Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#586 Nov 19, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I must have skipped over her posts since they were not directed towards me. Did they have anything to do with the subject at hand?
Let's get back to basics. What sort of evidence do you have for creation? We have all sorts of evidence for evolution. Do you understand the scientific process of developing a hypothesis and testing it? The steps in science are observation, development of a hypothesis, testing of hypothesis, further developing as a theory, testing as a theory, then finally peer review.
How far along are they in developing any hypotheses in creation?
All sorts of evidence...
I have been waiting some 50 pages for ANY EVIDENCE

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Kalispell, MT

#587 Nov 19, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>At least you are admitting that you are a pig.
LOL You are truly pathetic.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#588 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence for evolution?
Where
Where?
I must have missed it too....
Firstly, all change is not evolution
Genomic variability is sufficient to explain change in biological entities. Natural slection selects based on environmental pressure.
Secondly, Archaeopteryx, a bird, is a mosaic at best. Other contenders for the transitional fossil status are just that. Contenders. AND are hotly debated. By evolutionists.
Thirdly, I have demonstrated, that despite deep evolutionary time, a concocted concept, mutations do not account for biological evolution as per the GTE.
So what evidence are you referring to?
First admit that you do not know what constitutes scientific evidence. You have been given countless examples of scientific evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#589 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
All sorts of evidence...
I have been waiting some 50 pages for ANY EVIDENCE
There are none so blind as those that won't see.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#590 Nov 19, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL You are truly pathetic.
Nope, that is you Ronnie, no sense of humor, can't do a lick of science, and yet you try to debate it on an open forum. That is a massacre waiting to happen.

So let's see your evidence for your silly beliefs.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#591 Nov 19, 2012
Russell, my post describing how a theory is formed should give you an idea what constitutes scientific evidence. Scientific evidence can both help or hurt a hypothesis. I have yet to see any evidence that can be used against evolution. There is all sorts of evidence that goes against the Genesis myths, depending upon how the creation hypothesis is formed of course.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#592 Nov 19, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that is you Ronnie, no sense of humor, can't do a lick of science, and yet you try to debate it on an open forum. That is a massacre waiting to happen.
So let's see your evidence for your silly beliefs.
Scientific evidence for evolution?
Where is it?
I am nothing if not incredulous!!

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Kalispell, MT

#593 Nov 19, 2012
Would You Believe?

Remember Agent Maxwell Smart? Here, Smart has been captured by the villainous Mohammed Khan...

Smart: Would you believe I have you surrounded by the entire 17th Mounted Bengal Lancers.
Khan: No.
Smart: Would you believe the First Bengal Lancers?
Khan: I don't believe you.
Smart: How about Gunga Din on a donkey?

Scientist: Would you believe that I know everything?
Christian: No.
Scientist: Would you believe that life evolved from a primordal goo?
Christian: I don't think so.
Scientist: How about that Hippos evolved into Whales?

Sometimes evolutionists take the smallest pieces of evidence and stretch them out into a theory to see how much the public will believe.

Several hundred years ago, the explorer Samual Hearne saw bears swimming and catching salmon and so naturally he concluded that bears were the ancestors of whales. Charles Darwin accepted this in his book, "Origin of Species." Modern scientists continue in the tradition with new theories which they hope will be more believable, namely the evolution of bears/hyenas/hippos to whales (there seems to be quite a bit of dissension between bears, hyenas, and hippos).

They have produced nice charts with animal skeletons arranged by size and appearance to show the progression from bears/hyenas/hippos to whale. The problem is that almost NONE of the bones that are critical to the change exist in reality. Some of what they have to tie these together are, Pakicetus inner ear bones, Ambulocetus nose bones, and Dorudontine, there is no evidence whatsoever that would indicate how the rear limbs and bony tail of this last step "evolved" into a whale fluke made mostly of cartilage.

Hippo to Whale Chart
http://beyondthebible.net/Images/hippowhale.j...

Theories like this may have some merit but the overall evidence is so skimpy that these learned scientists might as well be doing a Maxwell Smart "Would you believe" bit.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#594 Nov 19, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientific evidence for evolution?
Where is it?
I am nothing if not incredulous!!
I know. You have yet to admit that you know nothing of scientific evidence. That is an obvious fact that you should be willing to admit to. If you won't take at least that small step there is no point in continuing. Until you do so all I have to do to debunk your argument is to point that out that simple fact. Until you admit that you know nothing of scientific evidence you have no chance of learnng what it is.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#595 Nov 19, 2012
Poor Ron can't even read his own illustrated pictures. All he has provided so far is a series of face palms.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#596 Nov 19, 2012
By the way Ron, if you want to talk about Whale evolution you could have used a more recent and thorough source:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cet...

