The light of evolution: What would be lost

Loudmouth · Jul 1, 2015

justlookinla said:
Hopefully, those lurking the board will see that the claim that bacterial flagellum is the result of Darwinist evolution is a completely baseless claim by you and others.

I don't know of any well evidence evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum. Now what?

Where is your evidence that it came about through intelligent design?

justlookinla · Jul 1, 2015

Loudmouth said:
I don't know of any well evidence evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum. Now what?

Yet you claim you have evidence. Make up your mind

Where is your evidence that it came about through intelligent design?

Elements of design. (See the 100 pages of tactile sensory unit discussion)

MikeEnders · Jul 1, 2015

Loudmouth said:
References? All life is related, so how could there be an unrelated species?

lol You think your opponent should assume your position as a given? thats illogical. However what was meant is that we have similar genes across species that could not have been a result of inheritance because they are not closely related.

Now as I have before reminded you of - you are not on talk origins. You can demand nothing especially while yourself provide no references for your own claims. Why don't you just go ahead and deny it so I can show you wrong? I know your type of debater too well. You won't put yourself out on the line so that you can fudge your way around the evidence of what you are calling into question should you be wrong. You question what I am stating ? then say so honestly.

throughout this thread I have raised several issues with no answers from any of you. Again you are not on an atheist or Darwin site. You make no more demands without first answering some. One thread today has already been locked today because against the rules you tried to make the thread into a general apologetic thread rather than a two way discussion

Loudmouth · Jul 1, 2015

justlookinla said:
Yet you claim you have evidence.

I have evidence that natural processes can produce systems with complexity, function, and purpose which falsifies your claim that these features can only come about through intelligent design.

Elements of design.

Those elements are found in river systems that are produced by natural processes, so they aren't elements of intelligent design.

Loudmouth · Jul 1, 2015

MikeEnders said:
lol You think your opponent should assume your position as a given? thats illogical.

Since you are arguing that evidence falsifies evolution, you would need to show how the evidence is inconsistent with the theory.

However what was meant is that we have similar genes across species that could not have been a result of inheritance because they are not closely related.

Such as?

Now as I have before reminded you of - you are not on talk origins. You can demand nothing especially while yourself provide no references for your own claims.

Which claims would you like references for? I would be happy to supply them.

throughout this thread I have raised several issues with no answers from any of you. Again you are not on an atheist or Darwin site. You make no more demands without first answering some. One thread today has already been locked today because against the rules you tried to make the thread into a general apologetic thread rather than a two way discussion

If you can't support your claims, don't make them.

justlookinla · Jul 1, 2015

Loudmouth said:
I have evidence that natural processes can produce systems with complexity, function, and purpose which falsifies your claim that these features can only come about through intelligent design.

You have no evidence, based on the scientific method, that only naturalistic processes created bacterial flagellum or tactile sensory units or any of the other many examples of design seen in the human body.

Those elements are found in river systems that are produced by natural processes, so they aren't elements of intelligent design.

Of course you're going to continue your attempt to change the focus from the total lack of evidence that humanity was created by Darwinist evolution.

Loudmouth · Jul 1, 2015

justlookinla said:
You have no evidence, based on the scientific method, that only naturalistic processes created bacterial flagellum or tactile sensory units or any of the other many examples of design seen in the human body.

I have evidence of natural processes producing complex systems with both function and purpose. This means that they are not elements of design.

juvenissun · Jul 1, 2015

sfs said:
The criterion is, the closer the genetic relationship, the better the choice.

Now, here is the argument:

You choose chimp to contrast human because chimp has the most similar genome to human. Pay attention here: It is NOT because chimp and human have any evolutional relationship (common ancestor). So. this is NOT an application of evolution principle. It is simply a simple logic. We do not need to check DNA to see chimp is an animal most similar to human. A child can see that. If you do not recognize chimp and human have a common ancestor, you STILL CAN use the same method in your study.

So, honestly speaking, is the idea of common ancestry between chimp and human REALLY NEEDED for your study? If so, why?

justlookinla · Jul 1, 2015

Loudmouth said:
I have evidence of natural processes producing complex systems with both function and purpose. This means that they are not elements of design.

You do not have evidence of natural processes, based on the scientific method, producing bacterial flagellum, tactile sensory units or a myriad of other complex, functional and purposeful creations in the human body from a single life form.

MikeEnders · Jul 1, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Was it microevolution? How did you determine that it was a recently created allele instead of an already existing ancestral allele that goes way back?

LOL...thats your burden of proof. Its your side presenting it as evidence. If we don't know then you can't claim its macro either and its off the table for you to present as evidence.

sfs explained to you that it wasn't the key part to the breakthrough, and he showed you the methods and data from the study that supported his claim.

I don't care what SFS claims. He did nothing of the sort. The links I showed pointed point blank to human to human comparison being key. Unless you have fallen on your head you can't seriously believe that identifying the genes of humans who do not get sick though exposed is trumped by ancestral relationships to chimpanzees. You must be a complete neophyte to medical research that has shown repeatedly that real breakthroughs in medicine only really come to fruition when we find out what works in humans. We have been REPEATEDLY disappointed by things that work for other species that end up not working for humans. get a grip on reality.

Speaking of which I forgot to ask (not that its pivotal) has any practical treatment yet come from this study at all yet?

You wouldn't be able to determine if it was a recently evolved allele or and ancestral allele. That is the breakthrough.

