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.

 

Creationist Confusion

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 02:06 AM
link   
why are people so threatened by creationism. The schools don't have a problem teachind a religion that has violence in it i.e islam. But they kick, bite and scratch when it comes to creation. Why would they be threatened if there wasn't a possibility of it being true. Like the pharisees said about Jesus, if it is not true then it will be eventually disproven. If they are so sure that it isn't no where near possible, then teach it to the children so they can weigh it side by side with everything else they're teaching. It's like teaching about black but not white, up and not down, right but not left. It's unbalanced, so they have no choice but to believe in evolution.

I say, let them teach it just like islam, evolution, and the big bang. If it is not right it will eventually be disproven. People believed the Earth was flat, eventually disproven. People believed that earth was the center of the universe, eventually disproven. In order to be threatened by something you must believe that it has some validity to it, or power.




posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Nygdan, this isn't it... sorry for the delay... it's the holidays... you know how it is.


Originally posted by slank
.
Very interesting newly identified genetic mechanism of bacteria transfers gene 'cassettes' both intra species and inter species.

This sounds a bit like object oriented programming with computers.
It is the technique of modularization.

As I read it cassettes of DNA [a gene?] can be traded between individuals within a species and across species. Many can be stored and if positioned in an activation point will be expressed.

This indicates that nature already has been discovered doing some of its own gene splicing, even between species.

Certainly this information is well known. Bacteria transfer extrachromosomal DNA called plasmids regularly. Plasmids are the basis of molecular biology. A highly important and relevant adaptive process for the transfer of existing genetic information indeed.


The discovery was made on work with all of the antibiotic resitant strains of bacteria now appearing.
link

Where I first noticed this was the current story on 'superbugs' being found commonly in turkey.
.

Here is the difficulty with antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria: they tend to represent a loss of function. They are not 'more fit' than non-resistant strains to survive. Antibiotic resistant bacteria thrive ONLY in places where lots of antibiotics are used. If antibiotic resistant bacteria are 'superbugs' as some would have us believe, then why are they not outcompeting non-resistant strains and becoming the dominant bacterial strains? The reason is because the resistance mechanism represents some loss of function that provides a selective advantage ONLY under certain circumstances...ie when there are antibiotics present. Thus these antibiotic resistant 'superbugs' are actually not super at all. They will be efficiently outcompeted by more 'fit' non-resistant strains. This is the reason my wife (a nurse) can work with patients who have MARSA will little concern, other than basic PP measures. Furthermore... can't remember the ref. right now, but antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria were isolated from sailors (I believe) who were frozen in some arctic ice PRIOR to the Fleming's discovery and the subsequent isolation and wide scale distribution of penicillin. This suggests that the genes for antibiotic resistance were present in the population before the usage of penicillin, demonstrating only an increase in the frequency of these genes, and not new genetic information.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Hailthekingofflights,

Your thinking seems somewhat confused.

Islam is NOT taught as science.

Creationism can be taught as a part of religious studies,

What it can not fraudulently be presented as is science.

In the realm of scientific thought there are standards that are adhered to. Standards in fact must be adhered to for it to be called science.
Science does not preclude people from other thought systems, but they cannot pretend to be science, that is all.

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

They are two distinct methods of thinking.

One depends on rote learning of dogma without questioning it.

One depends on the work of collection of data and observations and questions about that data.


To mattison0922,

While my previous post doesn't demonstrate a whole new gene being created, it does demonstrate that a gene that appears even a single time may be able to be installed across multiple species.

I am not an expert, but guessing in many cases a new functional gene may be created from duplicate copies of a current working gene. From the small bit of reading i have done duplicate copies of genes in DNA don't appear to be at all uncommon.

That might imply that certain kinds of genes would tend to be mutated into similar kinds of genes. ie. carbohydrate structure genes might mutate into a gene that creates a slightly different carbohydrate structure. A protien enzyme gene might mutate into a gene that produces a slightly different type of protein enzyme.

Another impression from reading is that DNA is conservative. So when a new mutated form of a gene appears, as long as it is not fatal and expressed it tends to be retained even though it has no current function.

With the 'cassette' type gene function it sounds like it might allow for a kind of randomized trial and error use of a selection of genes to express. The trick is to express mostly those traits that optimize a species, and yet retain as much anachronistically collected/created code as possible. The more effectively these slightly at-odds tasks are simultaneously done the more genetically adaptive a species can be.

A tangent line of thought:

An AI [artificial intelligence] researcher observed [and is currently working with] the fact that individual insects do not have a huge set of ideas, behaviours, abilities to adapt, but collectively some species create whole societies. [ants, termites, bees]

The basic building blocks of genetics are bits and pieces. I think of tiny cogs, wheels, spokes, etc. By putting them together in ever greater numbers and complexities is what has the potential for creating large elaborate systems. It is speculated that many biological systems work as fractals. That is, a thing is created that creates a[two,three] thing(s), that creates a[two,three] thing(s) . . . These can create quite beautiful and elaborate structures. In computer science graphics they are used to form leaves, trees and many natural looking creations.

Odd thought:

I wonder if DNA is ever reverse engineered from a protien or organic molecule?

Instead of the DNA blindly creating a protein enzyme, I wonder if it could be wrapped/constructed around the enzyme in a way to save the information on how the protein was [or could be] structured? Then the DNA could be run in reverse repeatedly to create that protein over and over again.

Even if that doesn't happen in nature it would be [in theory] a great way of reproducing any number of organic molecules.

call it 'Reader DNA'.

It sounds very sinuous, but it would have to be done in a very orderly way, constructing the DNA piece by piece in linear fashion as it spiraled and wound around the molecule.

There might be better and worse[impossible] ways of doing it. Where and in what direction you start the DNA reading the molecule. I wonder if some molecules would have to be created piece wise and then joined?
.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
yea slank you're right. I went left field when I brought up Islam. But the point I was trying to make is that all things need to be taught without bias, we need to look at all the evidence as human beings. We should not just dimiss something, until it has been thoroughly proven wrong. Creationism hasn't been proven wrong, and there is enough valid evidence to give it as much attention as we are giving the big bang theory. They both could be on the same track because no one was there at the beginning. God could have done it that way.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   
To mattison0922,


While my previous post doesn't demonstrate a whole new gene being created, it does demonstrate that a gene that appears even a single time may be able to be installed across multiple species.

Certainly gene transfer among species is no big secret. Microorganisms regularly transfer genes between themselves and even between species.


I am not an expert, but guessing in many cases a new functional gene may be created from duplicate copies of a current working gene. From the small bit of reading i have done duplicate copies of genes in DNA don't appear to be at all uncommon.

This certainly is one of the current postulates re: creation of new information. Copies of genes are not new information. They are copies of existing information. Gene duplications are postulated to occur somewhat frequently, evolutionarily speaking.


That might imply that certain kinds of genes would tend to be mutated into similar kinds of genes. ie. carbohydrate structure genes might mutate into a gene that creates a slightly different carbohydrate structure. A protien enzyme gene might mutate into a gene that produces a slightly different type of protein enzyme.

Yes!!! Mutations of existing alleles produces additional alleles at that loci, not new genetic systems and biochemical pathways as required by evolution. Differences among alleles is the basis of adaptation. This is the way the sickle-cell gene is thought to arisen. Note that no new biochemistries were created in this case, only a variation on an existing theme.


Another impression from reading is that DNA is conservative. So when a new mutated form of a gene appears, as long as it is not fatal and expressed it tends to be retained even though it has no current function.

For the most part this is not in dispute. DNA is conservative in many senses of the word. Generally though, when a new mutant allele appears, it tends to be expressed with its current function in tact. If the function is somehow altered or reduced, the cell is often affected by this, unless the proteins action is compensated for by a different enzyme, as biological systems are often redundant. However, again how does mutation and loss of function account for the appearance of one of the most fundamental and complex processes that occurs on this planet: Photosynthesis, or any other complex, multi-component biological system.


With the 'cassette' type gene function it sounds like it might allow for a kind of randomized trial and error use of a selection of genes to express.

This idea of a genetic ‘cassette’ is appealing, which is why it is so often touted. An analogous situation is something like attempting to make a mousetrap using paper clips, the mainspring from your watch and other ‘analogous’ bits of metal necessary. The problem is this: like man-made machines biological machines and their components are highly specialized. You can’t use the springs and other mechanical components from your car to build a bicycle, why would this be true in biological machines?


The basic building blocks of genetics are bits and pieces. I think of tiny cogs, wheels, spokes, etc. By putting them together in ever greater numbers and complexities is what has the potential for creating large elaborate systems.

Please see my above rebuttal re: the incompatibility of highly specialized machine parts.


It is speculated that many biological systems work as fractals. That is, a thing is created that creates a[two,three] thing(s), that creates a[two,three] thing(s) . . . These can create quite beautiful and elaborate structures. In computer science graphics they are used to form leaves, trees and many natural looking creations.

Ahhh yes… this work is the realm of Stuart Kaufmann… one of the major player in so called complexity theory. While a fractal pattern can produce things resembling leaves, or scallop shells, or whatever biological structure, these experiments completely ignore the evolution of complex biological systems like photosynthesis, glycolysis, electron transport, etc. There simply is no good description of these events.


I wonder if DNA is ever reverse engineered from a protien or organic molecule?

I know of no known examples of DNA being reverse engineered from a protein. There exists some school of thought that pseudogenes are the result of reverse transcription of RNA and subsequent reinsertion into the host genome. Processed pseudogenes are thought to represent mRNA transcripts reinserted into the genome. A problem with this theory is that no known human enzyme has any detectable RT activity. This is not insurmountable though as retroviruses commonly associated with humans do carry RT, HIV being one of these.


Instead of the DNA blindly creating a protein enzyme, I wonder if it could be wrapped/constructed around the enzyme in a way to save the information on how the protein was [or could be] structured? Then the DNA could be run in reverse repeatedly to create that protein over and over again.

This is the point of DNA; DNA encodes information so that this information can be used on an as need to basis. Why would it need to be associated with the protein to store information? Protein folding has nothing to do with the DNA, it is based on the properties of the particular amino acid sequence (which is dictated by the DNA sequence) and doesn’t require direct association with the nucleic acids to do this.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
.
Clarifications:

The mutation of a duplicate copy of a gene, means that it is an alteration of something that worked.

In learning computer programming the easiest way to start is to take working source code and play with it to produce new/varied results.

Because in both cases the source is not 'from the ground up scratch' it is much more probable that the end results will produce working results. [It doesn't of course mean they will necessarily be useful results]

 

In terms of 'reader' DNA/RNA, it means that if a cell finds itself functioning well by accident of containing a particular protein enzyme, it doesn't have to figure out anything about that enzyme, all it would have to do is blindly 'read' it and incorporate that code with it's own original code. Certainly this would be a much easier, more probable possibility of creating a working code to produce that useful enzyme then just randomly attaching A,G,T/U & Cs.

Sort of like cutting and pasting source code that one doesn't comprehend or even read, but does the task that is needed in one's program. [Software piracy comes to mind.
or idiot programmer]

Often we look for 'THE' way life did it, but in fact life has no rules or stipulations, it may have used anything and everything in any combination it came across.

To explain a 'blind', unreasoned process, it has to happen without intent, due to probability alone.

It makes me wonder at the nature of such a constantly active, driven, pathological, maniacal, biological process at the heart of life.

The most essential part of it is the ability to replicate. And then find working variances from that orignal copied pattern.

I can't help it, i always think of music. Like someone starts drumming or hears some machine tapping rythmically, then someone starts snapping fingers, then clapping, then someone starts whistling, then singing, then dancing. It is like a compulsive process. The most seductive, sensual, erotic, exciting, inspiring, richest process in the Universe. It is hypnotic. It is a drug.

Warning: life will attempt to seduce you. Do not fall prey to its siren's song. [I think I am mostly joking there]
.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
Clarifications:

The mutation of a duplicate copy of a gene, means that it is an alteration of something that worked.

In learning computer programming the easiest way to start is to take working source code and play with it to produce new/varied results.

Because in both cases the source is not 'from the ground up scratch' it is much more probable that the end results will produce working results. [It doesn't of course mean they will necessarily be useful results]

Ultimately though, we are talking about building up said source code from the ground up. This is what evolution proposes. There was no genetic code in the beginning to manipulate and vary. According to evolution, the genetic code, biological information, arose de novo from nothing.


 

In terms of 'reader' DNA/RNA, it means that if a cell finds itself functioning well by accident of containing a particular protein enzyme, it doesn't have to figure out anything about that enzyme, all it would have to do is blindly 'read' it and incorporate that code with it's own original code. Certainly this would be a much easier, more probable possibility of creating a working code to produce that useful enzyme then just randomly attaching A,G,T/U & Cs.

Well, cells don't have to 'figure anything out' about any enzyme. That's what the genetic code does. There doesn't need to be 'reader' nucleic acid for this purpose. The presence of nearly universally conserved genetic code is both necessary and sufficient to reproduce identical protein enzymes seemingly perpetually.


Sort of like cutting and pasting source code that one doesn't comprehend or even read, but does the task that is needed in one's program. [Software piracy comes to mind.
or idiot programmer]

Source code is ultimately the product of intelligent design though. You can't get back to a computer evolving a useful source code de novo. In the case of a source code, there must be an intelligent input somewhere, after this initial input source code can be varied, manipulated, or pirated, all of course intelligent, deliberate acts with a particular end in mind.



[edit on 28-12-2004 by mattison0922]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   


I apologize, profusely, for the long time it took to type this out. Its inexcusable, I had planned on beign very thorough, but there really is too much here to address in single posts.

Agreed. Things were getting out of hand. My wife would get pissed with me spending 5 hours composing a reply and messing up the office and living room with all these refs... getting pissed when she tried to clear a path through them.


My understanding is that you basically feel that macroevolution is seperate from microevolution and i suppose speciation and that, while there is evidence to support it, that evidence isn't iron clad and that it can't be said to be a 'fact'

Sort of. Allow me to summarize: My biggest problem is with the appearance of complex biological systems: the origin of biochemical pathways, complex biochemical structures, stereospecificity, biogenic apparatus etc. My expertise is as a molecular biologist. Hence, this is where my concerns lie. As I also mentioned, my understanding of and general dissatisfaction with many ideas postulated in evolutionary theory only results from earlier attempts to vehemently support it. In short, things like the fossil record, Darwin’s finches, sickle-cell anemia, and natural variation are combined into a theory that is then used to explain things like the evolution of glycolysis. When one points out the difficulties with said theory (glycolysis for example), they are viciously attacked and accused of being a ‘creationist’ or whatever, especially by those most educated. That really bothers me. Why am I not able to reasonably question what has become scientific dogma and not be accused of harboring hidden agendas, being some kind of ‘fundie’ or other such slur? I read these threads, and it is quite clear to me that MOST don’t have a clue about any of this evidence in support of evolution that they stand behind. Most of these people haven’t read Darwin, or Gould, or Dawkins. Most would rather posture and stand behind someone like you (Nygdan) who has made an effort to support his positions. IMO, people are often here to belittle the beliefs and ideas of that which they don’t understand. Quite frankly, it pisses me off that people that know so little about such a complex subject are willing to belittle and degrade those that have different beliefs. That’s why I do this. The case is not closed. We haven’t answered all the questions. IMO, the more answers we get the more questions we have… I don’t know too many scientists that would disagree with me on that one.

Personally, I hate the terms macro and microevolution. I don’t generally use them, but they are concepts that are easily distinguished for the lay person. I personally prefer the term adaptation in place of microevolution, and generally refrain from saying macroevolution. Adaptation occurs, evidence exists for it everywhere. Organisms gradually changing from one thing to another is postulated to occur, and there exists at best highly debated evidence in support of this.


One is not observing the fact of macroevolution when one looks at archaeopteryx. One hypothesises that archaeopteryx has the intermediate features that it does because of macroevolution.

Absolutely Agreed!!! But this is an important distinction, and is not frequently stated in this manner. I would also change “One hypothesizes” to “Some hypothesize,” but I certainly don’t want to make it a point of contention.



Now, this does not mean that we are wasting our time when talking about transitionals, because one cannot observe the paleontological scale changes of 'macroevolution', rather one can only have evidence that is consistent with its occurance. -So-, transitionals are evidence of macroevolution having occured, and they tell us what its done and can do, and are relevant to the discussion.

Damn it! I thought we close to agreeing… Oh well, I suppose it’s more fun this way anyway. I agree that it is not a waste of time to discuss fossils; I would further agree that it isn’t a waste of time to discuss fossils in an evolutionary context. I would state that this is science, and doing science is basically a good thing. I will however respectfully disagree with: “transitionals are evidence of macroevolution having occurred,” which IMO, stands in complete contradiction to this statement: “One hypothesises that archaeopteryx has the intermediate features that it does because of macroevolution.” That argument is completely circular. Finally, your closing statement which contains: “they tell us what its done and can do,” lets us know that you presuppose evolution when you look at these fossils. How can you state some hypothesize archaeopteryx has intermediate features because of macroevolution therefore archaeopteryx is evidence of macroevolution. Is it any less correct to say some hypothesize that the Bible is the inspired word of God, therefore the Bible is evidence of God? Please clarify.



Most importantly, no transitionals, (in so far as we can identify them) then no operation of macroevolution in the past, and that in itself means that there would be major problems with the entire idea of evolution.

I would take this time only to point out that you and I fundamentally disagree on whether or not transitional fossils exist. However, I would state that this issue and the archaeopteryx might be best left for another thread. We can discuss it.


For example, chichilid fishes. Now, a fish is still a fish, as is famously said. However, speciation, as in the cesation of gene flow or even its ability to occur between two populations (even by third parties or something) can be said to have occured here. A single parent population has segregated into two distinct populations, and the result has been that they occupy two different 'environments' and have different morphologies between them.

Okay, now this brings up some issues of semantics. Cessation of gene flow between two populations is defined as speciation, but this sounds like splitting hairs “talkorigins style” to me. This is not in dispute. This is the same phenomenon you’d only have to refer to the domestic dog, or Darwin’s finches or a number of other readily observable and less obscure populations to point out. This merely represents a concentration of allelic forms into reproductively isolated populations. This is not evidence for macroevolution. This is evidence of a loss of genetic diversity, and a concentration of particular allelic traits into populations and nothing more. This is not evidence for the appearance of glycolysis, the ATP Synthase complex, the photosynthetic reaction center, the bacterial flagellum, or another of other such complex biological structures.


Yes but, as you have stated, its a fact that populations change over time,

Absolutely.


your concern is, is it a fact that they change drastically and into other 'kinds' of animals (again tho, I think that 'kinds', while intuitively understandable today, doesn't have real biological relevance)

I am not postulating some ridiculous assertion that a dog is going to somehow bear a fox or something else based on evolutionary theory. However, to over-simplify the situation, in the transition from an arm to a wing, before the arm is a wing, it’s just a bad arm. I know I’ll take some heat for that but that’s okay because it’s true. And while in your mind the idea of kinds has no biological relevance, it’s completely untrue. The only reason to state something like that is because there exists no plausible explanation for the evolution of numerous previously mentioned things such as: certain biochemical pathways, certain complex motor protein, and certain observed biological phenomena. Please I beg of you, don’t cite TO on this one. I am aware that site exists. I have surfed that site, and continue to surf that site regularly. I would be willing to bet you everything I have that I’ve read more of the primary refs cited at that site than you have. THIS is the reason I dislike that site so much. It’s my belief that they are more interested in disinformation than being objective, but they play it off as being objective. IMO, they are just as bad as an organization like ICR, they’re just at the other end of the disinformation spectrum.



None of what you've presented is from scientists who think that it doesn't occur, they don't argue that it occurs, they argue that the particular pathway given, rather than another evolutionary one, occured. Having said that, I do agree that it shows that one can't domatically assert 'birds evolved from dinosaurs, its a fact'. That, most certainly, is deep in the realm of 'hypotheses'.

Agreed, and I am not sure which quotes these even refer to anymore, but they were used to point out that what is claimed to be a fact is based on highly disputed evidence, and I think that’s wrong.


Infact, its so new and there is enough dispute to keep it a 'hypothesis' for now (of course, thats semantics anyway, if a theory is said to be a hypothesis that has stood up to its tests and not been refuted or superseded by a better hypothesis, but whatever)

Okay, I would have to issue this specific challenge: How has the appearance of new genetic information been tested and shown to be true? What vestigial structures that are transitional exist at the organismal or cellular levels? What specific experiments can you say support evolution?


I hope that the above illustrates my stance on the subject. I wouldn't seperate evolution into micro/macro/paleoscale or any of that when I would say that 'Evolution is a fact'. I had actually considered this question for a while. After all, what the heck do I care if evolution is a fact or a 'extremely well supported theory' or even a 'moderately well supported theory, and one that hasn't been superseded by any bettter theories yet'? So when I look at it, I am comfortable with the change in allele freq.

I’m sorry, I need clarification. You are stating that changes in allele frequency are evidence for evolution? Allow me to pre-emptively disagree. Changes in allele frequency are evidence for changes in alleles frequency. When has a change in allele frequency ever resulted in anything other than a variation within a population?


This of course rams right up against the issue of what evidence for macroevolution should be, and what macroevolution itself is. Raup notes that transitions are rare, considering that gradualistic/anagenic evolution would mean that there should be a large number of intermediate forms. If macroevolution is taken to mean only these very large transitions, then yes, I agree, those very large transitions haven't been observed in nature; but, and this is important, its only not been observed if one is talking about transitions between different 'kinds' of animals. For example, experiments on selection and genetic manipulation in flies have resulted in viable populations of complete freaks, with different numbers of body segements and limbs comming out of their heads.

How can this argue in support of evolution? These types of changes really only demonstrate how fragile DNA code can be. Certainly most single mutations are likely to be silent, but depending on where they are, single mutations can have drastic negative consequences. Furthermore, I feel it necessary to point out that nothing new appeared in these experiments. It was a repeats of existing structures, misplacements of existing structures or deletions of existing structures. Absolutely no new useful genetic information has arisen in such experiments. Messing around with hox genes is nothing but bad. What selective advantage is conferred by antennapedia or other mutations that generate “complete freaks?”


Nature, not recognizing the human distinction between 'kinds' of animals, isn't going to say 'well, this is so radically different that its not a fly and therefore I will prevent it from existing.' I mean, if flies can exist, and I agree that this is different because its something that happened experimentally in a lab, but if flies can exist in populations where the features are so radically different, is there any reason to think that, say, fish with bony limbs can't benefit and change under selective pressure to develop supporting limbs? So in this way, macroevolution is a fact.

I can’t imagine why you added that little bit re: the lack of any anthropomorphic behavior in nature. I certainly never postulated that. Okay we’ve made a huge leap in logic here. Somehow we went from generating complete freaks in the lab to populations of flies with radically different features actually existing. I’m not sure how we made this jump. Just like fish are fish, flies are flies, and certainly it’s been demonstrated that isolated populations of flies under different selective pressure will tend to concentrate certain allelic variations within their population, but how does this prove that my primordial ancestor is a one-celled organism?



Change in populations is observed, in the wild.
Yes


Speciation is observed, in the wild.

Semantics, but yes. Speciation, or change within kinds is not an example of an increase in genetic information or a change in kinds as required by macroevolutionary theory.



And, since the fruit fly and other laboratory experiments show that there is no limit to the 'plasticity',

I completely disagree, they don’t show this at all. Again, they’ve not generated ANY new structures whatsoever. No new phenotypic features were shown, only a rearrangement of existing phenotypic features. The only thing that shows is that screwing up a genetic code can have drastic consequences, and that genes can only express the information they’ve always expressed. It seems to me that it absolutely demonstrates a limit to plasticity. We’ve not generated even a single new structure despite years of genetic experiments capable of doing things not possible in nature.



why not state its a fact? But I wholeheartedly agree that its not a fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs, or that tetrapods evolved from some particular group of pre-tetrapods, that is all theory.

Interesting juxtaposition of statements IMO.


At the end of the three days of presentations, [Alan] Charig [chief curator of fossil amphibians, reptiles, and birds at the British Museum—BH/BT] orchestrated a concerted effort to summarize the ideas for which consensus exists. The general credo runs as follows: Archaeopteryx was a bird that could fly, but it was not necessarily the direct ancestor of modern birds.... A communiqué expressing the unanimous belief of all participants in the evolutionary origin and significance of Archaeopteryx was adopted, in order to forestall possible misuse by creationists of apparent discord among scientists (1985, 5:179).