Or you might try this, cartoons may be more your speed:



At best you have an argument from ignorance combined with an argument from incredulity, neither of which are winning tactics.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#597 Nov 19, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I must have skipped over her posts since they were not directed towards me. Did they have anything to do with the subject at hand?
Let's get back to basics. What sort of evidence do you have for creation? We have all sorts of evidence for evolution. Do you understand the scientific process of developing a hypothesis and testing it? The steps in science are observation, development of a hypothesis, testing of hypothesis, further developing as a theory, testing as a theory, then finally peer review.
How far along are they in developing any hypotheses in creation?
I too skip Christine's posts...
But knowing that you, "....skipped over her posts since they were not directed towards me", leads mme to think I may re-post some of mine, the vast majority of which had gone missing ..into evolutionary deep time.
There are 5 parts
I hope you enjoy them Ron

PART ONE

It is equivocation to call any change ‘evolution’
The General Theory of Evolution,(GTE) was defined by the evolutionary biologist Professor G A Kerkut of Southampton University, as “the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an organic form”.
--Kerkut, G A, Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p 157, 1960.
Here is the quote in full:
“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”
GTE has been referred to as the creation story of atheists. It’s quite fanciful, wouldn’t you say?
Dawkins believes, as you do, that when there is a systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool, that is precisely what we mean by evolution.
Dawkins, R The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009, p 33.
Similar definitions of evolution are:
Evolution =change gene frequency with time; or descent with modification.
This is believed to be achieved by natural selection.
Evolution by natural selection is considered a “creative force”. However, natural selection cannot create anything new; it only selects from what is already available. Therefore demonstrating that natural selection occurs does not prove the GTE. Rather, natural selection works by removing genes...of the unfit ... from the population. Thus, natural selection has long been regarded as a conservative force. As I have mentioned before in this forum, a creationist, the chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810-1873) wrote about natural selection in 1835-7, and as Stephen Jay Gould pointed out,“Natural selection ranked as a standard item in biological discourse” among the pre-Darwinian creationists.
--Gould, S J, The structure of Evolutionary Theory, pp 137-141, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002.
William Paley’s famous “Natural Theology” had also recognised the role of natural selection, although not by that name.
--Gould, S J, The structure of Evolutionary Theory, pp 137-141, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002.
Modern creationists also recognise, as their predecessors did, natural selection as a way of producing variability.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#598 Nov 19, 2012
PART 2

The main scientific objection to evolution is NOT about whether change occurs through time. So, Christine, sending me hoards of links about “change” is quite redundant. Whether you like it or not. And your observing gradual changes from the HUMAN Cro-magnon to the HUMAN human, is nothing special or awesome or anything at all!

Neither is evolution about the SIZE of the change, so “macro-evolution” and “micro-evolution” are redundant terms and should be discouraged.
The key is the genetic information content .
The 3 billion DNA nucleotides in each human nucleus convey a great deal more information, than the half million DNA nucleotides of the ‘simplest’ self replication organism. The DNA sequences in a higher organism such as a human or a horse, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
All, sexually reproducing, organisms contain their genetic information in paired forms. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and the other half from its father. So, there are 2 genes at every loci that code for a particular characteristic. Thus, an organism can be heterozygous at a given locus. Sometimes two alleles can have a combined effect, or sometimes one allele may have a dominant effect and the other recessive. Mendel, a creationist Christian, demonstrated this with his simple punnet squares.
With humans, Mum and Dad’s halves each have 25,000 genes with information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books, 3 billion base pairs. Just reach out to your bookshelf and check how many pages Darwin’s Origins has for an idea. It’s the special book with the gold leaf that you wrap in a special cloth, kiss daily and never ever allow to drop on the floor.
The neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that human’s today have an “average heterozygosity of 6.7%”.
-- Ayala, F J, The mechanism of evolution, Scientific American 239(3):48-61, Sept 1978, p 55.
This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 1,675 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells—2 to the power of 1675, or 10 to the power of 504. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 10 to the power of 80, extremely tiny by comparison. This leads to huge variability and diversity. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most variation in populations arises from reshuffling of existing genes, not from mutations.
Many varieties can arise from two recessive hidden alleles coming together.
All alleged ‘proofs’ of evolution in action to date do not show that functional new information is added to genes. To claim that mere change proves that information-increase has occurred has been demonstrated to be wrong.
The origin of information is an insurmountable problem for evolutionists. Even with a frog in a blender. For life, read ‘biological information’, to ever spring out of the blender, you need the frog first. But don’t hold your breath. No life will ever spring out of a scenario like that. Just trust me.
Some mutations can be beneficial as they may facilitate functions that aid the organism. However, in ALL known cases, they still add no new information. Enter Drosophila melagaster. But that is a separate story.
Chloroquine resistance, oft cited evolutionary ‘evidence’ for evolution, required two specific mutations to occur together in the one gene. This took a long time to occur in an organism with a short life cycle and a huge population, when compared to the single mutations required for resistance to other anti-malarials. How long would it take in an organism like a human? Behe has shown this could never happen even with assumed evolutionary deep time.
--Behe, M, The edge of evolution: the search for limits of Darwinism, Free Press, NY, 2007.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#600 Nov 20, 2012
Sorry Russell, I am ignoring your posts until you admit that you know nothing of what constitutes scientific evidence. Until you do so all I need to do is to point out that fact.

