Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Brightmoon]

Who knows?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who knows?

Okay ... nice talking to you.

 

[xianghua]

Very complete means that we have a ton of transitions that absolutely mark when a trait began to appear, to the point that the margin of error is within the thousands of years. This situation exists for human evolution, but not early tetrapod evolution.

many fossils are missing for a long time period. so even if we will find a 70my human fossil we can always claim that his population was too small to leave any fossil between say the last 3-70 my. like in the coelacanth case. very simple. since we are both disagree- lets leave this for readers to judge because i want to move on...

Problem with your claim: In order for this mistake to be made, ALL organisms more closely related to each one in question MUST be missing that gene COMPLETELY. You have failed to demonstrate that this has ever come close to happening. And yes, the gene must be lost completely, because a partial gene can be recognized.

look again in my alx3 example: its indeed completely lost. so here you go.

-_- I never brought up gene loss with microbes and microbes can perform horizontal gene transfer, making their lineages rather muddy. But your original claim was about mammals evolving independently twice, so microbes aren't relevant to that claim.

they are talking about humans genes.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Why didn't ALL Apes change into Humans?

Why didn't ALL Europeans change into Americans?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Then produce the method of inserting God's superior intelligence into the descendants of Apes. Tell the details of the totally unique process of changing animal thinking into Human thinking. Tell us WHY History agrees with God's story instead of the long drawn out process of evolution since it shows that the FIRST Human traits appeared on this planet exactly where (Mesopotamia) and when (11k years ago) God told us the Ark arrived. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE Present your actual evidence of this one time event of installing God's superior intelligence and explain WHY it can NEVER be repeated. Waiting......

Well, we can start with this paper: Genetic Changes Shaping the Human Brain which shows "there are nearly 20 million genomic loci that differ between humans and chimpanzees" - there are deletions such as "a forebrain germinal zone enhancer near the tumor suppressor gene growth arrest and DNA-damage-inducible, gamma (GADD45G)" which enables or contributes to the encephalisation events that lead to our comparatively huge brains... but unfortunately leads to a higher probability of brain tumors as a result.

Then we have approximately "2700 HARs that have been identified, again most of them in noncoding regions: at least ∼250 of these HARs seem to function as developmental enhancers in the brain (Capra et al., 2013). One of them (HAR1) encodes a long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) that is expressed specifically in Cajal-Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex.".

And then we have such "the human FOXP2 protein differs at only 3 amino acid residues from the mouse ortholog, and at 2 residues from the chimpanzee, gorilla, and rhesus macaque orthologs (Enard et al., 2002). These amino acid changes are functionally critical as the human and chimpanzee FOXP2 have strikingly different transcriptional targets, many of which are involved in central nervous system development (Konopka et al., 2009). Human-specific FOXP2 targets also include genes involved in branchial arch formation and craniofacial development, which may be required for spoken language. Mice carrying humanized FoxP2 show accelerated learning, qualitatively different ultrasonic vocalizations, and increased dendrite length and synaptic plasticity in the medium spiny neurons of the striatum. These findings suggest that the cortico-striatal circuitry mediates speech and language in humans (Enard et al., 2009; Fujita et al., 2008; Schreiweis et al., 2014; Shu et al., 2005)."

That's literally the first link on google after Google's own Scholar plugging. None of this is hard to find if you read anything more than your favourite book. you just have to be able to set aside your own prejudice for a moment.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Oh, Multiple Choice? No matter what anyone says, you can pick a verse to match. So which is it, is everything allegedly going to ruin before our very eyes, or are we experiencing the calm before your unfounded storm? Make up your mind and support it with evidence - your claims aren't evidence.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

A fact according to the presuppositions of scientific realism under the current model.

Show such a presupposition. Then, for extra points, show where we have any evidence that demonstrates reality to be false.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Jesus is a creationist.

[citation needed]

So He pretended to be a creationist?

[citation needed]

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Show such a presupposition.

Scientific realism is one of many options in the philosophy of science, the interpretation of data. Just like there are many ideas about interpretation of QM. Other ideas include, non realism, pragmatism,instrumentalism, constructivism.

A presupposition of scientific realism is for example that space and time have objective existence (cf Kantianism), or that maths is not a fiction or a merely pragmatic tool.

Then, for extra points, show where we have any evidence that demonstrates reality to be false.

Its not about evidence, its about assuming an interpretation of data. And all such int.s involve presuppositions. You cant prove or disprove scientific realism with evidence, if you could it wouldn't be part of the philosophy of science.


The point is realism is not the "default state" its actually an interpretation of data. All this talk about "billions of years" etc, its based in underlying presumptions, and not even all scientists agree that such time is a necessary tool. See for instance the physicist Wheelers participatory principle - afaik he thought that even the deep time of astrophysics is mind or observer dependent.

If I understood him right McFadden (See book Quantum Evolution) thought that evolution may have a quantum component and its possible that the emergence of life collapsed the wave of the universe. And its apparent historicity before that point was a result of the inverse quantum Zeno effect, but again it was a difficult read so don't take my word.

I suppose you'll say ".... yeah, whilst we get on with the real science." ???

 

[AV1611VET]

[citation needed]

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

 

[Aman777]

Well, we can start with this paper: Genetic Changes Shaping the Human Brain which shows "there are nearly 20 million genomic loci that differ between humans and chimpanzees" - there are deletions such as "a forebrain germinal zone enhancer near the tumor suppressor gene growth arrest and DNA-damage-inducible, gamma (GADD45G)" which enables or contributes to the encephalisation events that lead to our comparatively huge brains... but unfortunately leads to a higher probability of brain tumors as a result.

Then we have approximately "2700 HARs that have been identified, again most of them in noncoding regions: at least ∼250 of these HARs seem to function as developmental enhancers in the brain (Capra et al., 2013). One of them (HAR1) encodes a long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) that is expressed specifically in Cajal-Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex.".

And then we have such "the human FOXP2 protein differs at only 3 amino acid residues from the mouse ortholog, and at 2 residues from the chimpanzee, gorilla, and rhesus macaque orthologs (Enard et al., 2002). These amino acid changes are functionally critical as the human and chimpanzee FOXP2 have strikingly different transcriptional targets, many of which are involved in central nervous system development (Konopka et al., 2009). Human-specific FOXP2 targets also include genes involved in branchial arch formation and craniofacial development, which may be required for spoken language. Mice carrying humanized FoxP2 show accelerated learning, qualitatively different ultrasonic vocalizations, and increased dendrite length and synaptic plasticity in the medium spiny neurons of the striatum. These findings suggest that the cortico-striatal circuitry mediates speech and language in humans (Enard et al., 2009; Fujita et al., 2008; Schreiweis et al., 2014; Shu et al., 2005)."

That's literally the first link on google after Google's own Scholar plugging. None of this is hard to find if you read anything more than your favourite book. you just have to be able to set aside your own prejudice for a moment.

Occam's Razor on all your foolishness. In order to become Human, you MUST be descended from Humans (descendants of Adam). Otherwise there is NO way to inherit Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's. Gen 3:22

 

[Aman777]

Oh, Multiple Choice? No matter what anyone says, you can pick a verse to match. So which is it, is everything allegedly going to ruin before our very eyes, or are we experiencing the calm before your unfounded storm? Make up your mind and support it with evidence - your claims aren't evidence.

Amen, but God's Holy Word is evidence of things not seen....yet. Heb 11:1

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Scientific realism is one of many options in the philosophy of science, the interpretation of data. Just like there are many ideas about interpretation of QM. Other ideas include, non realism, pragmatism,instrumentalism, constructivism.

A presupposition of scientific realism is for example that space and time have objective existence (cf Kantianism), or that maths is not a fiction or a merely pragmatic tool.

Oh, I see. Well, I guess you have a point there if you consider necessary/basal assumptions in a process as presuppositions. The difference I see though is that these "presuppositions" as used in science and the scientific method are in turn validated by their use in a way that isn't possible with a presupposition of a creator deity in any context you choose otherwise. Is there any presuppositions like this in science?

Its not about evidence, its about assuming an interpretation of data. And all such int.s involve presuppositions. You cant prove or disprove scientific realism with evidence, if you could it wouldn't be part of the philosophy of science.

Well, Science doesn't interpret data, let alone assume anything on it - people do that. I disagree with you on not being able to prove/disprove scientific realism though, it can be demonstrated, and that demonstration is the evidence (though not absolute proof) of its validity. We make the same basal assumptions for syllogistic logic in philosophy, and I would imagine you accept that as being effective, no? The data from most scientific experiments are generally freely available so you can interpret the raw data yourself if you understand what you're looking at. The method used to acquire that data is what you seem to have issues with - and again, the basal assumptions used in the scientific method, are validated by their use in the same way syllogistic logic is validated by its use - are they not? We benefit from the practical applications of science all the time so I'd assume you would agree with that - but correct me if I'm mistaken.

The point is realism is not the "default state" its actually an interpretation of data. All this talk about "billions of years" etc, its based in underlying presumptions, and not even all scientists agree that such time is a necessary tool. See for instance the physicist Wheelers participatory principle - afaik he thought that even the deep time of astrophysics is mind or observer dependent.

Right, Wheeler's PAP isn't a scientific theory, nor is it considered in the scientific method as practiced so not sure why you think this is some sort of issue for science - the scientific method when applied to a problem generally produces meaningful and practically applicable results we can use. The "billions of years" are one such result borne out of the data from such scientific pursuits irrespective of such ideas as Wheeler's PAP, but instead is built on a well-established line of concordant foundational results that came before it. That's not to say it's infallible, but that the method (and any assumptions that came with it) have been extensively validated and is therefore most likely concordant with reality. If we come about information that upsets this paradigm, then the theories and data that came from them are revisited and/or refined to be more accurate. In some extreme cases, a theory might be discarded and/or replaced with a better theory.

In all this talk, it seems you have a problem with reality - do you not agree that we share this one and only reality we experience? Do you not agree that we can know things about it? Are you a solipsist?

If I understood him right McFadden (See book Quantum Evolution) thought that evolution may have a quantum component and its possible that the emergence of life collapsed the wave of the universe. And its apparent historicity before that point was a result of the inverse quantum Zeno effect, but again it was a difficult read so don't take my word.

Well, I haven't read up on McFadden's "Quantum Evolution" and don't intend to anytime soon, so I'll have to take it under advisement, I'm certainly not at the pointy end of that field...

I suppose you'll say ".... yeah, whilst we get on with the real science." ???

well Sure, it continues to give us practical useable results all the time, so why not?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Occam's Razor on all your foolishness. In order to become Human, you MUST be descended from Humans (descendants of Adam). Otherwise there is NO way to inherit Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's. Gen 3:22

Nope, you have that exactly backwards. In order to be descended from humans, you MUST be human. then we can logically carry that on to test it - :

In order to be descended from apes, you MUST be an ape. <== we are apes.
In order to be descended from simians, you MUST be a simian. <== we are simians.
In order to be descended from mammals, you MUST be a mammal. <== we are mammals.
In order to be descended from vertebrates, you MUST be a vertebrate. <== we are vertebrates.
In order to be descended from chordates, you MUST be a chordate. <== we are chordates.
In order to be descended from animals, you MUST be an animal. <== we are animals.
In order to be descended from eukaryotes, you MUST be a eukaryote. <== we are eukaryotes.​

See how that works?

Our intelligence is an emergent quality of our species. No evidence whatsoever of an interdimensional ark appearing in lake van, turkey, depositing new genomes in an invisible way, no fantastical and unsupportable ideas of magic genomes that would have to have all the same markers and ERVs as us anyway, being inserted in our lineage at some unknown point 11k years ago. This is just unsupported assertion without any foundation. What we do have though, is mountains of evidence showing a gradual increase in brain size and complexity over millions of years to get to our current state today.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Amen, but God's Holy Word is evidence of things not seen....yet. Heb 11:1

for you maybe - my standards of evidence aren't that low.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Creation is not creationism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

Creation is not creationism.

QV please:

Jesus is a creationist.

 

[ViaCrucis]

QV please:

QV please:

[citation needed]

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

QV please:

QV please: 216

 

[Aman777]

Nope, you have that exactly backwards. In order to be descended from humans, you MUST be human. then we can logically carry that on to test it - :

In order to be descended from apes, you MUST be an ape. <== we are apes.

Trumpian Blasphemy. He likes to call African Americans "Apes" in order to debase them. The followers of Darwin, the Racist, are the same.

What we do have though, is mountains of evidence showing a gradual increase in brain size and complexity over millions of years to get to our current state today.

False, since you are ignoring the Fact that Neanderthal had a larger brain case (which is all that's left) than today's Humans. Ignoring other scientific facts in order to distort the Truth is typical of godless evols. Today's science apologists claim it's because Humans have more brain-folds than Neanderthal. A bad excuse is better than none, they preach to little children in elementary School as FACT.