intentionally avoid the political stuff too, but that is my REAL weakness, so it was easier to avoid. You guys have fun!

 

[PsychoSarah]

this is another interesting question. how many mutations required to evolve a minimal feather from a scale?

Depends on how you define "minimal feather", I suppose.

someone can test such a change?

Somewhat. If we genetically sequenced every bird and every organism that has scales, we could figure out the minimum amount of mutations between scales and modern feathers. However, it is uncertain if any modern bird has what would be considered "minimal feathers", so it'd err on the high side for mutation.

even if we are talking about a single gene (actually much more) we are dealing with about 4^1000 different possible combinations. so what is the chance that those 2 traits are near each other in that huge sequence space?

-_- why would all the genes pertaining to feathers need to be near each other? Generally speaking, it is exceedingly uncommon for all the genes relating to a specific function or structure to be physically close together in the genome. Not uncommon for a few to be by each other, mind you, but very uncommon for them all to be close together.

 

[Speedwell]

It's not a stereotype. It is an axiom.

LOL!

 

[tas8831]

Yep, that happens. And when it does, they are violating Jesus' commandments, unless the person is a member of the church.

And that matters how?

The people doing the oppressing insist that they are doing God's work. Look at the moves the current administration is making...

 

[Speedwell]

And that matters how?

The people doing the oppressing insist that they are doing God's work. Look at the moves the current administration is making...

Och, aye laddie. No true scotsmen, they.

 

[tas8831]

we also need to include the evidence against this tree:

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

That is not actually evidence. Did you read it?

www.newscientist.com/letter/mg20126961-200-darwin-was-right/]Darwin was right

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution

"This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong."

"“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”."

Ah, microRNA genes.

But not protein coding genes. Or noncoding DNA. Or pseudogenes. And the "traditional tree" he is referring to - let me ask - did you even read the article?
And did you bother to go beyond your keyword search?

Funny thing - I googled the author, and this popped up:



Flaws emerge in RNA method to build tree of life
Study finds problems with alluringly simple way to tease out evolutionary relationships through microRNA.

"It is not clear whether Peterson's groups did not notice the loss of the microRNAs over evolutionary time, or just didn't report it, says Thomson.

Thomson’s team also found other problems with the earlier studies, which had to do with the researchers' raw data. Many of the microRNAs that had been presumed absent, were in fact present in the animals, but missed by the original researchers. For example, in the case of the turtle study, Peterson’s team had searched for microRNAs in RNA extracted from cells, rather than by sifting through the turtle genome — which was not available when they did the study. The discrepancy likely results from the fact that some pieces of RNA are only expressed at particular moments in an animal’s lifetime, whereas genes in the genome are steady.

Peterson could not be reached by Nature for comment, but Erik Sperling, a palaeobiologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, who was Peterson's co-author on some of the microRNA analyses2, 5, agrees with Thomson's conclusion that microRNAs cannot alone unveil species relationships. "MicroRNAs are not the panacea we perhaps originally hoped,” he says."





Amazing what one can find when one wants to.
Uh oh!

 

[Almost there]

And that matters how?

The people doing the oppressing insist that they are doing God's work. Look at the moves the current administration is making...

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about in that last paragraph. Regarding the first one, I was responding to your post. You are the one it seemed to matter to.

Christians are specifically told to not hang around members who do stuff like get drunk, sleep around, etc. But they are NOT to apply that to the world outside the church. Paul is very specific in I Cor 5:

9 When I wrote to you before I said not to mix with evil people. 10 But when I said that I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who live in sexual sin or are greedy cheats and thieves and idol worshipers. For you can’t live in this world without being with people like that. 11 What I meant was that you are not to keep company with anyone who claims to be a brother Christian but indulges in sexual sins, or is greedy, or is a swindler, or worships idols, or is a drunkard, or abusive. Don’t even eat lunch with such a person.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes. I agree. I'm new here and getting a feel for the other members and what and how they want to discuss this stuff. I actually had no intention of going beyond the specifically Christian threads and just threw something in here and got intellectually sucked in.

I intentionally avoid the political stuff too, but that is my REAL weakness, so it was easier to avoid. You guys have fun!

Well, on this part of the site, you will be asked to provide evidence for your claims and people with give rebuttals to the same. If this is uncomfortable, maybe another part of the site is better suited for you.

 

[Almost there]

Well, on this part of the site, you will be asked to provide evidence for your claims and people with give rebuttals to the same. If this is uncomfortable, maybe another part of the site is better suited for you.

Absolutely. Though it is not a comfort issue. It is a time management issue.

 

[DogmaHunter]

can you give a specific empirical evidence for evolution (not variation)? thanks.

We share ERV's with chimps.
That, in and of itself, is already smoking gun evidence.

When 2 creatures share identical ERV's, it means they share an ancestor that had the initial infection and passed it on to off spring..

no.

Yes.
This is why every creationist is a theist.

In contrast, people who accept evolution come in all flavors. Deist, atheist, theist, ... doesn't matter. Because empirical evidence is not culture based.

creation (i dont speak about the bible now but any creation event in general) is base on scientific evidence, as you can see here:

the self replicating watch argument

Poor analogies are not scientific evidence.

Also, if there would be actual scientific evidence, you could just link the scientific papers. Instead, you're linking to thread on this very forum. Hilarious, isn't it?

 

[tas8831]

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about in that last paragraph. Regarding the first one, I was responding to your post. You are the one it seemed to matter to.

Christians are specifically told to not hang around members who do stuff like get drunk, sleep around, etc. But they are NOT to apply that to the world outside the church. Paul is very specific in I Cor 5:

9 When I wrote to you before I said not to mix with evil people. 10 But when I said that I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who live in sexual sin or are greedy cheats and thieves and idol worshipers. For you can’t live in this world without being with people like that. 11 What I meant was that you are not to keep company with anyone who claims to be a brother Christian but indulges in sexual sins, or is greedy, or is a swindler, or worships idols, or is a drunkard, or abusive. Don’t even eat lunch with such a person.

And you just answered your own question.