Personally, I find it interesting and somewhat disheatening that the scientists at the meeting felt constrained to adopt a unanimous resolution concerning the “evolutionary origin and significance of Archaeopteryx” solely to prevent creationists


I think that that is a good thing. Most creationists are anti-rational, anti-scientific, and anti-intellect. Oh, surely, several of them use scientific sounding analyses, and in particular the chemists in the ID movement are using techniques that are very scientific sounding, but ultimately their positions are entirely those of faith, and they are anti-scientific. I mean, if the conclusion that evolution is a fact is dogmatic, then what is it when one looks to the bible as absolute literal truth and tries to conform the evidence to it?

I would issue this challenge to you, Nygdan: what creationist books have you read? What creation scientists have you personally met and interacted with? Ever had lunch with one of them? What chemists in the ID movement might you be referring to? Behe maybe? Have you read his books… even a single one? I’m sure you’ve read the TO analysis of his books. But how many of his books have you read. If his methods are so unscientific, let’s discuss. I’ve got all of his books. We can go through a page by page analysis if we must.

Ever met Bill Dembski? Ever read any of HIS books? I would doubt this as well. I’ve had lunch will Dembski on three occasions when he spoke at the university I am affiliated with, even had dinner with him when he slept at my house. Bill Dembski is on my list of the five most intelligent people I’ve ever met. This is not because he has like 2 Ph.D.’s and several Master’s Degrees either. It’s because he is one of the best critical thinkers I’ve ever met. Dembski is actually is in the top three, believe it or not superseding Asimov whom I’ve had the privilege talk with on multiple occasions. The top two are not famous people.

I would have to agree with you that the major fallacy of creation science is the apparent lack of ability to be objective. However, I don’t really know much about the Bible, and maybe there is room for interpretation. Certainly, when I read the Bible, I don’t understand what 85% of it’s saying. As I understand it there are Old Earth Creationists vs. Young Earth Creationists. If the Bible is so strict and regimented about its teaching, how can we account for these disparate groups. How are the vehemently anti-creation evolutionists who are willing to postulate theories and ideas not for the purposes of the advancement of science, but to head off creationists arguments being objective and contributing to objective scientific analysis?


I will have to insist however that the transitionals are not promoted as observations of the fact of evolution,

I’m sorry, I’m confused. We seem to have come full circle with respect to the issue of transitional fossils. The point is really moot though, fossils will never be evidence for anything other than rapid burial of creatures in sediment. They are incapable of proving evolution and should not be offered as proof.



However, it would be rather difficult to explain the fossil record if evolution doesn't occur, and in that way its supportive of macroevolution.

Maybe, or it could be evidence for large-scale catastrophe; it could be evidence for sorting of things via liquefaction, an observed phenomenon that is known to exist. It occurs during large scale catastrophic events such as earthquakes and floods, and is known to sort things based on size.

Macroevolution is said to be a fact because of the laboratory evidence.

This laboratory evidence has been repeatedly discussed here, assuming you are talking about fruit flies, the only evidence I recall you postulating. This evidence is distinctly NOT evidence in favor of macroevolution. Please see my rebuttals above.



Gravity is not a controversial theory, (notice I didn’t say fact). The reason is because the effects are consistently observed and measurable.




But gravity particles and gravity waves aren't observed.

As I understand it, the particle and wave theories of gravity aren’t well accepted, but this is really peripheral to the discussion. Here is the difference: The effects of gravity are observed and observable. The effects of macroevolution are not observed, fruit flies notwithstanding, and cannot be observed.



Of course, even in the physical sciences, there are some suggestions and attemps at 'unifying' gravity along with other forces. And also the fact that gravity doesn't work at extremely small distances, and may even work differently at very large distances (but thats a more controversial issue) show that radical changes to the theorys of just what gravity is are possible and infact probable or even, completely necessary. And even just regular old gravity has changed, Newtonian gravity was superseded by Einsteinian gravity. If Gravity in that sense was a fact, then Einstein's advancement wouldn't have been possible, or at least it would be wrong. So the situation is analagous to evolution.

In some ways you are correct. The situation is analogous. Let’s compare: Gravity seems to apply in many situations, however there are inconsistencies and discrepancies between different systems. Evolution seems to apply in many situations, however there are inconsistencies and discrepancies between different systems. Since gravity can’t account for all observed phenomenon, scientists search for the Grand Unified Theory. Since evolution can’t account for all observed phenomena, scientists tell you that if you don’t believe in evolution then you are an ignorant, superstitious fool. Big difference in approaches to finding the truth, don’t you think?




Such as what? And is it all of them? This aspect might demonstrate that particular homologies aren't homologous, but there are still homologies across the natural world. The hox genes for example, are the usual 'poster boy' of homology.

Certainly it isn’t all of them. You got a degree in bio, you should be aware that there are no absolutes in biology.

Here are a couple of select quotes from a 1998 Science paper re: 18S rRNA phylogenies
“Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present. Growing evidence suggests that phylogenies of animal phyla constructed by the analysis of 18S rRNA sequences may not be as accurate as originally thought…Prior to analysis, the sequences of corresponding genes from each animal must be placed in register (aligned) with each other so that homologous sites within each sequence can be compared. However, sequence divergences may be sufficiently large that unambiguous alignments cannot be achieved, and different alignments may lead to different inferred relationships. Additionally, the data are often sufficiently noisy that there may be a lack of strong statistical support for important groupings.”

This particular article thend goes on to discuss detailed similarities and differences in 18s rRNA sequences which demonstrate that mollusks (scallops) are more closely related to deuterostomes (sea urchins) than arthropods (brine shrimp). This in and of itself is not too surprising. IMO, a scallop seems more like a sea urchin than a shrimp. So, the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin is not surprising. However, in this light it is surprising is that a tarantula has a 92% correlation with the scallop. Here we have two different arthropods, a shrimp and an tarantula. How can a scallop be much more related to one type of arthropod and much less related to the other type of arthropod? This troubling thought led the authors of the Science article to comment:

“Different representative species, in this case brine shrimp or tarantula for the arthropods, yield wildly different inferred relationships among phyla. Both trees have strong bootstrap support (percentage at node). . . The critical question is whether current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate to successfully compensate for long branch attraction between the animal phyla. Without knowing the correct tree ahead of time, this question will be hard to answer. However, current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly .”

Another example: Calcitonin is a protein sometimes used to determine phylogenies. While humans differ from pigs at 18 of 32 amino acid postitions,they differ at only 15 of 32 amino acids from the salmon. Therefore can we assume humans are more closely related to fish than to other mammals like the pig?

Another good example of this is the development of vertebrate forelimbs. The forelimbs often develop from different body segments in different species in a pattern that is not easily explained by evolution. For example, in the newt, the forelimbs develop from trunk segments 2 through 5; in the lizard they develop from trunk segments 6 to 9; in humans they develop from trunk segments 13 through 18. This suggests that the forelimbs are not necessarily developmentally homologous. An additional example is the development of the vertebrate kidney. In fish and amphibians kidney’s develop directly from an embryonic organ known as the mesonephros. In reptiles and mammals, the mesonephros degenerates towards the end of embryonic life and plays no role in the formation of the adult kidney, which is formed instead from a discrete spherical mass of mesodermal tissue, the metanephros. As I understand it, the metanephros develops independently from the mesonephros.

There are multiple other interesting such problems concerning commonly used phylogenic tracing genes and proteins. Another example: mammalian and amphibian luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone is identical. However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different isoform of LHRH. According to this, humans are more closely related to frogs than to birds. The data does not match the classical beliefs in this particular situation.



But it cannot then be stated that these organisms aren't related.

Sure it can. You can’t claim that your evidence is proof of a common ancestor any more or less effectively than the creation camp (maybe here you can) can claim that evidence is suggestive of a common designer. It certainly is not a fact that similar organisms are related. That is the currently accepted hypothesis, but it doesn’t make it true.



The point isn't that the ape-man transition is a factual observation of macroevolution,
Hmmm… I don’t understand how we’ve gotten here again. I feel it necessary to again draw attention to this statement: “One is not observing the fact of macroevolution when one looks at archaeopteryx. One hypothesises that archaeopteryx has the intermediate features that it does because of macroevolution,” by you, contained in this thread. These statements stand in stark opposition to each other in one case it is evidence of macroevolution, in other it’s not. Please clarify.


The point is that these fossisl can't be said to not be intermediates, their features are intermediate between the 'types'.
This isn’t true. Because ancient bones with very little to no flesh present, and usually not a complete skeleton appear to be transitional doesn’t make it so. It’s amazing Dawkins states that organisms appear to be designed but they can’t be, in this case fossils are claimed to appear intermediate so they must be.



They show that the 'type' doesn't actually exist, because they are inbetween it. Similarly archaeopteryx with its combinations of features, most broadly the hands, tail and head of a reptile with a hallux and feathers, show that, irregardless of what archaeopteryx is, that there isn't a 'bird type'. That all the features of birds are in other animals, espcially the prime features of feathers. The 'type', the kind, is an accident of the history of nature. If whatever the heck archaeopteryx and the other dinobirds and some dinosuars were still around, people probably wouldn't have any concept of a bird type, or at least it woudl be a very different concept, one that included ground running barely feathered no beaked sharp tooth long tailed screaming monsters that rip things apart with their hands.
quote: These would of course argue against the factual nature of evolution, and again point out the speculative, not factual nature of the theory.


I think that the rejection of any 'transition' in the fossil record can't refute evolution, no more than any transition can 'prove' the factual nature of evolution.

Your argument with respect to ‘kinds’ doesn’t take the big picture into account. If you want to claim evolution is a fact, you’d better be prepared to discuss the events that led from a single celled organism to human beings… all of them. It’s a cop-out and inadequate to state that ‘kinds are no longer relevant in biology.’



In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.


But this in itself is evolution. They are citing that evolution occured. I understand and agree that it shows that there is some controversy and disagreement on the specific patheways of evolution, but this only is an issue for the theory on the pathway.

Ummmm… no not claiming evolution occurred, they’re claiming the most recent common ancestor was much more recent than other disciplines would have us believe. They are not saying that recent common ancestor was less than human. This is not implicit in my statement.



To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years


! I'll have to check that one out, thats a very strange thing to get. 6,500 years ago was 4,500 BC, practically the historical era. I've read about there having been a populational 'bottleneck'

I believe it also corresponds to Theological estimates of the creation event.



one that is proposed to account for the genuinely surprising closely relatedness of humans and the low variability. I've often heard that the whole modern human population is less variable, in terms of genetics even not just phenotype, than -populations- of chimps. Not all 'chimpkind' as a whole but just subpopulations of groups of chimps. No reference on that, its one of those 'factoids' that just sticks in yer head.

Now you see, this is interesting… here you have an example of allele frequencies decreasing in the human population, which I would agree with. This actually represents a net loss of genetic information. I have consistently reiterated throughout my posts that the biggest problem for evolutionary theory is the introduction of new genetic info. Here we see that it would appear that the human population is getting less genetically diverse over time. We are losing genetic information relative to our ‘closest living relative.’ How can you reconcile the necessary increase in genetic information required by macroevolution with observed decreases in genetic diversity in multiple species, not just humans.



here is ASU's Institute of Human Origns take on it Did you insert this for a point of personal irony? Just Curious.


? No, i thought that it would make a good 'generalized' statement on it. Why? I think I am missing something.

Sorry… thought you knew more about me than you do. I am affiliated with ASU. In fact the IHO is right across from my building. Actually, we’ll be moving soon as the AZ Biodesign institute just opened. The IHO is actually in the about-to-be-condemned social sciences building, not in the physical or life sciences buildings. I have to walk right past there to get my papers in the morning. I have both friends and intellectual adversaries within ‘the Institute.’ My friends and I, as a general rule don’t discuss this, but there are many routes to get back to the evolution discussion.



Homology is very suggestive that evolution occurs, but it is theoretical. IOW evolution explains homology, homology doesn't explain evolution.

SOME homologies are very suggestive of this, others leave scientist scratching their heads.



Based on observable evidence, such as the rate of natural, unrepaired mutation in an organisms DNA for example


And you are stating that its too slow to lead to a strengthening of the limbs over the general timespan involved? I mean, the move from a perch to a lizard is a big jump, but from a bony limbed shallow water fish to a more boney limbed terrestrial amphibian?

If I recall the context of this quote correctly, I was quoting another scientist within the field who believed this.



While your point about existing variation is taken, existing variation in genetic structures in unable to account for the appearance of new genetic information,


Perhaps this is the greatest stumbling block then. If the genetic evidence demonstrates that, despite appearances, evolution cannot occur, if it refutes the idea that evolution occurs, then that woudl be significant.

Now you are beginning to understand my difficulties with this particular theory. Again, I don’t wish to negate the theory wholesale, It just doesn’t accounts for everything, and hence cannot be called a fact. It’s not final, if it were, it would be impossible for this thread to go on for 10 pages with any thing resembling coherent arguments. Certainly not all would agree that my arguments are coherent, but very few people have demonstrated your level of tenacity.



This is not the point. The point is that there is considerable dissention


There is considerable dissention on the transitions, but none of the authors cited argue that evolution doesn't occur. As far as any of them can tell, and say, it does occur. They simply argue that a different set of archosaurs evolved into birds, or that a particualar organism is more terrestrial than usually thought, but the factual occurance of evolution is not based on this weak, theoretical transitions. Indeed, you are quite right, there is dissention and lack of consensus on some of these aspects, but there is a consensus that evolution occurs.

There is a consensus among some scientists or even most scientists that evolution occurs, according to the most recent stuff I’ve read though ~44% of scientists don’t believe in evolution, and that this number hasn’t changed much in like 50 years. Furthermore, I would state most scientists, are less well equipped than you, Nygdan, to actually debate the theory intelligently. Often times they just assume that the other scientists have it right.

[Deleted much info re: homo erectus]



If a fruit fly can have legs growing in place of antennae or have entire bod y segments lost, or duplicated, then surely these sorts of changes are possible.

Please see my above rebuttals re: fruit flies.

However, loss of function is not a good argument for evolution. As I have repeatedly tried to express, the problem is GAIN of information, not loss. We don’t need to explain how genetic information is lost; this isn’t in dispute, we need to explain how it is gained.



Nygdan, I’m sorry but this absurd, and doesn’t take evolution as a whole into account. There absolutely are kind barriers.



Ah, this is a strong statement, and probably the one we should try to focus on.

Sorry for the strength of this statement, and certainly I believe you’re thick skinned enough to take it, but I stand behind it.

There are multiple very real, very difficult barriers that must be explained for this theory to be a ‘fact.’


The issue that I have with this is that, just what are these 'kind' barriers? For example, one could've said that feathers were a kind barrier, that they are something that had to have been formed ad hoc and at once. But they don't have to be. There are plausible antecedants to flight feathers in the fossil record. Given that, even tho we can't state as fact that "dino-fuzz" evolved into feathers, we can say that there isn't anything barring feathers from evolving. The 'kind barrier' of feathers doesn't exist, because feathers aren't limited to any kind of animal. .

Sure they are, algae can’t evolve feathers, bacteria can’t evolve feathers, amoeba can’t evolve feathers, mushrooms can’t evolve feathers. There absolutely exist these barriers.



And the tetrapod limb, similarly, there is nothing 'kind like' about it. Its just a limb with some bones. Its not far fetched to say that it could've come from more primitive antecedents
It’s certainly different than the bacterial flagellum. Certainly genetic information must have been added to get from a anaerobic primordial cell to a complex organism with multiple organ systems and tissue types. I would describe that as a ‘kind’ barrier wouldn’t you?



Its not insurmountable change, given that flys can have their entire body plan altered and survive.

Please define survive. It’s possible to keep a brain or body alive via all sorts of different mechanisms, that doesn’t mean survival. Where is it demonstrated that these radically altered flies can survive outside the lab? Just about anything can survive with significant intervention, so the lab is a poor measure of survivability. I would love to see if these genetically altered flies have ANY selective advantage over there WT counterparts.


I understand that it ends up meaning a lot of changing of the genome, but obviously the genome can withstand change. At least thats how I understand it to be.

If anything, it demonstrates that particular regions of the genome are highly intolerant of change. This is of course the basis of radiation sickness. DNA gets damaged or changed to the point where cells can no longer carry out normal functions reliably. The overwhelming evidence suggests that large genomic changes are detrimental to organisms.



Now, of course you are not a fan of the Talk Origins newsgroup's archive, but there is a page about this subject.
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

I note them because they do discuss the issue, and because they have the references relevant to the issue at hand. I, however, haven't been able to read those particualr references. The case made in them is that, infact, new structures can arise from old ones, and that 'arbitrary' gene sequences can result in functional ones.


I have actually made a point to read most of the stuff on TO. I have read most of the primary refs. associated with the topics we are discussing. This is why I don’t like TO. Frequently I feel they try to overwhelm the reader with info and refs. They’ve got a whole thing shredding Behe’s work, lots of ‘evidence’ in the form of refs. that would argue against what Behe’s is stating. I can tell you I’ve read a lot, probably most of those refs and they absolutely do not refute Behe’s claims. I just recently re-read all 130 pages of the a paper Re: the evolution of glycolysis, which happens to posted at TO, it discusses the phylogeny of potential evolutionary roots, but doesn’t not address the issue of the actual origin of the pathway. It assumes a completed pathway from the get go, completely side-stepping the fundamental issue: where did this path come from. MANY of the refs. posted re: these topics has this problem… same thing with creationist sites.



I will reiterate the is no proposed reasonable mechanism to account for the formation of new genetic information.


I do not understand. Why are mutations an insufficient source of new variation/information? Mutations are known to occur, they alter the genome, why aren't they able to alter it in such a way that results in a slightly different phenotype? And why can't natural selection act on this to result in new structures?

Everything you’ve said here is true, what you are talking about is changes in allele frequency and the appearance of new alleles for existing genetic traits. This is fundamentally different than the 10 step process of glycolysis arising via mutation or the absolute precision that occurs in photosynthesis arising via mutation. For lack of a better term, glycolysis and photosynthesis are irreducibly complex systems.



Dawkins for a refutation of this concept.



Which of his books refutes this?

I actually have a [url=http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/dawkinschallenge.htm]link[url] where Dawkins discusses this.



1. “new” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.


If I understand this correctly you are saying its an issue because, say, in chichilids the new species isn't particularly different than the old right? Its just a different variation on the same type right?

Man, sorry about that statement… I must have had to much to drink that night. But your analysis of my cryptic statement is correct.



2. “new” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.


Indeed, human based selection is what inspired, some say, Darwin to come up with natural selection. The agent of selection isn't necesarily whats important here. Afterall, the humans didn't create ad hoc a new gene or set of genes and work out how it could be inserted into the organisms without disturbing their genome to the point of destruction. They selected for traits.

Yes!!!!


Nature, too, can Select for traits. But, this sort of thing is the theory of natural selection, not the fact of evolution.

Yes!!!!


The fact that the populations can be changed so radically is enough to show that evolution occurs.

Damn… thought we were close again. What populations are changed so radically, over and above those damn fruit flies?



Infact, aren't you arguing that it doesn't occur, not that it occurs at the direction of any intelligence, man or god?

Not arguing that something doesn’t occur, arguing that there is no evidence that large scale change occurs. Variations within alleles occurs, natural selection of these variants occurs, allele frequencies change as a result of natural selection occurs. Does genetic information have a tendency to evolve from simple to more complex? You’ve not sold me.

quote: In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally “new” trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms.


5.9.1of this one of those pages one finds that multicellularity was observed to have occured in a unicellular organism Chlorella vulgaris, and in 5.9.1 Nakajima and Kurihara 1994 observed multicellurlarity in a bacterium, Shikano et al observed a morphological change of a size increase of 13 times the original size, from short rods to long filaments along with a size increase of 13 times.

In no way is any of these an example of an increase in genetic information, nor are they representative of a new trait. Sure single-celled organisms exist in a ‘multicellular’ state, they’re called biofilms. These are not examples of bacteria working together, communicating and acting as a multicellular organism though.


If the problem is that a totally new structure hasn't been observed to have evolved in nature de novo, well, thats not exactly what is expected to be the fact of evolution. Bird wings, for example, needn't have evolved out of nothing and all at once. Its the 'progressive' change that is the key to it. The change in a population of finches to have beaks that are stronger and larger than before, and a shift in diet from small plants to large hard shelled nuts has to be evolution. The new variation did not exist before, its new variation and new information. Yes, finches had beaks to begin with, but they didn't have those kind of beaks.

I don’t understand. Why all the continued harping on variation creating different versions of the same ‘kind.’ I’ve never denied that this occurred. I’ve even stated that Darwin’s assessment of the Galapagos finches was for the most part, probably correct. That the beaks of finches can change in response to selective pressure, is not, has not, and will not be disputed by me. Natural selection and variation within populations absolutely exists. That a finches beak can become more specialized based on selective pressure doesn’t provide evidence for life being ancestrally related to a primordial cell.



not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.


Well, if its a question of massive change into entirely different sorts of organisms without any human selection, then I agree, this has not been observed. This does not mean macroevolution does not have a factual basis.

Sometimes we come close to agreeing. At least we agreed that the 12 strands of DNA thing was probably BS, eh?

While absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence, what you’ve written says that there isn’t a known example that can account for this.



Entire chromosomes have been seen to have duplicated and freed up for all sorts of selective pressure.
Hmmm… I know of theories that claim chromosomes are duplicated and freed up for selective pressure, but I don’t know of any observed examples of this. The instances of aneuploidy, at least in higher organisms, that I am aware of are overwhelmingly negative.



And genes and even sets of chromosomes. And variation beyond the ancestral populations range has been observed to occur, this isn't 'hidden' genetic information,

Not sure what the point of this is.



Heck in one they only provided a maze with two alternate routes and rewards in them.

And what phenotypic change was induced via this experiment?



Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify as microevolution, does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require just change, but progressive change,


On this I would have to disagree. Evolution is merely change, progressive or non-progressive. From the human viewpoint, and from a current temporal viewpoint, it certainly often looks like things have been progressive. But, for example, Eohippus wasn't under pressure to become the modern horse. It was under various pressures at variuos times and different populations of it evolved in all sorts of directions. Progression is not required. In particular it shouldn't have anythin to do with the appearance of a new trait.

How can you state this? For the currently accepted theory of evolution to make sense progression is required. What is the selective pressure for bacteria to become multicellular, what is the pressure to develop a bony skeleton? Information and entire systems have to have been added for evolution to make any sense whatsoever. Please clarify.



In Dobzhansky’s work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings. In the end the only thing produced was fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic


But he didn't directly and specifically alter it. He, in a sense, caused possibly hundreds of years of random, no directed mutations to occur over a few generations. And the result was entirely new body plans.

Disagreed, the result was variations on an existing body theme, no new structures arose, no selective advantage was granted, other than support for Dobzhansky’s hypothesis.



If mere mutations can produce that, then what is supposed to prevent them from causing anything else?

This is the point; organisms can only produce what’s encoded in their genomes with very slight variation. What prevents them for generating other structures is the limitations conferred by the genome.


And these organisms needn't be more fit, becuase there was no selective pressure.

This doesn’t make any sense. There was no selective pressure because they were in the lab. In an actual real world conditions, organisms are conferred a selective advantage by being better adapted to some stress. I am not sure, how Dobzhansky’s keeping these poor critters alive in his lab is evidence for not needing selective pressure.



Think about it, without selective pressure, all those changes occured. What would happen if there was selection and time for it to act on the organism?

This is not in dispute, I never said selective pressure caused organisms to change. It merely alters the frequency of alleles. You’re familiar with Hardy-Weinberg, right? What would happen if there was selection? I would estimate that those poor critters with antennapedia would probably die off in short order, those with less well adapted for other reasons would also see their frequency decrease, on the off chance that one of those mutations did lead to an increase in fitness, that allele would increase in frequency. It doesn’t mean the fruit fly is going to evolve a backbone or other structure. Incidentally, selective pressure doesn’t have anything to do with the changes, changes don’t occur because of selective pressure, selective pressure exerts itself on variations present within populations



With over 4 billion years of time and a nearly infinite number of generations? Selective pressure in small 'microevolutionary' steps can produce practically any 'macroevolutionary' patter. Induce multicellularity, cause differentiation of cells, let entirely different organisms meld into the same one, throw in new genetic information with viruses, increase some of the different types of cells and decrease the others. All the changes involved, they are mind boggling in terms of 'raw' evolution, in terms of raw factual uncontroversial and seemingly powerless changes in a population. But with direction, with natural selection, they become workable. With speciation they become accelerated and with limits to plasticity they become 'progressive'.

Dawkins would be proud. Oh yeah… induce multicellularity why didn’t I think of that… and just throw in some new genetic info. Oh I get it now. Simply glossing over huge difficulties, acknowledged by even those in the field as being significant, does nothing for your case. Certainly, if I wanted this viewpoint I could have opened any of the bio texts sitting in front of me. There are no reasonable theories about the evolution of new genetic information… this is why disciplines like ‘creation science’ are not completely silenced by the evolution camp. The inconsistencies and controversies are there. If they didn’t exist the ICR wouldn’t have a following. If there were no controversy Dawkins probably wouldn’t sell as many books, and neither would Henry Morris. If they weren’t people like Dembski wouldn’t get suckered in. If they didn’t exist sites like TO would be unnecessary, and you and I wouldn’t be involved in a 10 page thread concerned with the science of the topic.


I was sold on evolution until the subject of the primordial cell came up, then I started seriously researching it.


Well, at least if there is anyway to reject modern biology, that would be it. Its the great unknown in it all.

I don’t reject modern biology. Modern biology pays my bills.



Gravity seems to hold up very well at all levels except the quantum level.
As before, which gravity? Newtons, einsteins? Tommrrows?

Perhaps it reflects my ignorance re: this particular subject, but I was under the impression that the rules concerning gravity didn’t change much between Newton and Einstein. The topic is somewhat peripheral though.


Similarly, you can mix two organic reagents together and get coherent repeatable results time after time.


And you can seperate populations and apply selection and get speciation.
Okay, you can get speciation based on some definition of the word, but you do not get new biological structures, and this is truly where the meat of this discussion lies.


However the result of evolution is merely inferred, and never observed (macro).



The only thing that is not observed are the paleontological scale changes, which are not the 'factual' observation of evolution.

Disagreed, please see my numerous rebuttals re: both fruit flies and genetic/biological information.

[Deleted information re: chemical reactions, gravity and transition states]


one of the major one’s is drug development. I specifically did a major portion of my graduate work re: enzyme thermodynamics and transition state analogs.


Christ. And you still find time to read a forum about reptiloid illuminati pyramid builders from planet x eh?

Hey, what can I say… Information is my life… although it looks as if you do significantly more posting than me. If I recall you used to have a lot of points, now your points are about the same as mine. What happened to all your points? How do you get so many so quickly. Not that I’m interested in point whoring, as there’s not really anything I think I want to spend them on.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Just saw your response the other day mattison, I'll be able to get to it in a little bit.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I got approved to take a day off work to catch up on the recents posts on this thread
! Nono, not a dig seriously, I'm enjoying it! The only decision I have to make is in my three-way tin: 'Movie Buttered', 'Caramel' or 'Cheddar Corn'....mmm.... *crunch* *crunch*. Keep up the great work



[edit on 21-1-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I see that the confusion of creationists goes on and on. Even the definitions of salient terms have to be reiterated, recently in this thread. It hearkens back to my original post, when I noted the inversion of meanings by fundamentalists.

A very important point: EVEN IF EVOLUTION COULD BE PROVED FALSE, THAT DOES NOT PROVE EITHER CREATIONISM OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Any idea must stand on it's own merit, not upon the refutation of a competing theory. It is no wonder that creationists are confused, the source of their contentions is from a self-contradictory tome. Because the Bible is logically inconsistent, it can not be relied upon for scientific information. Of course, this does not prove evolution, millions of volumes of peer reviewed literature coupled with evidence, literally written in stone, does. Speculative religiosity simply does not compete academically, ergo logically.

The biblical contradictions are well within context of each other. Please consider but a few of them:

Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.(See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)

Ex 20:5 "...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God..." (see also Ex 34:14, Deut 4:24, Josh 24:19, and Nah 1:2)
Gal 5:19-20 "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are...jealousy..." (See also 2 Cor 12:20)

Should we tell lies?
Ex. 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.(Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8)
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)

Should we steal?
Ex. 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. (Lev. 19:13)
Ex. 3:22. And ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33)

Shall we keep the Sabbath?
Ex. 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Ex. 31:15; Num. 15:32,36)
Is. 1:13 The new moons and the Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity. (John 5:16; Matt. 12:1-5)


Shall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.

Are we "saved" through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)


Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them...that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)


Should we own slaves?
Lev. 25:45-46 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy...and they shall be your posession...they shall be your bondmen forever. (Gen. 9:25; Ex. 21:2,7; Joel 3:8; Luke 12:47; Col. 3:22)
Is. 58:6 Undo the heavy burdens...break every yoke. (Matt. 23:10)


Does God change his mind?
Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)


Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Is God good or evil?
Psa. 145:9. The Lord is good to all. (Deut. 32:4; James 1:13)
Is. 45:7 I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things. (Lam 3:38; Jer. 18:11; Ezek. 20:25)

Is God Peaceable?
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. (Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36)
Matt. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 22:36)

Was Jesus trustworthy?
John 8:14 Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

Shall we call people names?
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

How many gods are there?
Deut. 6:4 The Lord or God is one Lord.
Gen. 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image.(Gen. 3:22; I John 5:7)

Are we all sinners?
Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned. (Rom. 3:10; Psa.14;3)
Job 1:1 There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. (Gen. 7:1; Luke 1:5-6)

When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
My experiences with religion were a valuable tool for personal growth. Though it is through abundant and disgusting experience with the Church and the Bible from whence my discontent foments. From the time I was a very "churched" boy to when I served as a deacon at a First Presbyterian Church, I could get no answers to the many "mysteries" of that faith (or those so replete in all the others). Not only that, I experienced the veiled and even blatant derision of the so-called upstanding members of those communities. As a result, my faith was flattened like a bug on a windshield. So my beliefs have become much more simplified, not like the raging cabal of religionists intent on "taking back" America.

President Bush is merely pandering to an electoral base of religionists. Yet the Presidential Science Advisor, Dr. John Marburger III, is engaging in damage control. On Aug. 2, The New York Times quoted a telephone interview with Marburger in which he said, "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept."

An article today from Space.com clarifies the "apologetics" that were necessitated by advisors to Bush and advisory boards with excellent credentials:

Marburger also spoke with Dr. Marvin Cohen, President of the American Physical Society, and recipient of the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002. In an Aug. 4 release, Cohen explains that the APS is "…happy that the President’s recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified. As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world."

Furthermore, "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America’s schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses." (AGU, Aug. 2, 2005) AGU is a scientific society comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists.

Likewise, the American Institute of Biological Sciences criticized the President: "Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not be taught in science classes," said AIBS president Dr. Marvalee Wake. "If we want our students to be able to compete in the global economy, if we want to attract the next generation into the sciences, we must make sure that we are teaching them science. We simply cannot begin to introduce non-scientific concepts into the science curriculum." (AIBS, Aug. 5, 2005) The American Institute of Biological Sciences was established as a national umbrella organization for the biological sciences in 1947 by 11 scientific societies as part of the National Academy of Sciences. An independent non-profit organization since 1954, it has grown to represent more than 80 professional societies and organizations with a combined membership exceeding 240,000 scientists and educators.

Science educators are equally dismayed. "The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms. We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom, said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director." (NSTA, Aug. 3, 2005) NSTA has 55,000 members who teach science in elementary, middle and high schools as well as college and universities.

The American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12th grade teachers, was even harsher. "President Bush’s misinformed comments on ‘intelligent design’ signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the ‘alternative theory’ that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science." (AFT, Aug. 4, 2005)

There’s significant legal precedent from US Supreme Court that creationism - in any clothing - does not belong in the American classrooms. Teaching creationism is in violation of the separation of church and state, and has been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in several cases. It’s unfortunate that the President apparently does not understand that science is not equivalent to a belief system but is description of how the natural world works. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a religious point of view, not science.

