The Creationist Explanaton

[mark kennedy]

I stated my views on the matter earlier in this thread: here

Your an unusual guy Steve, appreciate your candor. It comes as no surprise that you understand the implications but my experience is there is an over reliance on naturalistic explanation. You know I have issues with brain evolution and the molecular basis. Natural selection is more of a clutch phrase then an explanation in that regard. It clearly doesn't explain everything, it's going to take an effective cause to get that effect.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

I suppose it's difficult to prove that they are wrong.

It's impossible to do so scientifically. The problem is, they are trying to prove that they are right, which is a different kettle of fish.

 

[xianghua]

Sure they do. Or rather, replication with change combined with a selection process creates new information all the time. In fact, you'd be dead if replication with change followed by selection didn't create new information.

i think that by new information he mean a complex new trait like a new organ, and he right about that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No it didn't and I know that because DNA doesn't respond well to changes. Adding time doesn't negate the need for functionality. If you want to understand adaptive evolution you have to learn how the genome works which requires a fair amount of study.

I'm pretty sure geneticists are aware of how DNA works.

It generally a good idea not to start with all consuming assumptions

Says the creationist. Irony.

 

[DogmaHunter]

here is what prof dawkins have to say about that: "Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose."

It sounds like you don't understand what the word "appearance" means.

are you also aware that most biologists believe in higher power?

And evolution by natural selection.

if its a fact please provide a fact to support this claim.

DNA.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheists need to falsify an intelligent designer

Not anymore then you needing to falsify Thor as the creator of thunder.

, not just refuse to consider because they do not like it.

It's rejected because a total lack of supportive evidence and testability.

 

[xianghua]

Perhaps so. But then that would make it undeniably true to creationists, yes? Just leaving the IDer's who won't acknowledge that ID and creationism are the same thing.

to sum up the main evolutionery argument: this car isnt evidence for design since its wheels shape is different from other cars (just like the whale tail is different):

(image from wiki)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

to sum up the main evolutionery argument: this car isnt evidence for design since its wheels shape is different from other cars (just like the whale tail is different):

(image from wiki)

YOU CAN'T USE CARS TO ARGUE AGAINST EVOLUTION BECAUSE CARS AREN'T BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS!!!! YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN!

 

[DogmaHunter]

to sum up the main evolutionery argument: this car isnt evidence for design since its wheels shape is different from other cars (just like the whale tail is different):

(image from wiki)

You mean, to sum up your twisted version of the "main evolutionary argument"

 

[AV1611VET]

YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN!

BY A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

BY A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM!

... that's just not even a joke.

 

[AV1611VET]

... that's just not even a joke.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm pretty sure geneticists are aware of how DNA works.



Says the creationist. Irony.

Of course they are, they must be aware of the limits beyond which genomes can not evolve. Diversity in all its vast array has internal molecular mechanisms, most of which are highly constrained and protect the code from random mutations. Sure, the genome isn't static, but requires stasis, that's just how living systems work. But highly conserved genes that are involved with vital functions and organs like the brain do not respond well to changes. Unless or untill there is a molecular mechanism identified, capable of operating with relaxed functional constraint, Darwinian natural selection can be dismissed as hyperbole.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course they are, they must be aware of the limits beyond which genomes can not evolve. Diversity in all its vast array has internal molecular mechanisms, most of which are highly constrained and protect the code from random mutations.

FYI: every newborn human as an average of about 50 mutations in his/her DNA.

Sure, the genome isn't static, but requires stasis, that's just how living systems work. But highly conserved genes that are involved with vital functions and organs like the brain do not respond well to changes. Unless or untill there is a molecular mechanism identified, capable of operating with relaxed functional constraint, Darwinian natural selection can be dismissed as hyperbole.

lol

I love how you pretend to know better then actual geneticists.

 

[mark kennedy]

FYI: every newborn human as an average of about 50 mutations in his/her DNA.

I think the number is closer to 70, when they have an effect they are deleterious the vast majority of the time. That's not an effective cause for adaptive evolution, just for your information.

lol

I love how you pretend to know better then actual geneticists.

I never said that and you are no geneticists. What's more you have expressed no opinion based on genetics so a pedantic generality doesn't impress me very much.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think the number is closer to 70, when they have an effect they are deleterious the vast majority of the time. That's not an effective cause for adaptive evolution, just for your information.

Here are just 2 examples for your information:

High-altitude adaptation in humans - Wikipedia

The underlying molecular evolution of high-altitude adaptation has been explored and understood fairly recently.[10] Depending on the geographical and environmental pressures, high-altitude adaptation involves different genetic patterns, some of which have evolved quite recently. For example, Tibetan adaptations became prevalent in the past 3,000 years, a rapid example of recent human evolution. At the turn of the 21st century, it was reported that the genetic make-up of the respiratory components of the Tibetan and the Ethiopian populations are significantly different.[46]


How Asia's Super Divers Evolved for a Life At Sea

Using blood samples collected from the same 59 Bajau villagers, she and her team compared their DNA to that of 34 Saluan individuals and 60 Han Chinese. They looked for genes with variants that are more common in the Bajau than in the other populations—a sign of natural selection at work. And they found several contenders.