Behe was completely debunked in the Dover trials. He is a rather bad person to go to. Of course he is a bit better than Gish and Morris. Or of course Hovind or the Banana Man who came from your neck of the woods. Or who is that other complete utter idiot, oh yeah, Ken Ham.

Boy your side has generated some momentous morons, has it?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#603 Nov 20, 2012
See I am conducting an experiment right here: I had hypothesised that my re-posted posts would not go through. I have tested that hypothesis, been proven right, and am now conducting further trials....see? It ain't hard!

PART 3

And this is just one double mutation in a gene. Thus any adaptation requiring two or more specific mutations could not occur. Yet such must have happened numerous times if humans rose through evolutionary processes.
Incidentally, chloroquine-resistant Plasmodium falciparum isolates consistently have an import mechanism with a lower transport activity and a reduced affinity for chloroquine. Thus the resistant varieties do worse when compared to the wild type in the absence of chloroquine.
--Sanchez, C P, Wunsch S and Lanzer, M, Identification of a Chloroquine importer in Palsmodium falciparum: Differences in import kinetics are genetically linked with the Chloroquine-resistant phenotype. J Biol Chem 272(5):2652-2658, 1997.

That is evidence for down-hill change, OPPOSITE to the requirements of the GTE.
As for sickle cell anaemia and the evolutionary claim that a ‘beneficial’ mutation has occurred and that this is evidence for evolution, one of the world’s leading authorities on sickle cell anaemia Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, FGA MD(Lond), DSc(UCC), FRCP(Glasg), FRCP (Lond), FWACP DTMH(L'pool), has stated that the misshapen red blood cells can block capillaries and starve downstream organs and structures of oxygen. However sufferers can do well with proper treatment. Those who are heterozygous for the mutation do better. However, Dr Konotey-Ahulu has pointed out that there is neither increase in complexity nor any improvement in function which is being selected for. Having more carriers results in a greater chance of homozygosity and more sufferers.
--The Sickle Cell Disease Patient (Macmillan, 1991; Tetteh-A’Domeno Co., Watford, UK, 1996).

Natural selection, accepted by creationists before Darwin, AND in the present day, only acts on existing genes, and is not omnipotent.
Consider Lenski’s bacteria in a decades’ long experiment. Lenski and his team continued with a daily routine of more than twenty years, of generating E coli in flasks. This was estimated at 7000 flask generations and 45,000 bacterial generations—averaging between six and seven bacterial generations per day. Dawkins, in glowingly describing this experiment, equates this to a million years of bacterial generations. Dawkins is excited as he thinks this experiment provides ‘evidence for evolution’ as the expectation is that mutations can be captured by freezing bacteria from every generation to be able to check exactly where the divergence occurred.

Incidentally, bacteria have been revived from cells allegedly millions of years old, by which time any DNA should have disintegrated, and are often identical to living bacteria, despite supposedly billions of generations for modern ones to evolve. The same issue exists for bats and other animals.

In the Lenski experiment, some generations of bacteria grew large when glucose was added to their broth. They also became better at exploiting glucose when scarce. These changes plateaued rather quickly. What really excites Dawkins about it all is that in two tribes of E coli, Ara+1 and Ara-1, demonstrating these changes, 59 mutations were detected and both tribes revealed changes in the same direction. This ‘independent’ paraellelism, to Dawkins, was unlikely to happen by chance, and to him, this was cumulative natural selection gradually favouring the same changes in both lines independently.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#605 Nov 20, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Ron, how nice to hear from you.
What lovely words of truth. At last!
I dont feel so parched anymore on this forum.
Please be aware that when dealing with marshmallows, don't squeeze too hard. Otherwise, they fall off their evolutionary perches too quickly, and then you know what?
No fun.
Thats just a little joke.
I hope you stay?
You would not know truth if it sat on your face and farted

Thats just a little joke.

Of course you would know, you would be totally surprised and confused but you would know

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#608 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe not faith, evolution science is certainly a world-view more than science.
What Use is the Science of Evolution?
Are you not curios about where you came from?

No! Well how about practical uses for evolutionary theory?

It’s the framework that holds all branches of biology together.

It’s invaluable in developing cures for diseases and pest resistant to traditional medications

Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy

Evolutionary theory is used to provide you with affordable fish.

Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery

It is foundational for drug discovery

Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease.

Evolutionary theory allows you to eat beef, pork, lamb, bread, etc in the quantities you have become used to.

The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering

The computers, cell phones, cares and aeroplanes you use would not be as they are today without evolutionary theory

Finally anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not ever contributed anything with any practical application.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#609 Nov 20, 2012
Still trialling....

PART 4

All this sounds great to an evolutionist. Until, enter Stage Left, operons. Thus the changes were not independent at all, but due to a change in just one control gene. A regulatory gene called spoT. The cost of the changes were that the energetically costly genes that make the bacterial flagellum were switched off.

So, as is quite obvious, this experiment showed nothing but information reducing change. Deterioration. Proof of this was that none of the tribes could utilize ribose anymore and some lost their DNA repair ability. These poor pampered bugs could not compete with the wild types outside the environment of the lab.

A very clever man said this,“Chemicals obey the second Law of Thermodynamics and do not arrange themselves into self sustaining metabolic pathways. Living cells have molecular machinery, whose assembly is directed by programmed instructions, to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts.”

This brings me to Lenski’s citrate-using E coli.
Rather than labour this point, suffice to say, utilising citrate is not Climbing Mount Improbable for bacteria. The Kreb’s cycle , aka Citric acid cycle, can occur in anaerobic conditions. The reason that this mutation to enable one tribe to utilise citrate, similar to chloroquine resistance, did not occur in the other tribes, was perhaps due to the requirement for more than one mutation. Difficult to achieve.

Even this experiment neatly illustrates the difficulty with obtaining two mutations, even with thousands of generations and a massive population, a new function requiring two mutations was barely obtainable. Three would have been unreachable.
E coli have a whole suite of genes, an operon, able to ferment citrate, including a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein that embeds in the cell wall.

This operon is activated under low oxic conditions, as anaerobic respiration is less efficient than aerobic, so there is good reason for this to be switched off unless O2 is lacking. But, the Lenski citrate E coli demonstrated a lack of regulation, so it’s a downhill change. Lost specificity. So citrate-transporter-regulation damaged by mutation remains permanently switched on regardless of the oxygen state. A fault in this system. Also a tartrate transporter may have lost specificity and started to take up citrate.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#610 Nov 20, 2012
Russell wrote:
And ,why, please
Are we are we not dead 100 times over, Kong?
Or anyone?
I keep asking.....
C'mon smarty pants..
Mitts up!
Been there discussed that and you have ignored the evidence I offered you.

We are not surprised, it is typical of the way you operate, you pose a question and ignore the answer just so you can pose the question again

That is no ones problem but your own, round and round you go because of your own deliberate ignorance.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#611 Nov 20, 2012
Interesting
I just had to remove my references in order for my last post to get through....

Great trial!

Feel good about NEVER giving up...

But some people really should give up...

Christine
Did Gillette not make to exact same post earlier on today?

Almost word for word
But he went on about phylogenetics a bit more

All nonsense, of course...both of you are parroting the usual old canards....as I will demonstrate shortly.

Evolution has had no bearing on scientific advancements at all. It is no use in medicine, agriculture, molecular biology or ANYTHING.
Science progressed marvellously prior to the indoctrination of the gullible in 1859 and has progressed marvellously afterwards.
All that has changed is the evo-god worshipping that you and others who believe as you do, indulge in.

Now, excuse me
I am continuing my trial..

I am conducting an experiment here at present.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Dogen 133,006
Science News (Sep '13) 16 min positronium 2,938
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 45 min TurkanaBoy 568
How would creationists explain... 48 min TurkanaBoy 364
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 3 hr Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Sat nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web