What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Vap841]

So disappointing. If Sci-Fi (esp. Star Trek) has taught me anything, it's that advanced life on other planets would be (ape-like) mammals.

And they would also all speak English.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet Creationists keep feeling the need to lie and can never respond with positive evidence for their claims.

Maybe no evidence was generated?

If I can't give you physical evidence that Jesus walked on the sea of Galilee, and I say He did, is it because I'm feeling the need to lie?

 

[AV1611VET]

And they would also all speak English.

Evidently English is the universal language in Hollywood.

 

[Shemjaza]

Maybe no evidence was generated?

If I can't give you physical evidence that Jesus walked on the sea of Galilee, and I say He did, is it because I'm feeling the need to lie?

It's an explanation.

But I think it raises more questions than it answers.

There's no reason to assume there'd be physical evidence for Jesus walking on water, feeding the hungry or healing the sick.

Things like a recent creation of life and its even more recent near annihilation not only leaving no evidence, but miracles to install evidence of a completely different set of events including the remains of dead creates and people point to the kind of behavior not associated with the kind of deity Jesus is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet Creationists keep feeling the need to lie and can never respond with positive evidence for their claims.

Maybe no evidence was generated?

If I can't give you physical evidence that Jesus walked on the sea of Galilee, and I say He did, is it because I'm feeling the need to lie?

It's an explanation.

But I think it raises more questions than it answers.

Then maybe it's a good thing there isn't any evidence?

If the more evidence science gets, the more questions it raises, I'd hate to see scientists having more questions than answers.

 

[Shemjaza]

Then maybe it's a good thing there isn't any evidence?

If the more evidence science gets, the more questions it raises, I'd hate to see scientists having more questions than answers.

That's the thing, there is evidence for nature, but no evidence for miracles mimicking nature.

 

[Astrid]

If we ever hear an argument that is not a
distortion, exaggeration, misrepresentation,
outright lie, argument from ignorance, strawman,
etc etc we will be astonished and fascinated.

With God, truth, the Bible, and the
whole of the known universe on
the side of creationists, why do
they have such gsrbage arguments?

No actual scientist and no creationist
has ever come up with one fact contrary
to ToE.
Which accounts for all the silly videos
etc, a thin smokescreen to conceal
the fact that there isn't one fact
against evolution.
How creationists manage not to notice
that is an amazing phenomenon
of Nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the thing, there is evidence for nature, but no evidence for miracles mimicking nature.

Aren't you glad? do you think science could handle the information overload?

 

[Shemjaza]

Aren't you glad? do you think science could handle the information overload?

No, it'd be terrifying, but a world of the supernatural, with souls and miracles world be pretty amazing.

My problem is that the way I look at things I go with "What am I convinced is true." not "What do I wish was true."

 

[o_mlly]

Well that doesn't do much to advance intellectual conversation.

Neither does this:

I think I will go with Larry Moran on this one.

As you say, Star Trek has taught us ...

Didn't Star Fleet also have a Prime Directive (PD)? Obviously the PD was violated when the human sucked through the straw in front of the chimps. "Phasers on stun!"

 

[AV1611VET]

If we ever hear an argument that is not a
distortion, exaggeration, misrepresentation, outright lie, argument from ignorance, strawman,
etc etc we will be astonished and fascinated.

And smarter.

With God, truth, the Bible, and the whole of the known universe on the side of creationists, why do they have such garbage arguments?

To draw academians?

No actual scientist and no creationist has ever come up with one fact contrary to ToE.

Nope. ToE is clearly on your side for now.

Which accounts for all the silly videos etc, a thin smokescreen to conceal the fact that there isn't one fact against evolution.

Nice.

How creationists manage not to notice that is an amazing phenomenon of Nature.

Well I, for one, am looking forward to seeing that change very soon.

Perhaps today?

 

[AV1611VET]

... but a world of the supernatural, with souls and miracles world be pretty amazing.

This bears asking:

If someone spent their whole life denying the supernatural, how can said person think it "pretty amazing" should it show up?

What if it isn't what they expected?

As the old saying goes: Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Does that demonstrate the capability of natural selection acting on random mutation to account for such largescale changes as fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, etc.?

As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)...

As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution? | GotQuestions.org

With regard to the quote you posted, Dr. Lee Spetner is a creationist who opposes standard evolutionary theory. Here he seems to be playing fast and loose with the definition of 'information'. In basic physical terms, the information capacity of DNA is the number of ways its bases can be re-arranged. This kind of information is only gained or lost if DNA is gained or lost.

If we consider useful information, i.e. producing functional, beneficial results, it's been established that the majority of mutations are roughly neutral, and of the rest, disadvantageous mutations generally outnumber beneficial mutations. So rearranging DNA coding units may or may not increase the useful information content, depending on whether the outcome is a gain of function, a loss of function, or is neutral.

As suggested above, a gain or loss of DNA changes the genetic information capacity, and it is well known that there are a number of ways that mutations can increase the amount of DNA (e.g. sequence duplication, chromosome duplication, etc.). This duplicated DNA and any further mutations to it may be considered either as an increase in useful information or neutral, according to the net influence it has on function. Whether it can ever be considered as a loss of useful information is debatable - if duplicating useful genes has a disadvantageous effect does this mean useful information has been lost? If we remove the duplicated gene, restoring beneficial function, have we increased the useful information by removing DNA?

I also think that to view the information content of DNA in terms of Shannon information is probably a mistake, as, for the most part, it's not conveying messages where the message symbols have particular expectation values.

But the simplest refutation of the 'no new genetic information' trope is what happens when a mutation causes a useful gene to become useless - this is typically seen as a loss of genetic information. But if a second mutation repairs the damaged gene, causing it to become functionally useful again, then the converse must be true - genetic information must have been (re)gained.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am not naming names, but there might be atheists and agnostics on this forum who are insecure about their beliefs, or who are internally conflicted by unrepentant sins, and therefore feel the need to debate anonymous theists on the internet to assuage their insecurity.

If any atheists and agnostics here are insecure about their lack of belief (!), I hope they will make themselves known - I would expect both theists and atheists to be sympathetic and helpful.

 

[Phred]

Maybe no evidence was generated?

If I can't give you physical evidence that Jesus walked on the sea of Galilee, and I say He did, is it because I'm feeling the need to lie?

It's because you were told a story that has no evidence to support it. You can't admit that. A reasonable person would say, "I believe that Jesus walked on water. There is no evidence to support my belief but I'm OK with that." Instead you attack the concept of evidence itself. You attack science. You do everything you can to undermine anything that would make your belief seem less than ironclad. The issue isn't with science or evidence. It's with you.

It's not that you're lying. It's that you feel the need to tear down whatever contradicts your belief. While we, of course, are not allowed to question yours.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's because you were told a story that has no evidence to support it. You can't admit that.

Oh, really?

Watch this:

I was told the story of Jesus walking on water.

Jesus walking on water left no evidence to support it.

 

[Vap841]

Evidently English is the universal language in Hollywood.

I could feel the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ lyric rolling off my tongue right now lol

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Chimps in the wild live exactly as their ancestors did across the millennia.

Which suggests that we didn't evolve from them.

Not quite (we didn't evolve from chimps but from a common ancestor of chimps & humans), it's quite consistent with evolution. Speciation typically happens when there is reproductive isolation of populations, which is often geographic. If one population remains in the original environment, occupying its original niche, and that environment is relatively stable, they will be likely to live as their ancestors did for long periods, with evolutionary change proceeding relatively slowly.

A population that moves into a new environment with different selection pressures will generally have to change its lifestyle as well as evolving relatively rapidly under the pressure of the new environmental challenges.

If the common ancestor of chimps and humans was forest-dwelling and the human lineage split off as a population group or groups and migrated into the savannah or along the coast, you would expect to see relatively rapid evolutionary changes in the migrating groups relative to those that remained in the original environment.

 

[Phred]

Oh, really?

Watch this:

I was told the story of Jesus walking on water.

Jesus walking on water left no evidence to support it.

That is called, "faith."

But, do you stop there?

 

[Astrid]

If any atheists and agnostics here are insecure about their lack of belief (!), I hope they will make themselves known - I would expect both theists and atheists to be sympathetic and helpful.

I'm sure none of us would report or take the least offense at
the chance to learn this important facet of our
personalities.
Our friend owes it to us in common decency to
name names!