I never said that

You implied it. You said that one must study the workings of DNA to understand how evolution is inadequate. Geneticists by consensus stand by evolution. Therefor that must mean that you think geneticists don't know what they are talking about.

And you think you do - since you are disagreeing with them. That necessarily must mean that you believe that they are wrong and you are correct.

No?

and you are no geneticists

Indeed I'm not and I wouldn't have the odacity to pretend to know better then them either.

What's more you have expressed no opinion based on genetics so a pedantic generality doesn't impress me very much.

My opinion is that the conclusions drawn from rigourous scientific study, are more valueable then the opinions of a random internet creationist or indeed any religious lore that you can think of.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here are just 2 examples for your information:

High-altitude adaptation in humans - Wikipedia

The underlying molecular evolution of high-altitude adaptation has been explored and understood fairly recently.[10] Depending on the geographical and environmental pressures, high-altitude adaptation involves different genetic patterns, some of which have evolved quite recently. For example, Tibetan adaptations became prevalent in the past 3,000 years, a rapid example of recent human evolution. At the turn of the 21st century, it was reported that the genetic make-up of the respiratory components of the Tibetan and the Ethiopian populations are significantly different.[46]


How Asia's Super Divers Evolved for a Life At Sea

Using blood samples collected from the same 59 Bajau villagers, she and her team compared their DNA to that of 34 Saluan individuals and 60 Han Chinese. They looked for genes with variants that are more common in the Bajau than in the other populations—a sign of natural selection at work. And they found several contenders.

All I seen there were modifications, one was just an SNP. These are normal variation, it's not the same as major morphological change.

You implied it. You said that one must study the workings of DNA to understand how evolution is inadequate. Geneticists by consensus stand by evolution. Therefor that must mean that you think geneticists don't know what they are talking about.

I never implied any such thing, the range and limits of adaptive evolution remains an open question. An adaptive trait from normative adaptation doesn't equivocated with major morphogical change.

And you think you do - since you are disagreeing with them. That necessarily must mean that you believe that they are wrong and you are correct.

No?




Indeed I'm not and I wouldn't have the odacity to pretend to know better then them either.




My opinion is that the conclusions drawn from rigourous scientific study, are more valueable then the opinions of a random internet creationist or indeed any religious lore that you can think of.

Im not chasing this through the ad hominem fallacies you inevitable will resort to. Genetics has become a fascination of mine, darwinians false assumptions aside I thouroghly enjoy exploring their work. I dont dismiss their empirical discoveries, I reject the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry whether its embraced by an accomplished geneticist or unread laymen. Mainly because its supported by anecdotal evidence that never addresses the core issue of major over hauls of highly conserved genes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All I seen there were modifications, one was just an SNP. These are normal variation, it's not the same as major morphological change.

That's because "major morphological change" takes "major time" to take place through the gradual accumulation of small "modifications" over many generations.

I never implied any such thing,

I invite anyone, including you, to go back and read posts #493 and #294

the range and limits of adaptive evolution remains an open question. An adaptive trait from normative adaptation doesn't equivocated with major morphogical change.

Yea… evolution doesn't work like that. Big change is the result of accumulation of small change. Big change doesn't happen overnight.

Im not chasing this through the ad hominem fallacies you inevitable will resort to. Genetics has become a fascination of mine, darwinians false assumptions aside I thouroghly enjoy exploring their work. I dont dismiss their empirical discoveries, I reject the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry whether its embraced by an accomplished geneticist or unread laymen. Mainly because its supported by anecdotal evidence that never addresses the core issue of major over hauls of highly conserved genes.

What you call "assumptions" here, are actually conclusions.

 

[Speedwell]

I reject the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry whether its embraced by an accomplished geneticist or unread laymen. Mainly because its supported by anecdotal evidence that never addresses the core issue of major over hauls of highly conserved genes.

How can universal common ancestry be regarded as an "a priori" assumption if it is, as you just stated, an inference from evidence (even if you regard the evidence as inadequate)? There's a fault in your logic in there somewhere.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's because "major morphological change" takes "major time" to take place through the gradual accumulation of small "modifications" over many generations.

No, it requires an actual means.

I invite anyone, including you, to go back and read posts #493 and #294

I invite you to learn the specifics related to the molecular mechanisms involved in adaptive evolution.

Yea… evolution doesn't work like that. Big change is the result of accumulation of small change. Big change doesn't happen overnight.

The molecular basis has to be the efficient cause, the rest is rhetoric signifying nothing.

What you call "assumptions" here, are actually conclusions.

No, it's a foregone conclusion all evidence is organized around, Ive always known that. Otherwise the arguments would not be inevitably pedantic, anecdotal and ad hominem.