Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nah, all that matters to anyone who doesn't accept evolution is the bible. They don't care about anything else. The bible's simple to understand; all that science stuff is so-o-o-o complicated.
So complicated that their bible actually makes sense to them!
Genetic testing, forced mutations, gene manipulation, etc is common and every test since at least Mendelson's fruit fly experiment shows mutations always lead to degradation in the Kind. Please do not say such tests exist that prove Macro Evolution through Natural selection, post just one with a link for everyone to examine.
False. You have been told this before, but you don't listen. You prefer to rummage around and find something that (miinterpreted) can be made to look like it supports your position
Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:
Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
Oh breeding is important because every Kind hits a brick wall eliminating Natural selection from making/Evolving a New Kind.
This is just stating a claim that is false because it totally misrepresents evolution. You KNOW that natural selection is the mechanism behind 'Micro' evolution (and breeding - human use of the mechanism to suit themselves), yet you ignore that 'Macro' as it is called is just the same. You then drag in this irrelevant stuff about "Kinds" simply because it is Creationist dogma. It has no place in science.
Quote:
Nope the Bible is clear that a Kind is a group that shares the same basic DNA and can reproduce. When one reaches the outer edges reproduction stops, eliminating Natural selection as any extreme mutation ends, because it is NOT a true or lasting benefit. Scientists describe "species", etc. to fit Evolution and ... even then it hits a brick wall at some point.
You bods really are crafty. The Bible says that all the kinds of animals and such were created. And then you creationists add on all sorts of misrepresented and misunderstood science to try to make it refute evolution -theory, and then pretend that the Bible says it. (I needn't labour the crafty attempt to make all Christians think they have to buy Creationism too). Simply repeating your false idea of what speciation is - and I know that you misuse the 'cannot turn dogs into cats' argument to back it up - proves nothing.
The claim that mutations (in a particular species or individual) is always deleterious is quite wrong as is your creationists dogma -statement 'not a true or lasting benefit'. The half -truth that species are invented by science to conveniently categorize where a line of evolution is at this time is misrepresented (in a self -contradictory way, now I come to look at it) as a fixed "Kind" that can never change beyond that 'Kind' - and you just dismiss the masses of evidence that this often did happen.
Quote:
Again show any proof that a species becomes another species and cannot or does not breed with the previous species, which is what in the end Natural selection must accomplish based on all known species relationships. Please provide a link of any proof to the contrary.
Again, look at the evidence that actually exists and stop demanding evidence of interbreeding between different species which YOU KNOW is not what evolution (micro) is doing and you KNOW that species interbreeding is nothing to do with it. Sorry to shout in capitals but you are asking the same questions that have been answered again and again and you keep saying the same false argument.
Quote:
Meaningless diversion,
predictable dismissal of anything you don't want to hear.
Quote:
as the only mention is Wolf's support of the genetic view (Note and an inference he is a "young earth creationist" which he is not) and nothing more. No addressing the science Wolf has provided, just an effort to denigrate his scientific evidence by association that is unrelated to the evidence Wolf provides. Oh notice it does not refer to any of the science behind Wolf's position, just he "claims" .... there is no evidence. He has done far more than claim, it he has proved it scientifically. That alone shows the site you accessed is worthless.
You give yourself away. Clearly this Wollf IS a YE Creationist but you try to cover that up with the usual reference to scientific credentials - as though that excused him from the inherent bias of Creationism. In fact we know very well that scientists who are creationists use two mental systems - the science for their job and the nonsense for their Faith -based creationism.
Quote:
Address Wolf's actual arguments. I have found no one who has yet been able to refute them. In fact I have found no one who has addressed them yet. A very telling situation of science is full of proof he is wrong. Where is it?
Sending me off to do your research for you, are you What good would it do when you get YE Creation site mental cut and paste tosh about Kinds, self deception about what Evolution actually claims, and irrelevant argument from species interbreeding - not to mention demonstrably false claims about mutation and doubtless say the same - that you have found no-one who can refute them. The fact is that you have found no -one who can make you listen.
I may in fact have a look at the argument that Wolf makes. I don't doubt they are the usual false creationist claims we are familiar with. And I don't doubt the usual response - "atheist scientists refuse to listen to him; a science -dogma Conspiracy to keep his papers from being published". It is thought provoking to realize that everything that Creationists accuse "Us" of is what they would do themselves, if they ran the show.
By the way, I am still waiting for any scientific evidence for creation. No . I don't mean fiddling up objections to evolution theory (1) based on misunderstanding and misrepresentation, but some scientific evidence For creation.
(1) which includes the debunked ID, Polonium haloes and Polystrates.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-02-2015 at 05:32 AM..
Reason: blocking a possible grammar quibble.
Nah, all that matters to anyone who doesn't accept evolution is the bible. They don't care about anything else. The bible's simple to understand; all that science stuff is so-o-o-o complicated.
It gets very complicated in Creationism, too. I have read some brain -crackingly erudite stuff presented in favour of creationism - which of course means trying to debunk evolution theory and an Old earth geology (to Creationists it is all 'Evolution') in hopes to leave Genesis as the only explanation, as it was in the Good Old Days before Darwin (1)
And I can't recall the details. But it always seems to focus on the bits that fit, like Ken Ham's presentation of a post - flood (superspeed) evolution of kinds that Nye blew out of the water with the evidence that it left out - about half of it. From then on, Hamm was done and dusted, as he was re-presenting a dead argument.
Same with the Giraffe's neck. As I recall, it was a misrepresented idea of how evolution works to do with the giraffe not being able to eat until it had developed the long neck (I may be mis-remembering this, so I won't mock) that was shown wrong and then the morphology of the giraffe neck used to prove that the creature had to have evolved.
And of course then our Creationist pals here will say 'Oh yes, that is Micro' evolution. It is still a giraffe. The self -contradictory goalpost - shifting they are doing seems to escape them.
I might refer to the claim I made about Creationists who were real scientists (not Engineers, please. Their method is quite different to the scientific method: they Problem solve. Which means you don't work with finding out what is true, but what you can make work) and I am thinking specifically of the paper -publishing geologist who is a YE Creationist. This puzzle was resolved when it was revealed that he used Millions of years geology in his scientific papers but thousands of years in talking Creationism. This separation of fact and faith -based fantasy is how scientists who know better manage to still talk creationist nonsense.
I needn't go into much detail about the gaps in knowledge or evidence that Creationists leap on in order to pretend that there is none, because of course the evidence we do have is dismissed as fabricated (the lies about Tiktaalik and Lucy being odd bits) or just ignored as the evidence of the Cetan sequence and bird -evolution which the morphology alone would prove even without the fossil confirmation.
But I was thinking about this apparent confirmation of Kinds that have genetic barriers that cannot be crossed. This is total bosh with no genetic basis. But it can be made to look a decent argument because we do not (not 'cannot') turn fruit -flies into another species. Ok, the dogs into cats by interbreeding is simply ignorance and denial, but, given that fruit flies can do a thousand generations in a month, should it not be possible to prove Macro evolution by turning them into something else?
Well, the experiments have produced markedly different critters and by no means the always deleterious mutation that Expat and the others so unthinkingly parrot. But of course, even if they have extra wings or no wings or can glow in the dark, they are still fruit flies. Just as an Eohippus is still a horse and a Basileosaurus is still a whale. And anything that looks undeniably different - such as Ambulocetus - can just be denied. Like obvious transitionals like Tiktaalik. "God just made them to look half fish half lizard".
So there would have to be years of pushing the mutations until it had 6 legs and a proboscis. "It's still a fruit fly". So then push it until it had segments and 100 legs. Then it is undeniably a different critter. Speciation without doubt. I don't think it has been done, but there is no practical or genetic reason why it couldn't be done.
But I know what the response would be - because I already saw it in a Creationist poster who got the idea that Life HAD been made in a laboratory "You did that in a laboratory. Doesn't mean it can happen in nature. And anyway it required an intelligent designer to do it". No wonder we don't bother.
(1) the only drawback of debating creationists is that it uses up my rolleye -icon quota too fast.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-02-2015 at 05:41 AM..
Reason: a bit of a spellcheck
False. You have been told this before, but you don't listen. You prefer to rummage around and find something that (miinterpreted) can be made to look like it supports your position
Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:
Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
This is just stating a claim that is false because it totally misrepresents evolution. You KNOW that natural selection is the mechanism behind 'Micro' evolution (and breeding - human use of the mechanism to suit themselves), yet you ignore that 'Macro' as it is called is just the same. You then drag in this irrelevant stuff about "Kinds" simply because it is Creationist dogma. It has no place in science.
You bods really are crafty. The Bible says that all the kinds of animals and such were created. And then you creationists add on all sorts of misrepresented and misunderstood science to try to make it refute evolution -theory, and then pretend that the Bible says it. (I needn't labour the crafty attempt to make all Christians think they have to buy Creationism too). Simply repeating your false idea of what speciation is - and I know that you misuse the 'cannot turn dogs into cats' argument to back it up - proves nothing.
The claim that mutations (in a particular species or individual) is always deleterious is quite wrong as is your creationists dogma -statement 'not a true or lasting benefit'. The half -truth that species are invented by science to conveniently categorize where a line of evolution is at this time is misrepresented (in a self -contradictory way, now I come to look at it) as a fixed "Kind" that can never change beyond that 'Kind' - and you just dismiss the masses of evidence that this often did happen.
Again, look at the evidence that actually exists and stop demanding evidence of interbreeding between different species which YOU KNOW is not what evolution (micro) is doing and you KNOW that species interbreeding is nothing to do with it. Sorry to shout in capitals but you are asking the same questions that have been answered again and again and you keep saying the same false argument.
predictable dismissal of anything you don't want to hear.
You give yourself away. Clearly this Wollf IS a YE Creationist but you try to cover that up with the usual reference to scientific credentials - as though that excused him from the inherent bias of Creationism. In fact we know very well that scientists who are creationists use two mental systems - the science for their job and the nonsense for their Faith -based creationism.
Sending me off to do your research for you, are you What good would it do when you get YE Creation site mental cut and paste tosh about Kinds, self deception about what Evolution actually claims, and irrelevant argument from species interbreeding - not to mention demonstrably false claims about mutation and doubtless say the same - that you have found no-one who can refute them. The fact is that you have found no -one who can make you listen.
I may in fact have a look at the argument that Wolf makes. I don't doubt they are the usual false creationist claims we are familiar with. And I don't doubt the usual response - "atheist scientists refuse to listen to him; a science -dogma Conspiracy to keep his papers from being published". It is thought provoking to realize that everything that Creationists accuse "Us" of is what they would do themselves, if they ran the show.
By the way, I am still waiting for any scientific evidence for creation. No . I don't mean fiddling up objections to evolution theory (1) based on misunderstanding and misrepresentation, but some scientific evidence For creation.
(1) which includes the debunked ID, Polonium haloes and Polystrates.
Well done, Arq.
(Not that it will dent the Fundashield Of Determined Ignorance. But at least others who are not immune to logic and reason will benefit.)
Why does it matter if we believe we got here because of evolution taking place over millions of years or if we believe we got here because a god created us a few thousand years ago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Well, from the atheist point of view we think it is important to believe things that are validated by reason and evidence, not by faith and faith-based denial of anything that conflicts with it.
Even though I am a lifelong Atheist, I do not get annoyed by people who believe in the buy-bull and reject evolution. I find them interesting. One of my buy-bull thumping friends gave me a book "The Case for Christ" and a video showing so-called 'scientific' experiments that contradicted the accepted evidence for evolution. I actually read the book and watched all of the video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
Are there any decisions or actions we would make differently depending on our belief in evolution or creationism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
It seems that is is the creationist that think this earth is created to be used and abused to no end for Mans benefit, with no thoughts of how it affects the entire planet.
If one takes a more holistic viewpoint that man is part of nature, and nature doesn't care whether we are here or not, we made just take more care of nature to make sure that those elements that exist in it required for a continued well-being stay.
That is a very interesting idea, Cupper, and it makes sense to me. As the Theist John Kennedy said 52 years ago, "On earth, god's work must surely be our own" - or something like that. Maybe one of our Creationist posters will comment on this..
Anyway, there won't be much we can do about our "continued well-being" when a supervolcano erupts, like the one that created Lake Toba in Sumatra and, according to what I saw on TV, wiped out almost all of the humans 75,000 years ago.
Even though I am a lifelong Atheist, I do not get annoyed by people who believe in the buy-bull and reject evolution. I find them interesting. One of my buy-bull thumping friends gave me a book "The Case for Christ" and a video showing so-called 'scientific' experiments that contradicted the accepted evidence for evolution. I actually read the book and watched all of the video.
That is a very interesting idea, Cupper, and it makes sense to me. As the Theist John Kennedy said 52 years ago, "On earth, god's work must surely be our own" - or something like that. Maybe one of our Creationist posters will comment on this..
Anyway, there won't be much we can do about our "continued well-being" when a supervolcano erupts, like the one that created Lake Toba in Sumatra and, according to what I saw on TV, wiped out almost all of the humans 75,000 years ago.
Even though I am a lifelong Atheist, I do not get annoyed by people who believe in the buy-bull and reject evolution. I find them interesting. One of my buy-bull thumping friends gave me a book "The Case for Christ" and a video showing so-called 'scientific' experiments that contradicted the accepted evidence for evolution. I actually read the book and watched all of the video.
Nor do I. It is only when they threaten to shoehorn Genesis into the science class or deprive people of rights while expecting social privileges themselves because of their religious views, then I get concerned and have to make some kind of effort. Even then I am not really angry. That, I reserve for the Big Con that is religion. I get exasperated at people who seem to have their fingers in their ears, but I am not angry and don't dislike them. I don't even expect them to agree with me just because of what I say, but this 'Now - you do not think what you say you think, you think what I say you think' easy win ploy is a bit of a pain.
Quote:
That is a very interesting idea, Cupper, and it makes sense to me. As the Theist John Kennedy said 52 years ago, "On earth, god's work must surely be our own" - or something like that. Maybe one of our Creationist posters will comment on this..
Anyway, there won't be much we can do about our "continued well-being" when a supervolcano erupts, like the one that created Lake Toba in Sumatra and, according to what I saw on TV, wiped out almost all of the humans 75,000 years ago.
Or the Yellowstone super volcano, or the overdue asteroid hit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
It's too soon for me too and I haven't repped Arq in seemingly ages.
or a rep for Shirina. The trouble is with you is that you get a rep with a classic post and then I can't rep one of your even better ones.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-02-2015 at 12:45 PM..
Reason: usual need for a god tidy -up...I mean good..
That rings a bell...I'm sure thunderfoot did a video referring to environmental speeding up of evolution....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
predictable dismissal of anything you don't want to hear.
What good would it do when you get YE Creation site mental cut and paste tosh about Kinds, self deception about what Evolution actually claims, and irrelevant argument from species interbreeding - not to mention demonstrably false claims about mutation and doubtless say the same - that you have found no-one who can refute them. The fact is that you have found no -one who can make you listen. 
(1)