Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Dismiss all research centers! Burn the textbooks! Use the fossils to pave the streets!
Of course they may be conceding, acknowledging that at the heart of Truth we find Darwin.Dismiss all research centers! Burn the textbooks! Use the fossils to pave the streets!
We have the final nail on evolution's coffin. The most refined, articulate balanced argument ever. Humble_Disciple has posted a meme. Has science ever recovered from such an argument?
Humans/chimps/etc
Humans and chimps share a common dna, as do all mammals.
All mammals do not have identical genomes-but there is 98% in all mammals.
[bible snip]
The actual differences are not completely analysed. Only selective data is. Certain data, eg. proteins, which are similar in all mammals, are also very different. The differences are ignored.
Science talks of Junk dna-there’s no such thing.
The Agenda-
To make the data work, science says that universe must be 13.8 billion years old.
Evolution believes that we have common ancestry...
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Chimps have 24 pairs.
Because there a chromosome difference, Science teaches ‘Fusion theory’, a lie. Scientists even say they have definitive proof. They don’t!
There is no evidence for fusion, or common ancestry between humans and chimps.
These theories are All taught as fact- its a lie.
Chromosome no.2 is ‘the fusion theory’.
Telomeres and centromeres cannot fuse together!
Genes are never located in the telomeres. Telomeres prevent chromosomes from sticking together.
Also, genes are never in centromeres.
There’s a similarity in genomes because they are the ones that work in certain organs eg brain, heart etc. (Organs in humans, chimps and all mammals)
84% similarity 16% different.
Mutations cannot change, they degrade, over time.
[bible snip]
Similarities yes they’re both mammals but with 20% sequence of differences.
Hmm, no. I am still very firmly on TerraI know you're not talking about me, but I even believe Paul Bunyan was real.He drew me.
John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
He's drawing you too.
? Can you rephrase or elaborate as I don't see your point. Yes, Aristotelian causality does not depend on the randomness one way or the other in the 4 causes.If you're referring to (pseudo)random events, their unexpectedness or unpredictability doesn't make any difference to the nature of their causality, either in Aristotlean philosophy or any other.
What is the difference between the above and, "We just do not know what causes these effects (yet)"?It means order emerging from the interactions of multiple subsystems as a result of their intrinsic properties, without external guidance or direction. Popular examples are starling murmurations or schools of fish. The patterns generated by cellular automata like Game of Life, or fractals like the Mandelbrot Set are also examples.
No, "emergent property" and its synonym "brute fact" contradict the PSR - an effect cannot have a property or attribute not present in one or more of its causes.There's no conflict with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, emergence is inherently deterministic.
Yes, the self-organizing principle is a law of nature. I've already posted Who that Lawgiver is.The modifier 'undirected' is to distinguish the self-organisation I'm describing from the directed form you suggested in #753. As I said, the idea of self-organisation carries the implication of being the result of intrinsic rather than extrinsic influence.
Whichever one you are willing to defend as science. Of course, if you hold to no theory the question is moot.So, I ask again - what are these other theories of evolution? I can't make any comment about them unless you tell me what they are. If you're unwilling or unable to name or describe them you can point to them with a reference or link.
I could but it is good policy to not disclose one's particulars on the web.Also, in #486 you said you were a scientist - can you say what kind of scientist? can you say what field you work in?
You might want to run your search engine on that again.A Ph.D. is a degree, not an award. It is earned, not given.
Who said such a stupid thing? Take his/her lab coat immediately!Science is the study of natural phenomena through natural/material causes, expecting science to study your favorite supernaturalism is not reasonable.
Humans/chimps/etc
Humans and chimps share a common dna, as do all mammals.
All mammals do not have identical genomes-but there is 98% in all mammals.
The Bible says, The The Lord created ‘animals according to their kind’.
(Hu)Man was made in The Lord’s image.
The actual differences are not completely analysed. Only selective data is. Certain data, eg. proteins, which are similar in all mammals, are also very different. The differences are ignored.
Science talks of Junk dna-there’s no such thing.
The Agenda-
To make the data work, science says that universe must be 13.8 billion years old.
Evolution believes that we have common ancestry...
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Chimps have 24 pairs.
Because there a chromosome difference, Science teaches ‘Fusion theory’, a lie. Scientists even say they have definitive proof. They don’t!
There is no evidence for fusion, or common ancestry between humans and chimps.
These theories are All taught as fact- its a lie.
Chromosome no.2 is ‘the fusion theory’.
Telomeres and centromeres cannot fuse together!
Genes are never located in the telomeres. Telomeres prevent chromosomes from sticking together.
Also, genes are never in centromeres.
There’s a similarity in genomes because they are the ones that work in certain organs eg brain, heart etc. (Organs in humans, chimps and all mammals)
84% similarity 16% different.
Mutations cannot change, they degrade, over time.
Genesis 1:27 so God created man (A)in His own image; in the image of God He created him; (B)male and female He created them.
Similarities yes they’re both mammals but with 20% sequence of differences.
I'd say that's just about the extent of your understanding.Hmm, no. I am still very firmly on Terra
*biblical fail*
No, actually, we won't.You will appreciate that we in China are not
impressed with what your Bible is believed to say.
I could but it is good policy to not disclose one's particulars on the web.
You might want to run your search engine on that again.
Who said such a stupid thing? Take his/her lab coat immediately!
Nobody could track a person down
If they identified themselves as, say, chemist" or
"molecular biologist".
Refusal to even say that much could easily
be taken as unwillingness to either tell a very
blatant lie, or to admit that it's a definition
for "scientist" that would bring down scorn.
Given that :I've reached my self-imposed limit on posting to a thread. Thanks to all who engaged with me and thanks to the OP.
That parting shot is a playground trick and quite out of place here.In closing, here's the real difference between us:
This is precisely why I only identify as "physicist" on this site. I do not specify a sub-field, part of the US, or even my current job classification.
Given that :
This leaves me with the impression you were not discussing in good faith. I trust you will adjust your self imposed limit to deal with those matters and reverse that impression.
- You did not, to my knowledge, give any advance warning of that practice
- You have left one or more posts unaddressed
That parting shot is a playground trick and quite out of place here.
IYou mentioned Aristotle's 'four causes', with particular reference to the material cause, but since you didn't quote what that was a response to, I took a guess.? Can you rephrase or elaborate as I don't see your point. Yes, Aristotelian causality does not depend on the randomness one way or the other in the 4 causes.
The difference is that we do know what causes the effects, but they are not predictable from the properties of the subsystems without actually simulating the ensemble.What is the difference between the above and, "We just do not know what causes these effects (yet)"?
'Brute fact' obviously isn't a synonym for 'emergent property' (the clue is in 'emergent'), and the Principle of Sufficient Reason stipulates only that "everything must have a reason, cause, or ground" i.e. "For every fact F, there must be a sufficient reason why F is the case." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Emergent properties are caused and explained by the interactions of the subsystems involved.No, "emergent property" and its synonym "brute fact" contradict the PSR - an effect cannot have a property or attribute not present in one or more of its causes.
OK; it sounds like you're equivocating 'directed', suggesting that if laws of nature are set by a lawgiver, processes involving those laws are 'directed'. Yes?Yes, the self-organizing principle is a law of nature. I've already posted Who that Lawgiver is.
I already told you, I only know of one scientific theory of evolution. You claim there are others, but seem unwilling or unable to name, describe, or provide a link or reference to them.Whichever one you are willing to defend as science. Of course, if you hold to no theory the question is moot.
OK; that doesn't surprise me.I could but it is good policy to not disclose one's particulars on the web.
IYou mentioned Aristotle's 'four causes', with particular reference to the material cause, but since you didn't quote what that was a response to, I took a guess.
The difference is that we do know what causes the effects, but they are not predictable from the properties of the subsystems without actually simulating the ensemble.
'Brute fact' obviously isn't a synonym for 'emergent property' (the clue is in 'emergent'), and the Principle of Sufficient Reason stipulates only that "everything must have a reason, cause, or ground" i.e. "For every fact F, there must be a sufficient reason why F is the case." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Emergent properties are caused and explained by the interactions of the subsystems involved.
OK; it sounds like you're equivocating 'directed', suggesting that if laws of nature are set by a lawgiver, processes involving those laws are 'directed'. Yes?
If that's what you mean, then since everything in nature proceeds according to natural laws, then everything must be 'directed'... which makes distinctions between 'directed' and 'undirected' in nature moot. So, meh. However, I'd like to see some evidence or justification for the claim that what we categorise as 'Laws of Nature' are the products of a lawgiver.
I already told you, I only know of one scientific theory of evolution. You claim there are others, but seem unwilling or unable to name, describe, or provide a link or reference to them.
OK; that doesn't surprise me.
Currently I am beginning to think that he may be the ultimate poe. He may be trying to refute Christianity by exposing all of the flaws in it.As I reflected on your post an astounding though occured to me. AV might actually be serious about his challenges. I have always presumed they were a form of trolling, which would be consistent with AV's general online persona. But what if he actually thinks they are penetrating attacks on atheist thought? Surely not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?