Some Refreshing Humor for YECS

[Freedom777]

Hi all young earth creationist both gals and guys this link is to a very funny analogy of evolutioary thinking in action. It's called The evolution of Television.Hope you enjoy it as much as i did.
P.S If you believe in evolution than don't click the link as you may become offended.http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i1f.htm

 

[notto]

This is called a strawman. If you think that this is a valid analogy to evolutionary thinking in biology, then you have a poor understanding of evolution and thinking in general.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Can you tell me how this thread is supposed to stimulate discussion?

The straw man argument makes up false information or a false analogy, and then proceeds to destroy the false information instead of directly addressing an argument.
This type of talk sounds like a clanging symbol to the one whose belief that you are challenging. See 1Corinthians13.

The line of thought that I have not seen addressed is, does evolution really require mutation and natural selection to take place? Where is the evidence that God did not preprogram His creation to evolve with succeeding generations? The more research I see in the genetic area shows a lot more similarities between species than differences.
Hmmm

 

[Freedom777]

Can you tell me how this thread is supposed to stimulate discussion?

The straw man argument makes up false information or a false analogy, and then proceeds to destroy the false information instead of directly addressing an argument.
This type of talk sounds like a clanging symbol to the one whose belief that you are challenging. See 1Corinthians13.

The line of thought that I have not seen addressed is, does evolution really require mutation and natural selection to take place? Where is the evidence that God did not preprogram His creation to evolve with succeeding generations? The more research I see in the genetic area shows a lot more similarities between species than differences.
Hmmm

Natural selection and mutation through natural means does not produce the kind of change that the evolutionist would have you believe ,that is one basic species turning into an all together different kind of animal.Natural selection and mutations can only work on the gene pool that it already has.Evolutionists would like you to believe that a person walking across the street and a person walking across the state is the same as micro and macro evolution.But that is not the evidence that is observed in nature or genetics,What creationists are trying to show people is that Micro evolution and macro evolution is more like a person walking across the street and a person flying across the ocean, two totally different mechanisms are involved.Micro evolution is science Macro Evolution is faith.At the begining when God created the different kinds each kind had a vast amount of genes in the pool of each kind and through natural selection and mutations which is a the mixing and lose of information came the rise of different species within a kind,instead of evolving into higher life forms which is what evolution says, the intire universe,the whole world, the animal kingdom and the human race is devolving.Becuase sin entered the world.At some point each species is eventually going to bottom out or empty the gene pool and this is what i believe to be one reason that things go extinct.

Last thing i would like to very much agree with Notto in that Creationists and Evolutioists do indeed have a very different way of thinking.And that is why there is a lot of confusion between us.

This is one of the best examples i've seen regarding Macro and micro evolution that i think most people can understand in laymens terms.http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

 

[notto]

All of the physical processes and mechanisms used in the modern theory of evolution have been observed, documented, and examined.

There is no physical barrier between macro and micro evolution except speciation which has been observed.

You are simply adding another strawman on top of the one in your opening post.

I would encourage you to actually read a good biology book or another book on evolution so that you have a basic understanding of what it is you are trying to defeat. You might start with Origins. It is a fascinating read.

You state that the evidence is not found, yet evolution is one of the most researched models out there and it has not been falsified. New research on evolution is being done every day.

You are simply asserting things that are not true.

The first paragraph of your link is incorrect. This should cause you to re-evaluate your sources.

" Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird. It is argued by evolutionists that given enough time, the small changes caused by microevolution can add up to big enough changes to create entirely new species. Although this argument may seem reasonable on the surface, closer examination shows that it must be false."

Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. There is no barrier to evolution that stops it from creating new species.

The only thing that is mythical in this discussion is the supposed barrier between 'kinds'. Until the mechanism that would cause this barrier is determined (which it has not), it is simply not warrented to state that it exists. Of course, this would also depend on a testable and repeatable definition of kind other that 'that which has not been observed and that which evolution can't do'.

New genes HAVE come about through mutation and natural selection. There are many mechanisms that can do this. Entire chromosomes can be duplicated and then passed on through the population. This occurs in plants ALL THE TIME. Do some reading on Polyploidy.

 

[Freedom777]

" Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird. It is argued by evolutionists that given enough time, the small changes caused by microevolution can add up to big enough changes to create entirely new species. Although this argument may seem reasonable on the surface, closer examination shows that it must be false."

.

Sorry, but you changed the paragraph to make it a lie. The bold writing is suppoused to read "can add up to big enough changes to create entirely new kinds." Don't be deceptive.

 

[notto]

Sorry, but you changed the paragraph to make it a lie. The bold writing is suppoused to read "can add up to big enough changes to create entirely new kinds." Don't be deceptive.

Nope, it is a direct quote from the page you linked to. I'm not being deceptive.

 

[daveleau]

Nice link. Thanks. I have to agree a little on the strawman idea, but only a little. It is like the story of the two scientists who are best friends and neighbors, one Christian and one an atheist evolutionist. The Christian tries to convert the atheist to the truth, but the atheist won't have it, even after repeated attempts and proofs. Finally the Christian orders an extremely detailed wooden carved and stained globe of the earth. The detail is so incredible when it finally is delivered and the Christian calls the atheist over to see it. The atheist walks in and notices it immediately. "Outstanding!" says the atheist" Where'd it come from? Who made it?" "No one" said the Christian. "But what do you mean?" said the atheist. "No one made it, it just is there. ...Kind of like the people on earth." The atheist saw the folly in this and the lesson meant by it, and opened his heart to the truth.

 

[daveleau]

Funny link. Thanks. (original post)

New genes HAVE come about through mutation and natural selection. There are many mechanisms that can do this. Entire chromosomes can be duplicated and then passed on through the population. This occurs in plants ALL THE TIME. Do some reading on Polyploidy.

Yes, it does happen in plants, but if it happens in animals it causes death shortly after birth. There is only one instance of a mammalian polyploid that survived thsi mutation. If you are going to tell someone to do some reading, please don't give them false impressions before hand. Anyway, polyploidy errors are not a prime vehicle for mutation. Much smaller mutations are extremely common in all DNA. Inversion, translocation, deletion, insertion are most of these. It is highly unlikely that such mutations could cause enough change that a rat could grow longer legs and become a monkey (genetically similar). While there are a few observations that show that this sort of evolution could be remotely possible, there is absolutely no proof that this has ever occurred. The real strawman in the theory of evolution.

 

[Freedom777]

There is no physical barrier between macro and micro evolution except speciation which has been observed.
Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. There is no barrier to evolution that stops it from creating new species.

These two sentences are a great example of much of the confusion between Creationists and Evolutionists.

It's obvious that until we both share a common ground on what Species(a common definition we can agree on) is,than there is no point in descussing any thing concerning biology or genetics. At least in a sense of showing if the evidence supports one of the other. This is where we but heads much of the time. Arguing and charactor assasination does not produce anything of use to science.

Species needs to be understood. Otherwise will never be able to debate correctly.I'm sure you will find this link,at the very least, interesting. It's called The Species Problem. I believe it will help us to be able to better confront lots of confusion that, just keeps getting repeated over and over but never leading anywhere. And not much of a help for either side. http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i6f.htm

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

If an undergrad presented that as an essay, he'd fail.

Why? Because of the conclusions? No.

Because the reference section is pitiful - two papers? No contrasting of the views of authorities is done. There are other assertions made in the paper that are not referenced nor supported in any other way.

3/10. Danger of failing the module.

 

[notto]

Funny link. Thanks. (original post)


Yes, it does happen in plants, but if it happens in animals it causes death shortly after birth. There is only one instance of a mammalian polyploid that survived thsi mutation. If you are going to tell someone to do some reading, please don't give them false impressions before hand. Anyway, polyploidy errors are not a prime vehicle for mutation. Much smaller mutations are extremely common in all DNA. Inversion, translocation, deletion, insertion are most of these. It is highly unlikely that such mutations could cause enough change that a rat could grow longer legs and become a monkey (genetically similar). While there are a few observations that show that this sort of evolution could be remotely possible, there is absolutely no proof that this has ever occurred. The real strawman in the theory of evolution.

So we now have a method of speciation and variation in plants that can add information. Of course, they are still the 'plant' kind, right?. This is the problem. No solid definition of kind. It would need to be observable in the plant kingdom (as was as microorganisms) as well. This is not the case.

There is evidence that this has happened in animals.
http://www.intl-pag.org/pag/8/abstracts/pag8374.html

Define 'highly unlikely' and why do you state this? I think observation shows us that this is highly possible and probably and based on the evidence of life on earth we find, mutation plus natural selection is the only game in town that can explain the evidence and it just convieniently seems to be supported by multiple independent lines of evidence.

Perhaps Freedom should research Inversion, translocation, deletion, insertion and explain why these are not adding information and why they cannot cause speciation and over successive speciations that are being acted on by natural selection, lead to the diversity of life we see on the planet.

 

[myutmost4him]

There is evidence that this has happened in animals.
http://www.intl-pag.org/pag/8/abstracts/pag8374.html

POLYPLOIDY IN MAMMALS: THE FIRST EVIDENCE OF A TETRAPLOID RODENT

MILTON HERMES GALLARDO


[size=-1]Instituto de Ecología y Evolución, Universidad austral de Chile, Casilla 567, Valdivia, CHILE
[/size]

Karyotypic and genome-size data provide strong evidence for the first known polyploid mammal, the rodent Tympanoctomys barrerae (Hystricognathi, Octodontidae) from Argentina. This desert specialist has a totally biarmed, 102-chromosome karyotype with pericentromeric heterochromatin and a XY sex determination system. The genome size of T. barrerae is 16.8 pg DNA, doubling the estimates of all other octodontids, and strikingly contrasting with the 6-9 pg DNA recorded for the hystricognath rodents, and for most mammals. The exceedingly large sperm head of T. barrerae and its gametic genome size (9.2 pg DNA) agree with somatic data. Consistent with the fact that polyploidy is expected to increase cell size, exceedingly large liver cells as compared to allied taxa were also recorded. Since diploid number is not exactly twice that of any closely related species living today, chromosome elimination (i.e., in the sex-chromosomes and in the pair with the secondary constriction) is presumed to have occurred during the evolution of this lineage. Although polyploidy in animals is believed to disrupt the balance of X chromosome relative to gene products normally maintained by dosage compensation, disomy for the sex chromosomes in T. barrerae is thought to be either sufficient or the only possibility for a functional tetraploid eutherian to exist. Since fertility barriers likely isolated this tetraploid lineage from its ancestors, instantaneous speciation, although rare is possible in mammals, and a role for doubling series variation in genome size to trigger evolutionary novelties is suggested by this unique tetraploid rodent. Funded by Fondecyt 1970710 and the Fulbright Commission.

Here's some quality science...a "presumed", "believed", "thought to be", and a "likely" followed by a statement of fact (which also contains a "suggested")
I find this typical of evolution "science"... don't you read these first before posting them?

 

[myutmost4him]

Perhaps Freedom should research Inversion, translocation, deletion, insertion and explain why these are not adding information and why they cannot cause speciation and over successive speciations that are being acted on by natural selection, lead to the diversity of life we see on the planet.

Inversion, translocation, deletion, insertion are all examples of mutations which use existing information, there is no new information being added or should I say "created"? Do you have evidence of new information being added by way of the above methods? (Please read your quotes first) because what I mean here is adding information...not moving it or deleting, shuffling, ect.

 

[Freedom777]

Inversion, translocation, deletion, insertion are all examples of mutations which use existing information, there is no new information being added or should I say "created"? Do you have evidence of new information being added by way of the above methods? (Please read your quotes first) because what I mean here is adding information...not moving it or deleting, shuffling, ect.

Amen! And thanks

 

[notto]

Inversion, translocation, deletion, insertion are all examples of mutations which use existing information, there is no new information being added or should I say "created"? Do you have evidence of new information being added by way of the above methods? (Please read your quotes first) because what I mean here is adding information...not moving it or deleting, shuffling, ect.

The genome can increase in size. This has been documented.

Insertions and duplications add information. Shuffling adds information.

Anytime the genome changes, information is added because of new combinations.

This again shows an issue that needs to be resolved. For your statements to be testable, you need to define 'information' and provide a method to measure it. What do you mean by 'existing information'? How do you measure it? What defines a byte of information? Why doesn't insertion and duplication increase this amount of information?

 

[notto]

Here's some quality science...a "presumed", "believed", "thought to be", and a "likely" followed by a statement of fact (which also contains a "suggested")
I find this typical of evolution "science"... don't you read these first before posting them?

Those words in context address the hypothesized implications of the discovery, not the discovery itself.

How else do you suggest that hypothesis' are stated?

I think you will find this typical of all science.

 

[JunkYardFrog]

The real strawman in the theory of evolution.

That's why I call it the evolution hypothesis.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

All of the physical processes and mechanisms used in the modern theory of evolution have been observed, documented, and examined.

There is no physical barrier between macro and micro evolution except speciation which has been observed.

You are simply adding another strawman on top of the one in your opening post.

I would encourage you to actually read a good biology book or another book on evolution so that you have a basic understanding of what it is you are trying to defeat. You might start with Origins. It is a fascinating read.

You state that the evidence is not found, yet evolution is one of the most researched models out there and it has not been falsified. New research on evolution is being done every day.

You are simply asserting things that are not true.

The first paragraph of your link is incorrect. This should cause you to re-evaluate your sources.

" Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird. It is argued by evolutionists that given enough time, the small changes caused by microevolution can add up to big enough changes to create entirely new species. Although this argument may seem reasonable on the surface, closer examination shows that it must be false."

Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. There is no barrier to evolution that stops it from creating new species.

The only thing that is mythical in this discussion is the supposed barrier between 'kinds'. Until the mechanism that would cause this barrier is determined (which it has not), it is simply not warrented to state that it exists. Of course, this would also depend on a testable and repeatable definition of kind other that 'that which has not been observed and that which evolution can't do'.

New genes HAVE come about through mutation and natural selection. There are many mechanisms that can do this. Entire chromosomes can be duplicated and then passed on through the population. This occurs in plants ALL THE TIME. Do some reading on Polyploidy.

as an answer to

Natural selection and mutation through natural means does not produce the kind of change that the evolutionist would have you believe ,that is one basic species turning into an all together different kind of animal.Natural selection and mutations can only work on the gene pool that it already has.

polyploidy in domesticated plants is the best.
thanks for the very good recommendation.

 

[ps139]

That was hilarious! Thanks for the link~