Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 5
 [ 91 posts ] 
ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.
Author Message
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[Can you give an example of evidence that is used by both "naturalistic evolution" and supernatural design that leads to different conclusions?


Rhed wrote:Sure. Ape and Human Evolution: evolutionary adaptations via natural selection and beneficial mutations.

Using observational science, neo-Darwinism was tested in a lab with RNA viruses (organisms that can quickly react to mutations). Link:
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/43/15376.full

Basically, what they found is that evolution can have beneficial mutations but no more than two at a time. Now this is a problem for human-ape evolution.

The lineage between humans and apes started about 10,000,000 years ago. Each generation is about 20yrs. That works out to be 500,000 generations. Humans have about 3,000,000,000 base pairs in our genome. Chimps and humans differ by 5% (150,000,000 mutations). But chimps were also evolving from that point so I'll half it, which is 75,000,000 mutations.

That means you need 150 fixed mutations for every generation.

Observable science shows that humans did not evolve from ape like ancestors, but evolution requires that we did. That is their conclusion.

Creation shows that humans are distinct from apes and there were no ancestor relationship between the two.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:As SpecialFrog pointed out above (and Rumraket explained to you clearly back in August), the source you are using does not say what you claim it says. However, for the sake of this argument, let us assume that you are correct. How are you able to get from the conclusion that humans do not share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees to therefore GodDidIt. One does not follow from the other. Disproving common descent does not make creationism right by default. I asked you to show evidence that intelligent design creationists use to conclude creationism, but the same evidence is used by proponents of evolution to conclude evolutionary theory, as you claimed earlier. Keep in mind that simply disproving evolution/universal common descent does not make creationism right by default. You have to provide positive evidence that is indicative of creationism.


Hello he who is nobody. Rumraket explained it very well, and I'm glad he did. He is in my opinion brilliant, but very knowledgeable in his own one-sided philosophical worldview. If you want answers in the theory of evolution model, he is the man to go to. If you want answers in the Creation model, stay far far away.

His explanation only shows that beneficial mutations can be fixed in a population; but juxtapose that research paper (two beneficial mutations at most) and the beneficial mutations needed between us and the chimps is highly unlikely.

True, disproving common descent does not make creation right. But mechanisms in your DNA that makes it difficult for mutations to occur shows design and purpose.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:04 am
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Gnug215 wrote:Also, you assume you're more spiritual than I am. You don't know that.


You are absolutely right; my bad.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:07 am
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:True, disproving common descent does not make creation right.


I think you're conflating the mechanisms proposed by evolutionary theory with the notion of common descent. While I don't know enough to jump in on this particular example given earlier, it's worth pointing out that even if you show that current evolutionary mechanisms cannot provide the power to make the changes needed for common descent to be possible, that doesn't necessarily preclude common descent, just that the proposed mechanisms are not responsible for such changes. It's my understanding that many ID advocates accept common descent, i.e. William Dembski and Micheal Behe. They just claim there are numerous problems with the mechanisms proposed to be responsible for the changes.

So if you want to falsify common descent, you're better off trying to discredit the evidence for that, rather than saying "okay this mechanism can't explain the pattern, therefore the pattern doesn't exist." Because what you're arguing now is against the mechanisms for evolution, not common descent (if that's what you're looking to falsify. I'm not paying real close attention and am a little confused as to what this argument of yours is trying to achieve.)
Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:34 am
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:True, disproving common descent does not make creation right.


itsdemtitans wrote:I think you're conflating the mechanisms proposed by evolutionary theory with the notion of common descent. While I don't know enough to jump in on this particular example given earlier, it's worth pointing out that even if you show that current evolutionary mechanisms cannot provide the power to make the changes needed for common descent to be possible, that doesn't necessarily preclude common descent, just that the proposed mechanisms are not responsible for such changes. It's my understanding that many ID advocates accept common descent, i.e. William Dembski and Micheal Behe. They just claim there are numerous problems with the mechanisms proposed to be responsible for the changes.

So if you want to falsify common descent, you're better off trying to discredit the evidence for that, rather than saying "okay this mechanism can't explain the pattern, therefore the pattern doesn't exist." Because what you're arguing now is against the mechanisms for evolution, not common descent (if that's what you're looking to falsify. I'm not paying real close attention and am a little confused as to what this argument of yours is trying to achieve.)


It's hard to falsify common descent. Because even in the Creation model, every "kind" has an original common descent. For example, horses, rhinos, and bears each have a created "kind". Evolution has it where horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. And there was a common ancestor that linked bears as well as the horses and rhinos.

Where is that line drawn? The Creation model accept common ancestors only to a point.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:56 am
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:True, disproving common descent does not make creation right.


itsdemtitans wrote:I think you're conflating the mechanisms proposed by evolutionary theory with the notion of common descent. While I don't know enough to jump in on this particular example given earlier, it's worth pointing out that even if you show that current evolutionary mechanisms cannot provide the power to make the changes needed for common descent to be possible, that doesn't necessarily preclude common descent, just that the proposed mechanisms are not responsible for such changes. It's my understanding that many ID advocates accept common descent, i.e. William Dembski and Micheal Behe. They just claim there are numerous problems with the mechanisms proposed to be responsible for the changes.

So if you want to falsify common descent, you're better off trying to discredit the evidence for that, rather than saying "okay this mechanism can't explain the pattern, therefore the pattern doesn't exist." Because what you're arguing now is against the mechanisms for evolution, not common descent (if that's what you're looking to falsify. I'm not paying real close attention and am a little confused as to what this argument of yours is trying to achieve.)


It's hard to falsify common descent. Because even in the Creation model, every "kind" has an original common descent. For example, horses, rhinos, and bears each have a created "kind". Evolution has it where horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. And there was a common ancestor that linked bears as well as the horses and rhinos.

Where is that line drawn? The Creation model accept common ancestors only to a point.


The line should be drawn where the evidence leads, really. If you find evidence of Universal common descent, go with that. If the evidence says it's limited, go with that. Since you're a creationist, I assume you accept the latter. So if this conversation with the others is about falsifying Common Descent, you're trying to falsify UNIVERSAL common descent. I'm not sure you're current argument about mutation rates is doing that, so you might wanna switch it up. Maybe provide some evidence that there is a barrier where diversity just stops, and hash that out with the others.
Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:24 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:Hello he who is nobody. Rumraket explained it very well, and I'm glad he did. He is in my opinion brilliant, but very knowledgeable in his own one-sided philosophical worldview. If you want answers in the theory of evolution model, he is the man to go to. If you want answers in the Creation model, stay far far away.


What exactly is the "creation model?" I highly doubt there is one. Beyond that, I am glad to see that you agree that Rumraket summed up Sanjuan et al. (2004) correctly. His explanation if it exposes how your earlier post about it was incorrect.

Rhed wrote:His explanation only shows that beneficial mutations can be fixed in a population; but juxtapose that research paper (two beneficial mutations at most) and the beneficial mutations needed between us and the chimps is highly unlikely.


Again, back in August, Rumraket already corrected this falsehood. Fixation rates for mutations seem to vary, and you have provided nothing to suggest that even if the low fixation rate you keep citing was correct, that it could also be the same for apes. Until you do this, your point is moot.

Rhed wrote:True, disproving common descent does not make creation right. But mechanisms in your DNA that makes it difficult for mutations to occur shows design and purpose.


Once again, for the sake of the argument, finding mechanisms in DNA that make mutations hard to occur does not show design or purpose. That simply would show that mutations were hard to occur. How exactly do you get from "mutations are hard to come by" to "therefore it is designed?" You still have not shown evidence for design or purpose even if your argument were correct, which it is not.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:49 am
YIM WWW
ldmitrukUser avatarPosts: 242Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:47 pmLocation: Edmonton, Alberta Gender: Cake

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
It's hard to falsify common descent. Because even in the Creation model, every "kind" has an original common descent. For example, horses, rhinos, and bears each have a created "kind". Evolution has it where horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. And there was a common ancestor that linked bears as well as the horses and rhinos.



Apologies in advanced if the quote is messed up as I'm responding on my tablet. But could you please provide us with a definition of "kind" that makes sense scientifically.

Cheers
Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:27 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:Sure. Ape and Human Evolution: evolutionary adaptations via natural selection and beneficial mutations.

Using observational science, neo-Darwinism was tested in a lab with RNA viruses (organisms that can quickly react to mutations). Link:
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/43/15376.full

Basically, what they found is that evolution can have beneficial mutations but no more than two at a time. Now this is a problem for human-ape evolution.

The lineage between humans and apes started about 10,000,000 years ago. Each generation is about 20yrs. That works out to be 500,000 generations. Humans have about 3,000,000,000 base pairs in our genome. Chimps and humans differ by 5% (150,000,000 mutations). But chimps were also evolving from that point so I'll half it, which is 75,000,000 mutations.

That means you need 150 fixed mutations for every generation.

Observable science shows that humans did not evolve from ape like ancestors, but evolution requires that we did. That is their conclusion.

Creation shows that humans are distinct from apes and there were no ancestor relationship between the two.

SpecialFrog wrote:There are a number of things wrong here.

1. The study doesn't show what you claim it does.
2. The majority of mutations are neutral. Most of the difference between human and chimp DNA is in non-coding portions.
3. The number of fixed, beneficial mutations separating us from apes is probably less than 240
4. Our last common ancestor with chimps is probably less than ten million years old but this is not a problem

This article deals with much of this issue: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/200 ... ondil.html

Rhed wrote:Hi SpecialFrog,

Thanks for the response.

Point 1 - The study suggests that neo-Darwinian evolution (step by step gradualism) is unlikely. Experimental science demonstrates that organisms can at best have 2 beneficial mutations simultaneously.

Point 2 - Neutral Evolution doesn't suggest that all gene variations is neutral. I like to know how the regulatory genes were selected though via natural selection.

Point 3 - I'm a little confused; is it 240 single mutations (each nucleotide), or 240 genes?

Point 4 - Yes, it's less than ten million years, I was being more favorable to evolution.

1) On what basis do you assert that the findings related to this RNA virus apply broadly to all organisms? The study authors don't appear to.
2) No not all gene variation is neutral but your claim about the difference between human and chimp DNA pretends that all of these differences are beneficial? Do you agree that mutations in non-functional DNA are inherently neutral (unless they cause the DNA to become functional, of course)? If so, why would that many beneficial mutations need to happen to account for the chimp / human difference? Also, why would regulatory genes be selected any differently?
3) Did you read the article I linked? It says specifically mutations (and it has references).

Also, you still have yet to justify your claim that the theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) depends on naturalism.

And I'd still be interested to know what scientific theories you do accept.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:26 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

ldmitruk wrote:
Rhed wrote:
It's hard to falsify common descent. Because even in the Creation model, every "kind" has an original common descent. For example, horses, rhinos, and bears each have a created "kind". Evolution has it where horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. And there was a common ancestor that linked bears as well as the horses and rhinos.



Apologies in advanced if the quote is messed up as I'm responding on my tablet. But could you please provide us with a definition of "kind" that makes sense scientifically.

Cheers


Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs by P. Senter, Using creation science to demonstrate evolution 2: morphological continuity within Dinosauria by P. Senter, and Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter’s strategy revisited by T. C. Wood have debunked the idea that kinds are immutable. Using the creationists own method (baraminology) all kinds tested blended into each other.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:23 pm
YIM WWW
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
It's hard to falsify common descent. Because even in the Creation model, every "kind" has an original common descent. For example, horses, rhinos, and bears each have a created "kind". Evolution has it where horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. And there was a common ancestor that linked bears as well as the horses and rhinos.



ldmitruk wrote:Apologies in advanced if the quote is messed up as I'm responding on my tablet. But could you please provide us with a definition of "kind" that makes sense scientifically.

Cheers


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs by P. Senter, Using creation science to demonstrate evolution 2: morphological continuity within Dinosauria by P. Senter, and Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter’s strategy revisited by T. C. Wood have debunked the idea that kinds are immutable. Using the creationists own method (baraminology) all kinds tested blended into each other.


You could read "he who is nobody's" source which is bias and by an evolutionists. It's like learning Christianity by a Muslim. Or use these sources which are from Creationists:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... mily-tree/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... somatidae/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... -squamata/
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:39 am
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:Point 3 - I'm a little confused; is it 240 single mutations (each nucleotide), or 240 genes?



SpecialFrog wrote:3) Did you read the article I linked? It says specifically mutations (and it has references).



Yes, and it appears to be genes, not codons. It's hard to believe we are 240 codon's different than chimps.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:13 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:
It's hard to falsify common descent. Because even in the Creation model, every "kind" has an original common descent. For example, horses, rhinos, and bears each have a created "kind". Evolution has it where horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. And there was a common ancestor that linked bears as well as the horses and rhinos.



ldmitruk wrote:Apologies in advanced if the quote is messed up as I'm responding on my tablet. But could you please provide us with a definition of "kind" that makes sense scientifically.

Cheers


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs by P. Senter, Using creation science to demonstrate evolution 2: morphological continuity within Dinosauria by P. Senter, and Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter’s strategy revisited by T. C. Wood have debunked the idea that kinds are immutable. Using the creationists own method (baraminology) all kinds tested blended into each other.


You could read "he who is nobody's" source which is bias and by an evolutionists. It's like learning Christianity by a Muslim. Or use these sources which are from Creationists:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... mily-tree/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... somatidae/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... -squamata/


:facepalm:

Image


That cartoon is all that needs to be said about the Answers Research Journal.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:47 am
YIM WWW
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
It's hard to falsify common descent. Because even in the Creation model, every "kind" has an original common descent. For example, horses, rhinos, and bears each have a created "kind". Evolution has it where horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. And there was a common ancestor that linked bears as well as the horses and rhinos.





Rhed wrote:You could read "he who is nobody's" source which is bias and by an evolutionists. It's like learning Christianity by a Muslim. Or use these sources which are from Creationists:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... mily-tree/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... somatidae/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... -squamata/


he_who_is_nobody wrote: :facepalm:

Image


That cartoon is all that needs to be said about the Answers Research Journal.


:facepalm:

Right back at you. You just don't get it, so why bother.
Image
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:52 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:
It's hard to falsify common descent. Because even in the Creation model, every "kind" has an original common descent. For example, horses, rhinos, and bears each have a created "kind". Evolution has it where horses and rhinos share a common ancestor. And there was a common ancestor that linked bears as well as the horses and rhinos.





Rhed wrote:You could read "he who is nobody's" source which is bias and by an evolutionists. It's like learning Christianity by a Muslim. Or use these sources which are from Creationists:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... mily-tree/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... somatidae/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... -squamata/


he_who_is_nobody wrote: :facepalm:

Image


That cartoon is all that needs to be said about the Answers Research Journal.


:facepalm:

Right back at you. You just don't get it, so why bother.
Image


Well, I am still waiting for that evidence that is positively indicative of creationism. Why not help us all "get it" by providing evidence for what you call science.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:08 am
YIM WWW
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, I am still waiting for that evidence that is positively indicative of creationism. Why not help us all "get it" by providing evidence for what you call science.


Having active and proofreading DNA repair process in our genome is evidence of a Designer/Creator because it shows purpose.

A biological machine called endonuclease runs along the backbone of the DNA strain looking for errors. When an error is found, it cuts the nucleotide and marks it. Another biological machine called the exonuclease removes it. Then another molecular machine, the polymerase, comes along and puts in the correct nucleotide. Finally, another machine called the ligase and "welds" it back together.

Using the noggin God gave you, does this self repair system show evidence of blind random evolution with no purpose or directed non-random mechanism with purpose?
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:46 am
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:Having active and proofreading DNA repair process in our genome is evidence of a Designer/Creator because it shows purpose.

A biological machine called endonuclease runs along the backbone of the DNA strain looking for errors. When an error is found, it cuts the nucleotide and marks it. Another biological machine called the exonuclease removes it. Then another molecular machine, the polymerase, comes along and puts in the correct nucleotide. Finally, another machine called the ligase and "welds" it back together.

Using the noggin God gave you, does this self repair system show evidence of blind random evolution with no purpose or directed non-random mechanism with purpose?


Also, since most evolutionists on this forum believe in Neutral Evolution, please explain the above process (DNA repair) via nonadaptive evolution.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:17 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, I am still waiting for that evidence that is positively indicative of creationism. Why not help us all "get it" by providing evidence for what you call science.


Having active and proofreading DNA repair process in our genome is evidence of a Designer/Creator because it shows purpose.

A biological machine called endonuclease runs along the backbone of the DNA strain looking for errors. When an error is found, it cuts the nucleotide and marks it. Another biological machine called the exonuclease removes it. Then another molecular machine, the polymerase, comes along and puts in the correct nucleotide. Finally, another machine called the ligase and "welds" it back together.


How amazing and complex, but how does any of that indicate creation? This appears to be a textbook example of a god of the gaps argument (i.e. I cannot explain this complex biological system, therefore GodDidIt). However, that would not be evidence indicative of creation, only, at most, pointing to a gap in our knowledge. Thus I must ask again, where is your evidence that this was caused by anything beyond what we already understand in biology?

Rhed wrote:Using the noggin God gave you, does this self repair system show evidence of blind random evolution with no purpose or directed non-random mechanism with purpose?


Neither. Sounds far more like natural selection acting on random mutations. Again, natural selection and mutations are an observable phenomenon. When have we ever observed the creation of a biological system, as you are suggesting?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:01 am
YIM WWW
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, I am still waiting for that evidence that is positively indicative of creationism. Why not help us all "get it" by providing evidence for what you call science.


Rhed wrote:Having active and proofreading DNA repair process in our genome is evidence of a Designer/Creator because it shows purpose.

A biological machine called endonuclease runs along the backbone of the DNA strain looking for errors. When an error is found, it cuts the nucleotide and marks it. Another biological machine called the exonuclease removes it. Then another molecular machine, the polymerase, comes along and puts in the correct nucleotide. Finally, another machine called the ligase and "welds" it back together.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:How amazing and complex, but how does any of that indicate creation? This appears to be a textbook example of a god of the gaps argument (i.e. I cannot explain this complex biological system, therefore GodDidIt). However, that would not be evidence indicative of creation, only, at most, pointing to a gap in our knowledge. Thus I must ask again, where is your evidence that this was caused by anything beyond what we already understand in biology?