People who are dying of cholera don't give a rip which one it is so knowing that is no practical application as was required by this thread

Loudmouth · Jul 1, 2015

justlookinla said:
You do not have evidence of natural processes, based on the scientific method, producing bacterial flagellum, tactile sensory units or a myriad of other complex, functional and purposeful creations in the human body from a single life form.

I do have evidence of natural processes producing all of those features in river systems. All I need is one example to disprove your claims.

justlookinla · Jul 1, 2015

Loudmouth said:
I do have evidence of natural processes producing all of those features in river systems. All I need is one example to disprove your claims.

Humanity.

Loudmouth · Jul 1, 2015

MikeEnders said:
LOL...thats your burden of proof. Its your side presenting it as evidence. If we don't know then you can't claim its macro either and its off the table for you to present as evidence.

Using macroevolution, we can determine which allele has the mutation and which allele is ancestral. That's the whole point. You can't do that with creationism.

I don't care what SFS claims. He did nothing of the sort. The links I showed pointed point blank to human to human comparison being key.

sfs showed how the comparison to chimps and macaques were key for determining the alleles that were experiencing positive selection.

Unless you have fallen on your head you can't seriously believe that identifying the genes of humans who do not get sick though exposed is trumped by ancestral relationships to chimpanzees.

You still don't understand what is being said. How do you know if the allele that the resistant humans have is recent or ancestral?

You must be a complete neophyte to medical research that has shown repeatedly that real breakthroughs in medicine only really come to fruition when we find out what works in humans. We have been REPEATEDLY disappointed by things that work for other species that end up not working for humans. get a grip on reality.

I never argued otherwise. Notice that you didn't address what I actually posted.

Speaking of which I forgot to ask (not that its pivotal) has any practical treatment yet come from this study at all yet?

Practical usages have been found for SIFTER, which you continue to ignore.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16217548

People who are dying of cholera don't give a rip which one it is so knowing that is no practical application as was required by this thread

The topic of the thread is not what dying people care about.

MikeEnders · Jul 1, 2015

Loudmouth said:
I have evidence of natural processes producing complex systems with both function and purpose. This means that they are not elements of design.

we'll we should all be glad we stuck around. Loud mouth will no doubt be a recipient of a nobel prize since he is now basically claiming he has either solved the origin of the universe or has successfully proven a model of abiogensis which works which no one has done before.

Well I mean we would be glad if it wasn't just his imaginary nobel prize work he is referring to

Loudmouth · Jul 1, 2015

justlookinla said:
Humanity.

Rivers.

Loudmouth · Jul 1, 2015

MikeEnders said:
we'll we should all be glad we stuck around. Loud mouth will no doubt be a recipient of a nobel prize since he is now basically claiming he has either solved the origin of the universe or has successfully proven a model of abiogensis which works which no one has done before.

Perhaps you should read what is actually in my posts instead of erecting strawmen.

Cearbhall · Jul 1, 2015

juvenissun said:
If I can understand what do the questions mean, I am 100% sure I can answer them with simple logic. There is NO scientific question which can not be answered with a simple logic. NO concept of evolution is needed.

So speciation happens without the existence of genetic mutations?

James Is Back · Jul 1, 2015

Mod Hat On

Thread closed for staff review

Mod Hat Off

James Is Back · Jul 2, 2015

Mod Hat On

Thread reopened and cleaned due to flaming so if your post is gone that is the reason or you quoted someone that did. I will remind everyone to address the post not the poster.

Mod Hat Off

sfs · Jul 2, 2015

juvenissun said:
You choose chimp to contrast human because chimp has the most similar genome to human.

Not really, because "similar" could mean all sorts of things. We choose the one that is most closely related, because their genome and ours used to be identical.

Pay attention here: It is NOT because chimp and human have any evolutional relationship (common ancestor). So. this is NOT an application of evolution principle. It is simply a simple logic. We do not need to check DNA to see chimp is an animal most similar to human. A child can see that.

You're assuming that similar animals have similar genomes. Why? There's nothing in creationism that requires that. In fact, genes doing identical things can be quite different at the DNA level. The only reason we originally sequenced the chimpanzee genome is because evolution told us their genomes should be very similar.

In fact, your criterion for choosing a comparison animal -- similarity that a child can see -- can go badly wrong. A child can see that the closest animal to this one

is something like this one:

Certainly a lot closer than something like this:

But if you follow that intuition, you'll be wrong. The whale is in fact a much better choice for a matching genome. That's because it's more closely related to the first animal, despite being very dissimilar. (Mind you, I've never actually compared these genomes. Consider this a prediction of evolution.)

However, it is true that, even not knowing any evolutionary biology, once you actually compared a bunch of genomes you'll discover that that chimpanzee genome is generally very similar to the human one. Does that tell you which variant is ancestral? Well, that depends. Where does most human genetic variation come from? In the creationist model, is it from differences among the chromosomes of Adam and Eve, or from subsequent mutation? It's impossible to say, since there is no creationist model of human genetics. I'm really not sure what to expect if evolution isn't true.

Nevertheless, it was just to be safe that I included my second application of common descent -- estimating the range over which mutation rates vary. Because that one makes no sense under a creationist model at all, whatever assumptions you make about where human variation comes from. I'm careful that way.

(First photo: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2nd: SunCoast Sugar Gliders. Both CC license.)

The light of evolution: What would be lost

Contributor

Regular Member

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Regular Member

Newbie

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

CF's Official Locksmith

CF's Official Locksmith

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency