It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for Creationists

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


I'm well aware of how evolution "works" in theory, but for your sake, I'll educate you on how exactly it functions.

This should be rich…


Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution:
1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus.

Mutations are observed to occur in the absence of external stimuli. Encoding errors are hardly uncommon and you yourself have somewhere between 50 and 200 mutations that differentiate you from either of your parents. Selection of beneficial mutations occurs because of external stimuli, but the mutations themselves are not the result of them.


2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions.

Strike two. For a trait to return to its original state, a second mutation would be required that essentially overwrites the first and returns the genome back to its original version.


3. No new information is added to the DNA.

And strike three. Duplication, amplification, insertions… there are several mechanisms by which information is added to the genome.

And there's really no need to bother with the rest of your post since its foundation is factually incorrect. Though you may want to do some reading and get a better understanding of the context of irreducible complexity and how every example of it floated by creationists has been shown to be wrong. And you might want to read up on information theory and understand why most creationists have moved away from trying to use it to refute evolution.




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GmoS719
 


We let christians and muslims and jews and all follwers of any other religion believe what they want to believe.

It the religious zealots from religions world wide who will not let us alone and forever browbeat us into making us



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Lionhearte
 
Mutations are observed to occur in the absence of external stimuli. Encoding errors are hardly uncommon and you yourself have somewhere between 50 and 200 mutations that differentiate you from either of your parents. Selection of beneficial mutations occurs because of external stimuli, but the mutations themselves are not the result of them.


That isn't exactly my main point. The argument is that Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response.


Strike two. For a trait to return to its original state, a second mutation would be required that essentially overwrites the first and returns the genome back to its original version.


No. You are wrong. I'm sure you're well aware of Darwin and his Finches? How he discovered they had longer beaks than those off island?

Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18-year study of the finches on the Galapagos islands, and he concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food.

We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Therefore, when original conditions are met, the trait had returned to normal.


And strike three. Duplication, amplification, insertions… there are several mechanisms by which information is added to the genome.

These are not natural occurrences. These are performed in a lab. These do not occur in Micro-Evolution, nor has it ever been observed to occur naturally. Did you even read my post?

I'll take my 3 points back, thank you very much.


And there's really no need to bother with the rest of your post since its foundation is factually incorrect. Though you may want to do some reading and get a better understanding of the context of irreducible complexity and how every example of it floated by creationists has been shown to be wrong. And you might want to read up on information theory and understand why most creationists have moved away from trying to use it to refute evolution.


That's highly professional of you; to make your points off false information and taking things out of context. If this is any example of how you would have (poorly) presented your argument, I'm glad you didn't respond to my entire post. Would've just been a waste of time.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Zeer0
 


Evidence is from the thousands of witnesses and Roman historians at the time that documented the events that took place in the area. And that's not even tipping the iceberg.

Watch this for some evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.


edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx



when thinking about the timeline of the universe or even just the timeline of life, why would you believe in something that was concocted in the last 2000 years over the history of the physical world over the last 14 billion years.

edit on 9/14/2011 by xxblackoctoberxx because: (no reason given)


You do realize that the "Theory of Evolution" has only been around for 150 years. Right?
You are contradicting yourself.


Let's also not forget that Darwin himself stated that he might be wrong.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Zeer0
 
religion of man,bad. Spirituality is good has nothing to do with religion. Take what you want and leave the rest. Blinders are just that ............blinders.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


That isn't exactly my main point. The argument is that Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response.

It was the first of your three main points regarding evolution, don't try and disown it now. The important thing to note is that you're erroneously conflating natural selection and evolution. Evolution can occur via natural selection, but they're not equivalent.


No. You are wrong. I'm sure you're well aware of Darwin and his Finches? How he discovered they had longer beaks than those off island?

Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18-year study of the finches on the Galapagos islands, and he concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food.

We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Therefore, when original conditions are met, the trait had returned to normal.

The differentiation of species of Darwin's finches is based on more than just beak morphology. What you're describing here isn't evolution, it's natural selection. There was no corresponding change in allele frequency as a result of the environmental changes. What you're suggesting would be like saying that people with brown eyes are a different species than those with blue eyes. Evolution can occur by means of natural selection, but they're not the same thing. Sorry. Recent evidence points to evolution being one-way, which has been hypothesized for some time.


These are not natural occurrences. These are performed in a lab. These do not occur in Micro-Evolution, nor has it ever been observed to occur naturally. Did you even read my post?

Duplications never occur in nature? Tell that to the people who suffer from Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease, which results from duplication of the entire PLP1 gene. Amplifications never occur in nature? Tell that to people who suffer from breast cancer as a result of P70-S6 Kinase 1 amplification. Insertions never occur in nature? Better tell the bacteria to stop doing it during conjugative horizontal gene transfer, then. Oh, but don't tell your gut bacteria to stop doing it, or you could run into some serious GI problems when trying new foods.

You sound like you've been watching Lloyd Pye videos.


I'll take my 3 points back, thank you very much.

Feel free, they were worthless anyway.


That's highly professional of you; to make your points off false information and taking things out of context. If this is any example of how you would have (poorly) presented your argument, I'm glad you didn't respond to my entire post. Would've just been a waste of time.

How was it false information? You made three points that were factually incorrect as the basis for your post and then started in on irreducible complexity and information theory, both of which have been roundly refuted as arguments against evolution. You should have just posted the entire text of Go Dog Go -- it would have been just as relevant and more entertaining.
edit on 16/9/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Just face it you are grasping at straw's now you clearly lost the debate with Lionhearte just admit it and move on.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 

No, I'm pointing out where's factually wrong. He's making the statement that evolution and natural selection are the same thing when they patently aren't. Natural selection is one of several processes by which evolution can occur. That doesn't make it any more the same thing as evolution as a single tire is the same thing as a car.

Did you have anything substantial to add or are you just here to cheerlead?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Lionhearte
 

It was the first of your three main points regarding evolution, don't try and disown it now. The important thing to note is that you're erroneously conflating natural selection and evolution. Evolution can occur via natural selection, but they're not equivalent.


I'm not disowning my argument. Natural Selection is the first process of Evolution, followed by Genetic Drift (or event Genetic hitchhiking), followed by Mutation, and finally the Gene Flow.

Eventually this can lead to speciation, as via it's own claims. That is the proposed theory, is it not?

Micro-Evolution is, well, the change in allele frequencies over time, consisting of all that I mentioned above (mutation, natural selection, gene drift, gene flow), and is essentially what Evolution is. Part of the proposed theory, anyways.

Macro-Evolution has never been observed, as far as I'm aware. Do you know something that we don't?


The differentiation of species of Darwin's finches is based on more than just beak morphology. What you're describing here isn't evolution, it's natural selection. There was no corresponding change in allele frequency as a result of the environmental changes. What you're suggesting would be like saying that people with brown eyes are a different species than those with blue eyes. Evolution can occur by means of natural selection, but they're not the same thing. Sorry. Recent evidence points to evolution being one-way, which has been hypothesized for some time.


That isn't what I'm suggesting at all. In fact, I've heard studies where moths would change a different color based on their environment and they labeled it as macro-evolution. That's very close to saying a brown moth is a different species to a gray moth. I'll give benefit of a doubt on that one, but I'd like to know exactly what it is you are suggesting. Do you agree Macro-Evolution, in it's bare basic form, is the result of Micro-Evolution over an extended period of time? If so, you'll have to read my first post (unwillingly as you may be) because I already argued why that cannot be the case.


Duplications never occur in nature? Tell that to the people who suffer from Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease, which results from duplication of the entire PLP1 gene. Amplifications never occur in nature? Tell that to people who suffer from breast cancer as a result of P70-S6 Kinase 1 amplification. Insertions never occur in nature? Better tell the bacteria to stop doing it during conjugative horizontal gene transfer, then. Oh, but don't tell your gut bacteria to stop doing it, or you could run into some serious GI problems when trying new foods.


Oh, I see what you're playing at. I stand corrected. However, remember my original statement was thus:


3. No new information is added to the DNA.


Duplication, Amplification, nor Insertion add or create new information to DNA.


You sound like you've been watching Lloyd Pye videos.

I've never heard of him.


How was it false information? You made three points that were factually incorrect as the basis for your post and then started in on irreducible complexity and information theory, both of which have been roundly refuted as arguments against evolution. You should have just posted the entire text of Go Dog Go -- it would have been just as relevant and more entertaining.


You're not providing false information, but it's almost as if you're in a completely different ball field. So far, my three main points still stand (but I like how you're calling them useless now).

I'm still not sure what you're getting at here.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Natural Selection is the first process of Evolution, followed by Genetic Drift (or event Genetic hitchhiking), followed by Mutation, and finally the Gene Flow.

By saying “followed”, you seem to be suggesting that they happen in sequence. This is not the case. Natural selection is a process of evolution, not the first.


Eventually this can lead to speciation, as via it's own claims. That is the proposed theory, is it not?

Yes, natural selection can lead to evolution. As can the other three processes.


Micro-Evolution is, well, the change in allele frequencies over time, consisting of all that I mentioned above (mutation, natural selection, gene drift, gene flow), and is essentially what Evolution is. Part of the proposed theory, anyways.

As long as we’re adhering to the accepted scientific definitions of micro and macroevolution, yes. To quote Ernst Mayr,


transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution


Macro-Evolution has never been observed, as far as I'm aware. Do you know something that we don't?

Again, as long as we’re adhering to the accepted scientific definition of macroevolution, that is to say speciation, then yes -- I’d argue that at least thousands, potentially millions of people know what you don’t. Here’s a starting point, but it’s far from comprehensive.


That isn't what I'm suggesting at all.

But that’s exactly what you were suggesting -- you claimed that a change in the expression of beak size in a population of finches based on environmental pressures natural selection and therefore evolution. Natural selection isn’t evolution, though it can lead to evolution.


In fact, I've heard studies where moths would change a different color based on their environment and they labeled it as macro-evolution. That's very close to saying a brown moth is a different species to a gray moth.

I’d be interested in reading the peer-reviewed research on that. Did they define the different colors as different species based solely on color or were there other factors used as well?


Do you agree Macro-Evolution, in it's bare basic form, is the result of Micro-Evolution over an extended period of time?

No, it doesn’t even have to occur over an extended period of time. Whole-genome duplication resulting in speciation occurs commonly in plants in a single generation.


If so, you'll have to read my first post (unwillingly as you may be) because I already argued why that cannot be the case.

I never said I didn’t read it, I just said that I didn’t have to since the three points you used as foundations for your further assertions were factually incorrect.


Oh, I see what you're playing at. I stand corrected. However, remember my original statement was thus:

I’m not playing at anything. You made the factually incorrect claim that the mechanisms I mentioned never occurred in nature.


3. No new information is added to the DNA.

Duplication, Amplification, nor Insertion add or create new information to DNA.

Define “information” in this context.


I've never heard of him.

Too bad. Based on your arguments regarding the DNA mechanisms I described earlier, you two would get along well. Right up until the question of God came up. He believes that God was really just a bunch of malevolent aliens creating a slave race.


You're not providing false information, but it's almost as if you're in a completely different ball field. So far, my three main points still stand (but I like how you're calling them useless now).

If you think they still stand even after I’ve shown them to be wrong, then I’m not sure how much farther this discussion can really proceed.


I'm still not sure what you're getting at here.

I’m not “getting at anything”. The creationist attempt at “divide and conquer” over the micro/macroevolution division has been done to death. You’ve already agreed that microevolution occurs. If you’re working with the accepted scientific definition of macroevolution (aka speciation), then speciation has been observed to occur countless times both in nature and artificially. So you can either be intellectually honest and admit that macroevolution does occur based on the reams of evidence for it, or you can be intellectually dishonest and start moving the goalposts. If you’re not working with the accepted scientific definition of macroevolution, then congrats – you’ve just invented your own version of biology and I will be anxiously awaiting the publication of your research.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Lionhearte
 
By saying “followed”, you seem to be suggesting that they happen in sequence. This is not the case. Natural selection is a process of evolution, not the first.
No, I'm merely stating the mechanisms of Evolution.


Yes, natural selection can lead to evolution. As can the other three processes.

That's the proposed theory, also known as Macro-Evolution. Small changes over time, eventually leading to Speciation, is that correct (according to you)?


As long as we’re adhering to the accepted scientific definitions of micro and macroevolution, yes. To quote Ernst Mayr,

The entire theory is based on small changes over time, leading to speciation over longer periods of time. It isn't "misleading" in the least bit. "Thorough" if anything, because one shouldn't accept the whole thing "as it is", it's more misleading to combine the two into one, because it makes assumptions that the other part contradicts.


Again, as long as we’re adhering to the accepted scientific definition of macroevolution, that is to say speciation, then yes -- I’d argue that at least thousands, potentially millions of people know what you don’t. Here’s a starting point, but it’s far from comprehensive.

Speciation is still not evidence for universal common descent. If you can provide evidence for change beyond the kind barrier, that would be a better starting point.


But that’s exactly what you were suggesting -- you claimed that a change in the expression of beak size in a population of finches based on environmental pressures natural selection and therefore evolution. Natural selection isn’t evolution, though it can lead to evolution.

No, you're taking things out of context. I didn't even make that assertion. The point here was what Macro-Evolution is what Evolutionists believe will eventually happen after long periods of time as a result of Micro-Evolution.

The original argument, was that traits returned to normal after conditions were met. As observed.


No, it doesn’t even have to occur over an extended period of time. Whole-genome duplication resulting in speciation occurs commonly in plants in a single generation.


So it just "occurs"? That doesn't make much sense, as the process of Micro-Evolution is the same processes, or shares the same mechanisms, of the Theory of Evolution. Or rather, it's a part of it. Regardless of how long it took. Unless you're stating it's solely reliant on Mutations?


I never said I didn’t read it, I just said that I didn’t have to since the three points you used as foundations for your further assertions were factually incorrect.
But you never addressed it, regardless.


I’m not playing at anything. You made the factually incorrect claim that the mechanisms I mentioned never occurred in nature.
All I meant by that, was that I don't understand what assertions you are making here, and as I said I stand corrected, but it still doesn't prove a common descent ever occurred. The "missing link", so to speak, doesn't exist.


Define “information” in this context.

I already did in my first post.


If you think they still stand even after I’ve shown them to be wrong, then I’m not sure how much farther this discussion can really proceed.

This discussion cannot proceed if you're calling them "factually incorrect" when they aren't.


I’m not “getting at anything”. *snip* - you’ve just invented your own version of biology and I will be anxiously awaiting the publication of your research.

No, it hasn't been done to death, you're just ignoring several key (contradicting) factors. It's remarkable how much faith you put into this theory. As biologists use the term, Macro-Evolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented. However, this does not prove a universal common descent.

The argument is that Micro-Evolution implies Macro-Evolution, but this isn't the case. First, there is an observational limit which we see all the time (dogs produce dogs, etc). Secondly, the original amount of information available: from the original starting point, information is only lost, and not added. Mutations occur which scramble the existing DNA and over the years certain traits are selected and passed down. As this process occurs, information is lost until there can be no more variation because there is nothing to select from. This creates a natural barrier that prevents evolutionary change on the large scale.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 

I was hoping to have an honest discussion about this, but it's apparent that you are not. I'm going to limit my reply to the part of your post that makes this abundantly clear:


Speciation is still not evidence for universal common descent. If you can provide evidence for change beyond the kind barrier, that would be a better starting point.

But that’s not what you asked for. You said that there were no observed instances of macroevolution. Macroevolution is defined as speciation. I have provided examples of speciation and, therefore, observed examples of macroevolution occurring in nature. So now we play "move the goalposts" and you're going to redefine macroevolution on the fly to suit your needs.

Sorry, but between you and RevelationGeneration, I'm tired of feeding the trolls on this subject. Learn to keep the conversation honest or don't engage in it at all.
edit on 16/9/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


Your video has the tell tale sign of a False video. Comments AND ratings removed. Must not be true.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Just found more Evidence that Jesus never existed.




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
All I know is that the bible with its lists of Kings and Kingdoms, 'we' were able to realize that Shinar in the Bible, turned out to be Sumer. So while I dismiss all the magical stuff in the bible, I do realize that it has historical details. The discovery of Sumer through the use of the bible(Not exclusively... Other historical documents were used move heavily as sources than the bible) is one of the things where the bible turned out to be useful to 'us' a as a whole.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Engafan
 


If i buy a copy of Bram Stokers Dracula and read it i will find that he lives in Castle Bran in Transylvania.Both castle Bran and transylvania are real places, so does this mean Vampyres are real? no. To say that the Bible must be true because some of the places mentioned in it are actual places or were citys in ancient times is using the exact same methodology, but its constantly used by christian fundementalists to give credibility to the Bible storys.

edit on 19-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 


True. Going be the Logic of Creationists talking cats exist because Dr Suess wrote about it in a book. Going by that Logic of course.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


You may be very well correct in your statement that the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus could be a forgery in the Jesus insertion by the church. You are also correct that we have no direct proof that Jesus the Christ ever lived as is written in the Greek bible.

Josephus was foremost a Jew and a man from priestly ancestors. Being a Jew and a historian I doubt that he would give any credence at all to Jesus much less any recognition to His existence.

Philo also was a Hellenized Jew who wrote as a Jew and I doubt very much that being a Jew he would nod in favor of a brief description of Jesus.

By this I am convinced that we are looking towards the Jews for verification of Christ and shall never get that verification from either of these two men. There is a question in my mind that I have for you and it is this – Did King David ever live? Prove to me that anyone has physical evidence of King David. We have all kinds of Jewish literature that tells all sorts of stories of King David but have never produced archeological evidence of King David. Yet most people do not doubt King David literature. We also have much literature from other biblical personage and yet not one shred of evidence that they ever existed.

So how do we prove that any of this is correct? For that matter how do we prove the age of this world? So far it can’t be done. You say science can prove the age of man? How can science prove the age of mankind when they cannot prove the age of the world in which mankind exists?
Only by deduction can anything be proven to the mind.

Let’s take the old toy called the top for an example. As a kid you have probably spun a top many times. When you first release the top to start its spin, it turns real fast and as time passes it slows down more and more. Finally it wobbles and stops as though it were dead. It simply obeys the laws of motion that you insist were quite by accident. Now let’s put a time frame on the entire spin cycle. If this world is doing the same as the top then at what stage of the time frame are we in? Are we in the center or end? You don’t know and neither do I know the answer. Why do we not know the answer? Simple, it’s because we do not know the time frame. To know the time frame we would know the time the world started to rotate and when it will cease to rotate. That is assuming that it will survive long enough to stop its rotation.

What is my point here? The point being that science is limited and then comes belief or assumption or deduction. A scientist picks up a skull and guesses the age on the basis of what that scientist assumes to be the yardstick of the time frame. But does he or she have the time frame in the first place? Who really knows for a fact ? A scientist picks up a manuscript and will place a date or author on that manuscript and does this based upon many deductions. Parchment, ink hand writing all play a big part but there is still one factor and that is deduction. The book of Genesis is a good example. Tradition tells us that Moses wrote this literature but we do not have the original manuscript so how can we be certain? Some scientists claim that it has several authors. The Isaiah scroll is dissected the very same way. Some claim that Isaiah only wrote a portion of this literature while several other authors also wrote portions if it. But they do not have the original manuscript either. Then by your same deductions how can you prove that this Moses or Isaiah ever lived much less wrote the books accredited to them? No one can prove this by any means.

This same application can be used in thousands of instances and meanwhile science is always changing their own yardsticks. Speed of light is about to change the entire scientific world in hundreds of thousands of applications if found that it is not as it is assumed to be. What will happen if we discover that light travels beyond our measure? Well that means that science assumed a fact based upon limited knowledge which really was not a fact.

So I guess my point is that we must take some things which will never be proven on faith. Did Sampson kill a thousand Philistines with the jaw bone of an ass? I can’t prove it. Did the Red Sea part on the command of Moses? Can’t prove that either. Did Jesus turn water into wine? Can’t prove that one either. How about Josephus and his book on the wars of the Hebrews? Is that fact or written from the hand of a prejudiced Jew? You or I do not know the answers.
Seede



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeer0
 


im a creationist.
my believe is that God=thought.
and the Original Thought was the Big Bang.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join