At a time when industrial, academic, and business leaders are calling for more American students to train in engineering, mathematics, science and technology, we need to teach science in science classrooms. Let’s teach the scientific ideas that are supported by overwhelming evidence such as gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. Creationist ideas/beliefs, such as intelligent design, don’t belong in science classrooms. In our haste to leave no child behind, let’s not leave science behind either.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Where would you like me to begin? I considered the possibility of addressing each point, thus doubling the length of your post from quoting you and responding in equal length.

I do not know (from two posts prior) how this turned into yet another Bible bashing session when we're talking about Creation, something that only happened in the beginning of the first book of the Bible, but would recommend attending one of the many hundreds of other Bible-bashing threads located on ATS that already address the concerns that you have. If not, please give one concern at a time on a new thread and we can discuss. Perhaps starting a thread called: Bible Contractions. Oh wait, I think there's one already with that title. How about: Biblical Queries. Tie that into some kind of secrecy and world domination and it'll stay here on ATS.

Here is my question. Whenever someone says, "Evolution doesn't seem to fit", why is the response "you got a better theory?" or "oh, so I guess you're going to tell me 'God did it!'. From a scientific standpoint, can we not see how silly of a response that is? Just because we're lacking sound theory does not necessitate attacking a religious group. It shows the argument going from a logical discussion to an emotional one. Let's talk science and keep unemotional about it. I think you've brought some good things up. I'm very pleased that it caused a response from our friend mattison0922 who had answers and questions I could relate to.

Intelligent Design I think is most appropriate given the topic. Now, are we going to talk about the politics of it, what scientists think, or the validity of it being a science in and of itself?



[edit on 19-8-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
He did put forward very curious attitudes, interestingly. For one, he maintained that his beliefs in the spiritual, quite fundamentally Xtian, were not religious in nature
Now, I have encountered such statements many times and never was any proof or justification offered as to how that could possibly be true. But quite paradoxically, he was somehow convinced that evolution is a religion
which is another common assertion made by fundies.


Yeah, it's a really strange phenomenon absent any logic whatsoever. The challenges from out of right field to "DEFEND YOUR RELIGION!" are simply intolerable. It's practically theo-terrorism.

It all boils down to demanding people choose a "side" in a false dichotomy. It's an oranges Holy War on apples. It's misguided. It's harmful. It's simply bizarre as you said.

This New Yorker editorial really puts the invasion of the Mud People in perspective, including the broader context of the overarching "Republican War on Science" (by science journalist Chris Mooney).

I fear for children.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
1.) You can be Christian and believe in Evolution
2.) You can be Christian and not believe in Evolution
3.) You can be Non-Christian and believe in Evolution
4.) You can be Non-Christian and not believe in Evolution

There's the proof. Now, same goes for Creation and Intelligent design.

Can we please get back on topic and stop blaming Christianity for the faults of science.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Where would you like me to begin? I considered the possibility of addressing each point, thus doubling the length of your post from quoting you and responding in equal length.


What about that monsterous and highly confusing document cobbled together over the ages with differing versions? Isn't that the source of Creationist Confusion?*


Originally posted by saint4God
I do not know (from two posts prior) how this turned into yet another Bible bashing session when we're talking about Creation, something that only happened in the beginning of the first book of the Bible, but would recommend attending one of the many hundreds of other Bible-bashing threads located on ATS that already address the concerns that you have. If not, please give one concern at a time on a new thread and we can discuss. Perhaps starting a thread called: Bible Contractions. Oh wait, I think there's one already with that title. How about: Biblical Queries. Tie that into some kind of secrecy and world domination and it'll stay here on ATS.

Here is my question. Whenever someone says, "Evolution doesn't seem to fit", why is the response "you got a better theory?" or "oh, so I guess you're going to tell me 'God did it!'. From a scientific standpoint, can we not see how silly of a response that is? Just because we're lacking sound theory does not necessitate attacking a religious group. It shows the argument going from a logical discussion to an emotional one. Let's talk science and keep unemotional about it. I think you've brought some good things up. I'm very pleased that it caused a response from our friend mattison0922 who had answers and questions I could relate to.

Intelligent Design I think is most appropriate given the topic. Now, are we going to talk about the politics of it, what scientists think, or the validity of it being a science in and of itself?
[edit on 19-8-2005 by saint4God]


*Creationist Confusion is the topic, apparently you want to rephrase the debate in your own terms. Another thing, how can you possibly equate scientific thought with the politics of it?!? The only politics involved is a neocon agenda


Our friend mattison0922 has the most verbose posts I have ever seen, you don't complain to him because you like his answers. And if there is anyone who digressed from the topic, it is him.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
deletia
Can we please get back on topic and stop blaming Christianity for the faults of science.


When was that ever an issue? Give an example, please. Again, you are attempting to rephrase the debate in your own terms. If creationists are not confused (rather, confusing), PROVE the biblical story of creation. Of course, that is the point you are arguing.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
The issues you've brought up though were not the creation in Genesis. No, there is no confusion. The thing that's lacking is explanation on how. And God, being God, has a habit of being God, that is to say doing without having to explain Himself to us. Rather, He lets us use our brains to figure it out frequently.

Here's the off-topic stuff since you need specifics...

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
The biblical contradictions are well within context of each other. Please consider but a few of them:

Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.(See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)

Ex 20:5 "...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God..." (see also Ex 34:14, Deut 4:24, Josh 24:19, and Nah 1:2)
Gal 5:19-20 "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are...jealousy..." (See also 2 Cor 12:20)

Should we tell lies?
Ex. 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.(Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8)
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)

Should we steal?
Ex. 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. (Lev. 19:13)
Ex. 3:22. And ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33)

Shall we keep the Sabbath?
Ex. 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Ex. 31:15; Num. 15:32,36)
Is. 1:13 The new moons and the Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity. (John 5:16; Matt. 12:1-5)


Shall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.

Are we "saved" through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)


Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them...that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)


Should we own slaves?
Lev. 25:45-46 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy...and they shall be your posession...they shall be your bondmen forever. (Gen. 9:25; Ex. 21:2,7; Joel 3:8; Luke 12:47; Col. 3:22)
Is. 58:6 Undo the heavy burdens...break every yoke. (Matt. 23:10)


Does God change his mind?
Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)


Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Is God good or evil?
Psa. 145:9. The Lord is good to all. (Deut. 32:4; James 1:13)
Is. 45:7 I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things. (Lam 3:38; Jer. 18:11; Ezek. 20:25)

Is God Peaceable?
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. (Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36)
Matt. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 22:36)

Was Jesus trustworthy?
John 8:14 Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

Shall we call people names?
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

How many gods are there?
Deut. 6:4 The Lord or God is one Lord.
Gen. 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image.(Gen. 3:22; I John 5:7)

Are we all sinners?
Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned. (Rom. 3:10; Psa.14;3)
Job 1:1 There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. (Gen. 7:1; Luke 1:5-6)

When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"


I'd also like to add most, if not all, of these topics are either currently being discussed or were very recently discussed in other threads here on ATS. I could do a cut & paste job from those from there to here for each one, but to cause such inflation would probably not be looked upon favorably.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
The issues you've brought up though were not the creation in Genesis. No, there is no confusion. The thing that's lacking is explanation on how. And God, being God, has a habit of being God, that is to say doing without having to explain Himself to us. Rather, He lets us use our brains to figure it out frequently.
[edit on 22-8-2005 by saint4God]


Indeed. We continue to assemble the history, using our brains regarding the evidence we find.


But you missed the entire context, if the Bible is inerrant as ID and CS claim, then there should no contradiction. Instead, there are those confusing passages, mere fodder for the apologists. (Those were a small sampling, actually.) And there would not be the two (2) accounts of creation in Genesis. There is no confusion?!?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Mattison:

None, not a single one, of the points you've made during the entire last year to refute evolution does anything to prove creation science or intelligent design.

Actually you've taken up unnecessary space with the most verbose off-topic posts.

But in fact, you've proven my contention of Creationist Confusion by showing how to confuse the issue.

Even if evolution could be entirely refuted, that does not prove creationism by default.




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join