The amazing and complex and with purpose indicate a Creator, pure and simple. Your "god of the gaps" mantra does nothing to help your materialistic naturalistic worldview. And you can stop asking for evidence because you will not accept it.

Rhed wrote:Using the noggin God gave you, does this self repair system show evidence of blind random evolution with no purpose or directed non-random mechanism with purpose?


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Neither. Sounds far more like natural selection acting on random mutations. Again, natural selection and mutations are an observable phenomenon. When have we ever observed the creation of a biological system, as you are suggesting?


The example I presented to you was one of millions of other orchestrated molecular machines in your genome, and far more complex such as the spliceosome. All life depends on these literally. Any evidence I give you, you will repeat the same mantra "GodDidit" or the "god of the gaps". You believe that the biological machines such as the endonuclease, exonnulcease, polymerase, and ligase came about via random mutations and natural selection rather than a Creator.

I'm not asking you what is possible. I'm asking you what is reasonable.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:31 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, I am still waiting for that evidence that is positively indicative of creationism. Why not help us all "get it" by providing evidence for what you call science.


Rhed wrote:Having active and proofreading DNA repair process in our genome is evidence of a Designer/Creator because it shows purpose.

A biological machine called endonuclease runs along the backbone of the DNA strain looking for errors. When an error is found, it cuts the nucleotide and marks it. Another biological machine called the exonuclease removes it. Then another molecular machine, the polymerase, comes along and puts in the correct nucleotide. Finally, another machine called the ligase and "welds" it back together.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:How amazing and complex, but how does any of that indicate creation? This appears to be a textbook example of a god of the gaps argument (i.e. I cannot explain this complex biological system, therefore GodDidIt). However, that would not be evidence indicative of creation, only, at most, pointing to a gap in our knowledge. Thus I must ask again, where is your evidence that this was caused by anything beyond what we already understand in biology?


The amazing and complex and with purpose indicate a Creator, pure and simple. Your "god of the gaps" mantra does nothing to help your materialistic naturalistic worldview. And you can stop asking for evidence because you will not accept it.


You do realize that natural selection has a "purpose," right? That is producing an organism that can carry its genes into the future. Thus, pointing to complexity and purpose does not indicate a creator. You would need to demonstrate a way to distinguish between designed biological systems and adapted biological systems. Without this, your point about purpose and complexly is moot. Oh, and pointing out logical fallacies is not a mantra. Stop using them and I will stop pointing them out.

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:Using the noggin God gave you, does this self repair system show evidence of blind random evolution with no purpose or directed non-random mechanism with purpose?


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Neither. Sounds far more like natural selection acting on random mutations. Again, natural selection and mutations are an observable phenomenon. When have we ever observed the creation of a biological system, as you are suggesting?


The example I presented to you was one of millions of other orchestrated molecular machines in your genome, and far more complex such as the spliceosome. All life depends on these literally. Any evidence I give you, you will repeat the same mantra "GodDidit" or the "god of the gaps". You believe that the biological machines such as the endonuclease, exonnulcease, polymerase, and ligase came about via random mutations and natural selection rather than a Creator.

I'm not asking you what is possible. I'm asking you what is reasonable.


What is reasonable is what is possible. We know natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and gene flow happen. We have never seen a disembodied creator creating anything. Thus, what is reasonable is that what is already observed is far more likely to be behind any biological system you point out than a disembodied creator. Before you could even prepose this disembodied creator as a possible solution to any of your complex molecular problems, you would have to indicate that it exist. That means you need to provide evidence for it, which you keep failing to do.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:14 am
YIM WWW
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2995Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:Using the noggin God gave you, does this self repair system show evidence of blind random evolution with no purpose or directed non-random mechanism with purpose?


I decided not to do the whole creationism debate a while back, but this is a misconception that has to be addressed.

Evolution is non-random. The mutations may be random, but natural selection is not. For it to be random the factors that affect survival would have to be random, but they are not. It's not random that a creature born with damaged or useless eyes would have less survival chance than a creature with great eyesight (as a general rule, excluding creatures that live in caves etc.)

If it didn't matter what it took to survive and anything goes reined supreme then you can say that evolution is random, but it isn't. The environment drives natural selection in a non-random way, giving a narrow possibility of which mutations are actually beneficial.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:59 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 5
 [ 91 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests