myDigitalLife Blogs

Blogs about Digital, Lifestyle, current news and opinions

Creation vs Evolution: The Two Faiths!

Posted by: thenack

thenack

Here is a cartoon about the Evolution vs Inteligent Design debate:
intelligent-design-funny-cartoon

theNack

Now it is quite interesting, you probably think this is an Anti Intelligent Design cartoon. Or did you think it was an anti evolution cartoon?

 

This clearly displays the fact that people interpret evidence according to their worldview. There are two basic options:

1. Evolutionists will interpret this to say that Intelligent Design or Creationism is not good science because it requires supernatural intervention, which obviously cannot be measure.

2. Creationists will say that this typically shows the flaws in evolutionary thinking nl, that there is a whole lot of pre-life theory, and a whole lot of post first life theory, but that they have to take the beginning of life by faith. You have to assume life to even start with evolution.

In fact, evolutionists can't agree on what evolution really is. Some say it is small gradual changes that result in adaptation and eventually big changes. But science does not support this, there is not one convincing case of upward genetic change, no matter how small.
Because some Evolutionists realise that massive NEW genetic information is necessary to change from pond scum to Einstein, they came up with other versions of evolution. Typical of this is punctuated equilibrium which basically means nothing happens for long periods of time, and then lots happen quickly. Bottom line, they don't know, they don't agree, and whenever they give a definition of evolution, they will change it as soon as you ask for scientific proof. The most typical reply to criticism of evolution is "You don't understand evolution." Well you don't either, that's because it makes no sense.

So let’s change the cartoon at the top. I'll put the "and then a miracle happened" part right at the start, and then I'll try to figure out the details of God's great creation, rather than do my best to lie it away. Evolution is based on an unobserved "miracle" happening millions of years ago. Creationists just have the guts to admit this.

 dolarani

  •  Want to make money from blogging?
  • Get paid to blog at MyDigitalLife, 20c a hit. I make a few hundred rand a month from this.
  • But if you want to create and income that keeps on coming even when you don't blog, you gotta try BeMotivatedToday. If you are going to be blogging anyway, why not build a network under you by ading your link to your blogs. In time your network will keep growing up to the point where you will be making lots of money from the blogs you posted for fun. Join now, keep blogging and ading links. Simple as that to create and passive income for life

Part Two: Devolution:



What we actually see in science, and by the way you are allowed your own opinion no matter what some old coock in a labcoat says, what we actually see in nature is this: Specialisation (speciation) of animals to fit certain environmental factors through LOSS of genes or DAMAGE to genetic infomation that was already there.
The answer to the question is in the word species. Species are specialised versions of kinds, which are more general. Species are less general, less infomation, less adaptable. Once a polarbear has adapted to the snow, it can't backadapt to warmer places. Those genes are lost forever.
So this process called natural selection is the exact oposite of evolution, it is devolution. You can see this for yourself, human beings are getting more and more genetically tranferred problems. Our genes are accumilating errors, luckily real science has improved medicine!
Think for yourself, we are gathering errors in our gene pool, how will we get better if we are getting worse? Well that's what evolution teaches. I say we are going the other way thanks to evolution.
Part 3, effect of evolutionary thinking:

People are told they are animals, so they act like animals:

The effects of evolutionary thinking (BTW, it started very long before Darwin)

theNack

Comments (25)Add Comment
0
...
written by Human Ape, September 16, 2010
Creation vs Evolution: The Two Faiths! = Magic vs Reality: The Two Faiths!

Since when did reality require faith?

"In fact, evolutionists can't agree on what evolution really is."

They are called biologists and they totally agree what evolution is.

"there is not one convincing case of upward genetic change, no matter how small."

You don't know what you're talking about. Google "Gene duplication as an evolutionary event".

"This clearly displays the fact that people interpret evidence according to their worldview."

Reality isn't a worldview. Scientific evidence isn't a viewpoint. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You know nothing about science. You don't even know what science is.

On my blog I have a post that lists dumb quotes from Bible Thumpers. I'm adding "Creation vs Evolution: The Two Faiths!" to the list.

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/2010/09/for-your-entertainment-quotes-from.html

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
0
...
written by Human Ape, September 16, 2010
One more thing:

"Here is a cartoon about the Evolution vs Inteligent Design debate:"

There is NO debate. Evolution is an established truth. What cave have you been living in?

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
0
...
written by Human Ape, September 16, 2010
"but that they have to take the beginning of life by faith. You have to assume life to even start with evolution."

You can't stick your god of the gaps there. Scientists have figured out many possible ways the first simple living cells got a foothold on earth. It wasn't a magical event.

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 17, 2010
Seriously? A carefull reading of your replies will do nothing but expose you monkeyboy. You did not offer examples to back your claim, you did not offer a logical thought out reply. You just offered basically "my dad is bigger than your dad" childish arguments.

Replies like this are so ironic because they actually just prove my point. Wel done buga wugasmilies/cheesy.gif
0
...
written by Human Ape, September 17, 2010
thenack, you're so careful you can't spell "careful" correctly.

Monkeyboy? I'm a 61 year old ape, mister.

Childish arguments? Childish? You're the idiot who believes in magic.

examples to back my claim?

What do you think I am, your personal free science teacher? Buy and read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. If you're too lazy to do that, then you can shut up because you don't know what you're talking about.

I added your last comment to my post called "For your entertainment: quotes from Bible Thumpers". Please keep up the good work.

http://darwin-killed-god.blogs...-from.html

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

By the way did you google "Gene duplication as an evolutionary event"? No, of course not, and that's why you're an uneducated moron.
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 17, 2010
I will google it, but the word duplicate says it all doesn't it? If you duplicate, you copy that which is already there...how did it get there?

Anyway, sorry, no offence meant monkeymr.

I will come back when I have time to show the invalidness of your points.
Dissol
...
written by Dissol, September 17, 2010
Save you the trouble of Googling. take a look at Neutral and nonneutral mutations: the creative mix--evolution of complexity in gene interaction systems. Zuckerkandl E. J Mol Evol 1997 Apr;44(4):470
or
A good textbook on this is Molecular Approaches to Ecology and Evolution, Desalle R., & Schierwater B., 1998 Birkhauser
or
University of California - San Diego (2005, October 20). UCSD Study Shows 'Junk' DNA Has Evolutionary Importance. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 17, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2005/10/051020090946.htm
or
you could try the following excellent book, but I fear the author may put you off!! The Greatest Show on Earth; The Evidence for Evolution, Dawkins, R., 2009 Free Press.
or
an nice, easy to follow article is available on
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/ Where the author has invited various leading creationists to critique his article, and he even links to the various exchanges.

Of course, if you want more links on this then the list would be into the thousands...
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 18, 2010
Hi Dissol, you would have to agree that MonkeyMr used some pretty lame arguments though.

The gene one is a little tricky. The way I see it is that there are various proposed means for new genetic information to arise, but there is no documented case that is definitive. Even the ongoing 25 odd year study with bacteria (thousands upon thousands of generations with forced natural selection) has given no definite results for evolution. The data can just as easily be interpreted within a creationist framework or paradigm.

Neutral mutations are rare, and if they are neutral, would only suggest a very slight change. Therefore the chances of natural selection actually doing its thing on a small change is even less. Could you agree with this logic or not? There is no reason a neutral mutation should be selected above a normal (non mutated) gene.

Even beneficial mutations are usually degenerative. I am talking about things like bacteria antibiotic resistance. The resistant bacteria are inferior in all aspects except the fact that they are resistant to a certain antibiotic. This is because it is usually brought on by a loss of a certain ability such as a defective cell pump. So the resistant bacteria are resistant because they are less efficient at pumping nutrients into the cell. So if the antibiotics are removed, these are weaker. HArdly on their way to developing brain cells. How about this point, anything wrong with what I said?

So even if some mutations offer "benefits" under certain circumstances, they are the exception, and even then they are still degenerative. Given the very rare occurrence of this event, it makes the timescales preposterous. If we use science, and we measure the rate at which these changes occur, it is easy to see that there is no way to account for the diversity and complexity of life, even given the billions of years.

So using the scientific evidence, it seems very unlikely that evolution is the answer.

So you can choose to keep on speculating, but you have to agree that the truth of evolution has already been determined before it has been observed or proven. Most evolutionary work is hypothesizing new and exotic ways that it could maybe happen. But the validity of evolution has already been assumed.

I am reading a book called the greatest Hoax on earth which is a detailed critique of Dawkins's Greatest show on earth. How about a dare, if you read that I will read the other?
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 18, 2010
Have googled "gene duplication" not impressed at all. It is a typical case where you have to assume evolution to prove evolution. I'm going to take my car to fetch my car. HUH?

Sean Caroll's study as presented in nature studied gene duplication and following mutations. some very interesting observations were made, but the conclusions are speculative and built on the authors opinion of what is "better" for yeast. As you know in natural selection "better" is a relative term. In other words, it is not possible to know if two genes doing one job is better than one gene doing the same job. The fact is you have two broken genes doing the job one good gene did just fine. The same function is still perfomed, just know it takes two defective genes to do the same function as before. How will this create knew funtionality. If gene A digests suger and gene B digests something else as a result of mutation, they both still digest. Whats more, observations of this type of mutation shows that the mutated gene is usually not optimal, so unlikely to be selected by natural sellection. But there is still no new funtion. It may live in different environments now, but it is still a digestive gene, it is not a gene for light sensitive receptors or something.

But if you believe really really hard in evolution you can "see" how it may happen.
Dissol
...
written by Dissol, September 18, 2010
nack, I do think that Human Ape's comments are spot on, and not lame at all. Your problem, I think, is your starting premise. You seem to work things backward from your intial stand. There is no "faith" required to understand evolution. You seem to make up your mind before looking at the facts, & this can be seen with the fact that you have decided to read a so-called "critique" of Dawkins work, before having read Dawkins yourself. How can you understand the "critique" if you have not read the starting document? It would be like making a strong judgement on a film , without having seen the film, but just read one criticism, from a very biased critic!!

There are plenty of documented cases - have you read any of the links I provided you with??? There are hundreds more if you care to look at Talk Origins, or indeed any accepted scientific journal on biology!

You do hit the key though. Yes, mutations (thankfully) are rare. If they were not rare then evolution could not happen, and we would not exist. And yes, this does mean that changes require HUGE time periods to happen, and this is exactly what we see. Each little minute change slowly add up over the generations. Personally I think this is key problem than people have in understanding evolution; it all happens over extremely long periods of time, that many people cannot imagine the timescales involved. But that is exactly what the facts show us. Small changes happening over huge time periods. This has been shown thousands of times in the fossil record, in modern genetics, and as you point out in the yeast culture studies.

Why do you assume that mutations are normally degenerative? Where does that information come from? Mutations are normally just that - mutations, and usually on their own cause no effect (due to the so called 'junk' DNA - which we are now beginning to understand is not junk at all, but the name has stuck. Looking at all the mountains and mountains of evidence, there is no other logical answer other than evolution. There is no assumption; that is not the way science works (unlike creationism which starts with the assumption of a supernatural entity, and then tries to fit the evidence to that assumption...and the only way that it can be done is to completely ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary!). Science looks at the fact, and then tries to come up with the simplest explanation for those facts. Then it is tested...if the explanation is correct, then we would expect to see the following. That is the way it works). Evolution didn't have to be right - it needs no faith to be right. It just is right, as none of the facts and evidence disproves it.

I shall pass on your "dare", for the simple reason that if I want to learn about Biology, then I choose to read a book by a biologist, such as saw Dawkins. If I want to learn about Physics, then I read books by people with qualifications in the subject - Hawking for example. If I want to learn about the natural world then I read listen & watch someone like Attenborough. If I wanted to learn about chemistry, chess, or a particular religious cult, then I might read Safarti, but, for all his claims, he has never had a single paper (other than one on chemistry) accepted by a recognised scientific paper. Why? Because his ridiculous claims are not science.
0
...
written by Human Ape, September 18, 2010
Evolution doesn't need defending because it's a basic scientific fact. Your religious alternative, MAGIC, is childish. Just plain childish.

The biologists have all the evidence. What do you have besides your total ignorance of science, and your inability to understand simple scientific concepts?

Even if your misconceptions about evolution were true, that would not be evidence for your childish MAGIC. You got to provide evidence FOR your MAGIC. Evidence AGAINST evolution (as if there was any) is not evidence FOR anything else, including your ridiculously childish MAGIC. Of course you don't have one shred of evidence for your childish magic. You can't even describe the magic wand your fairy uses.

Here's a wild and crazy idea: GROW UP.

And stop pretending there's some debate about reality. Evolution is a bloody fact and every single biologist in the world knows it's a bloody fact. Do you seriously think anyone's going to waste time explaining to you what you're too lazy to study and too bloody stupid to understand? Just GROW UP. You childishness disgusts me. You disgrace the human race.

By the way, nobody reads your comments because it's a waste of time to read something written by an idiot.

If you want to know what I really think of you, visit my blog where I don't have to censor myself.

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 18, 2010
Mr Monkey, so you started with a bunch of "because I say so" arguments + 1 argument based on genes. I engadged in the signle real argument you made. Your reply is that you didn't read it, and you don't like me. I think that speaks for itself. You made a big tantrum and a lot of noise to evade the points I made.

Dissol does the same thing on a regular basis, but at least he acts his age and species.
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 18, 2010
Dissol, so you honestly want to say that you have no starting premise, and that science is independent of interpretation?

Further are you saying that your position is that evolution is not dependant on a starting premise, and that as "science" it is independant of interpretation. The facts speak for themselves so to speak?
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 18, 2010
PS, I haven't had the time to read the articles in detail, but I often find, like Dawkins's books, they start with experiments and measurments, but very soon degenerate into speculation and unprovable "just so" science based on more unprovable "facts"

I know you are scared to read Sarfatis book, as logic overides any doctorate, you are scared to be taken out of your comfort zone. Not up to the chalenge is not up to the chalenge, no matter how you sugarcoat it.
0
...
written by Human Ape, September 18, 2010
thenack, you didn't understand the point I was trying to make. Evolution is fact. Evolution is NOT a debate. You are a waste of time and every biologist in the world knows you're a waste of time. The reason I have so much contempt for you is because you think you can get away with getting me to be your personal free science teacher even though you're too stupid to understand anything, which you already demonstrated in this thread.

By the way, got any evidence for your magic? Let's have it moron. Give me evidence for magic. You're an idiot mister. A world-class retard.
Dissol
...
written by Dissol, September 18, 2010
You have to approach any scientific paper or premise with an open mind. You have to use critical thinking skills. If an author states an hypothesis, then he needs to prove that hypothesis, using facts and evidence. If the author cannot do that then his hypothesis fails. If you are able to produce facts and evidence that prove the hypothesis false, then that is the death of the hypothesis. If you try to prove it false, but instead your evidence further proves the hypothesis, then that makes the hypothesis stronger. If that is repeated over and over, then the hypothesis is elevated to the title of theory. But like any theory it is open to be proved wrong at any stage. Evolution is so firmly accepted by the scientific community, as all the evidence collected so far has strengthened the theory, that if anyone, including Safarti, could produce evidence to prove it wrong then, without doubt, they would be awarded a Nobel Prize. But alas, Safarti has no evidence, has nothing new to offer, purely magical thinking in the face of all the facts and evidence. Have you noted that evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Creationism / intelligent design is not science, and its supporters are all religious fundamentalists, who are trying to sell their religion through the back door.

If Safarti is awarded a Nobel prize then I promise I shall read his book immediatley. Dawkins on the other hand has been awarded various accolades for his science writing, & public education of science, so one should expect his books to be of a certain standard. Certainly, for a person who professes to know a lot about science, you have a strange reason for not wanting to read specific books!!
0
...
written by Human Ape, September 18, 2010
"I know you are scared to read Sarfatis book"

Grow up retard. Sarfatis is a liar for Jeebus, and you're his gullible god-soaked customer. I'm not afraid of your bullshit and your insanity. I would just like to make the world a better place by eradicating you drooling morons.

Typical creationist idiot: "You don't listen to my magic bullshit, therefore you're afraid."

Fuck off and die asshole.
0
...
written by Human Ape, September 18, 2010
By the way asshole, people are one of the modern ape species, which is a scientific fact you can find in any encyclopedia.

You're so fucking stupid you think apes are monkeys.
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 20, 2010
Monkey see monkey do, ooops sorry, Ape see ape do? Here is a detailed reply to your "argument"
my reply in {} brackets

Since when did reality require faith?

{I made a point that A. evolution has to assume life in the first place as there is no science to explain it and B. The underlining mechanism for evolution is yet to be established in the sense that there is NO definitive scientific evidence on how new genes enter the gene pool. Therefore evolution is based in the faith that it is true. So with you disagreeing with this statement you say there is a “reality” answer for A and B.}

"In fact, evolutionists can't agree on what evolution really is."

They are called biologists and they totally agree what evolution is.

{Are you a biologist? Are you actually implying that all people who believe in evolution are biologists? Let’s assume you misspoke? Like I stated in my post, there is MUCH debate between evolutionary BIOLOGISTS AND OTHER on how new genetic information could be accounted for. Some say slow and gradual small changes and some say punctuated equilibrium to name just two. Finally there are many biologists who do not hold to evolution (creationists, ID proponents, most Muslum Biologists and many who do biology without bothering with evolution). So unless you are saying that belief in evolution is necessary to be a biologists, your statement has completely no truth in it. Saying somebody cannot be a biologists (as if only biologists are evolutionists) if he does not believe in evolution is ridiculous in itself. So your statement is without any value, basis or truth.}

"there is not one convincing case of upward genetic change, no matter how small."

You don't know what you're talking about. Google "Gene duplication as an evolutionary event".

{Say you have two TV’s, and one’s screen breaks. The sound still works but you can’ see. So you go out and get the same TV from a pawn shop that has visual but no audio. So you use the two TVs together instead of one. This is a simple but accurate example of gene duplication with mutation. Both TVs are still TVs, they both have lost functionality. How does this type of genetic loss and compensation account for slime to turn into people?}

"This clearly displays the fact that people interpret evidence according to their worldview."

Reality isn't a worldview. Scientific evidence isn't a viewpoint. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You know nothing about science. You don't even know what science is.

{Tell that to Popper and Khun. They described quite well that all science is done inside a paradigm, and that all fact are interpreted within that paradigm. They alos outlined criteria for science which evolution does not adhere to. The basic principle of science is falsification. This means that a theory is hypothesized along with falsification criteria. It is then the purpose of science to disprove this theory. If it is seen that it is not easily disproven or works well within constraints it is given the title “theory”. So if evolution is scientific, why don’t you give me the falsification criteria, as a scientist yourself? Also why is everybody trying their best to prove evolution, when science usually work on the negative hypothesis where you should try to disprove it? }

I think I have clearly shown that you have not made even one truthful or relevant remark so my argument stands.
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 20, 2010
Dissol, to your second comment, I would like you to interpret evidence with an open mind. That is what my post is all about. Evolution is as much a "bias" as Crstianity. You have to exclude god. So no matter how convincing the evidence, it won't make any difference, because you exclude any higher inteligence before you see the evidence. It is exactly the same thing. Many evolutionists (scientists) will accept aliens as our designers but they will exclude god, why because everybody knows we can't practically find out how aliens came into being, so would assume they evolved somewhere far away where we can't test it. Really really you are making this claim towards me....find a answer to your previous response below.

You lost loads of credibility in my eyes for saying you agree with the abuse monkey mr sells as arguments
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 20, 2010
More replies to ApeSpeaker

"You can't stick your god of the gaps there. Scientists have figured out many possible ways the first simple living cells got a foothold on earth. It wasn't a magical event.

{Figured out many possible ways....dreamt up some stories? I thought you relied only on proven facts of “reality” as you put it. So they have many different ideas, not one reliable fact. Just some unproven stories, and they are trying their best to prove one of them because they KNOW it must be true, because they have faith in evolution before they know it’s true. YOU admit that they have no idea, there are many stories, but you proclaim it as fact? Like I said, you have to believe in evolution for evolution to work. }



.
thenack, you're so careful you can't spell "careful" correctly.
{Wow, Grrrrrreeeate argument, wan’t a banannanana?}

Monkeyboy? I'm a 61 year old ape, mister.

Childish arguments? Childish? You're the idiot who believes in magic.

{What I meant was that “real” evolutionists have much better arguments than you illogical, irrational and uniformed ones. Perhaps they are not childish, what would be a better word? Primitive?}

examples to back my claim?

What do you think I am, your personal free science teacher? Buy and read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. If you're too lazy to do that, then you can shut up because you don't know what you're talking about.

{Cop out of any real argument with a tantrum. I have shown clearly the invalidity of your arguments and you unwillingness to have a civilised debate.}



By the way did you google "Gene duplication as an evolutionary event"? No, of course not, and that's why you're an uneducated moron.

{I did, did you read both sides of the arguments?}
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 20, 2010
Reply to Dissol, my comments in {}

nack, I do think that Human Ape's comments are spot on, and not lame at all.

{Well please see my response and get back to me, or is human ape your alias for rudeness?}

Your problem, I think, is your starting premise.

Same to you, or would you also like to deny the fact that we interpret fact according to our worldview? Oh right, atheists are beyond that, I forget. Then please show me in a short and simple way how evolution can be proven in a lab, or is it based on the interpretation of fossil record and some gene experiments? If there is even one other plausible explanation then this assumption of yours fall flat. I hope you are following me?}

You seem to work things backward from your intial stand.

{So do you, otherwise multiple explanations would be tested for each new finding, but everything is done assuming evolution. Like I have shown much of evolutionary proofs assume evolution and are therefore circular reasoning. You exclude design before you even start to interpret fact because you do not like the implications of design. Why don't you for one second consider the logically valid option of design, because you have "faith" like premises.}





thenack
...
written by thenack, September 20, 2010
There is no "faith" required to understand evolution.

{Yes there is, if you want to disagree why do you not show how my arguments are invalid in my post? Please disprove my argument or show how it is illogical. IF you cannot do this you are merely voicing an opinion in a very arrogant way.}

You seem to make up your mind before looking at the facts, & this can be seen with the fact that you have decided to read a so-called "critique" of Dawkins work, before having read Dawkins yourself.

I have never denied my presupposition, you on the other hand would have us believe that you have no presupositions and are completely neutral and impartial. "Atheists are the perfect judges of reality", is what you are saying but will deny. I am not interested in Dawkins, as much as I am interested in the flaws in evolution. I used to believe in evolution and have read enough on that side, in fact, common sense always told me it was absurd and just a lot of speculation. There were way to much filling of gaps for it to be believable. After lots of studying evolution I came to the conclusion that it was sorely lacking. I even read creationist stuff so I could show them how wrong they were. Problem is, they were honest and correct with much less “just so” stories than evolution. So you see there may be more than one reason to explain a fact. I read the refutation because I want to learn about philosophy to tell you the truth. How people think and how to spot when they are being illogical. Dawkins is a prime example. Why do you think won’t he debate any educated Cristians? Because he knows he would be annihilated based on logic alone. He is an excellent storyteller but a very poor philosopher. I dare you again to read the greatest hoax and I will read the greatest show.}

How can you understand the "critique" if you have not read the starting document? It would be like making a strong judgement on a film , without having seen the film, but just read one criticism, from a very biased critic!!

{Well film critiques are there to deside if they will be any good or not. The book discusses the different “proofs” for evolution. It gives Dawkins’s side in detail, and then shows how it is wrong. Reading Dawkins first would almost mean reading it twice. Secondly most of the refutation of Dawkins come from citing evolutionary work, not even Creationist work. Quite pathetic really.}

There are plenty of documented cases - have you read any of the links I provided you with??? There are hundreds more if you care to look at Talk Origins, or indeed any accepted scientific journal on biology!

{There are 100s of cases that end in speculation, because A and B therefore Z (scientists now "believe" sound familiar?). Have you read any of the links I provided you with, or are you arrogant enough to assume your knowledge is complete?}

You do hit the key though. Yes, mutations (thankfully) are rare.

{I said “beneficial” mutations are rare relative to other mutations. }

If they were not rare then evolution could not happen, and we would not exist.
{So you are saying mutations are the driving force of evolution, but only if there are a very few? Kind of misleading statement. What is rare, rare relative to what?}

And yes, this does mean that changes require HUGE time periods to happen, and this is exactly what we see.

{We can’t see this if it takes millions of years. OR how would you suggest we “see” it?}

Each little minute change slowly add up over the generations.

{OK, so at this point you are saying evolution is the accumulation of mutations over long periods of time...you forgot to include directional beneficial constructive mutations adding new beneficial information. Large enough to enable natural selection to work but small enough not to kill?}

Personally I think this is key problem than people have in understanding evolution; it all happens over extremely long periods of time, that many people cannot imagine the timescales involved.

{With good reason. Also see previous line, many people cannot imagine how this can be proven from observing natural selection. You have to extrapolate, it takes too long to observe directly. }

But that is exactly what the facts show us.

{Really, the facts show us how accumulated mutations makes fish fly? Sounds like a fairytale to me, “long long time ago in a time forgotten....”}

thenack
...
written by thenack, September 20, 2010
Small changes happening over huge time periods. This has been shown thousands of times in the fossil record, in modern genetics, and as you point out in the yeast culture studies.

{Wow wow wow, not so fast. Would you not agree that fossils have to be interpreted? Would you not agree that these interpretations change and differ even among evolutionists? The fossil record is the best argument against evolution, it is full of hoaxes and maybes and filling of gaps. Fossils can fit what you want them to. What they actually show is distinct animals from day one. No transitional forms. No coldblooded bird, no half-man half apes..the fossile record is extremely lacking in transitional forms of any kind, care to name one of the thousands? I can show a different interpretation of each and every one you can dream up

I have also show how you cannot extrapolate genes backward a million years without assuming the outcome.}

Why do you assume that mutations are normally degenerative? Where does that information come from? Mutations are normally just that - mutations, and usually on their own cause no effect (due to the so called 'junk' DNA - which we are now beginning to understand is not junk at all, but the name has stuck.

{Creation Scientists have always said that we should investigate further as there should not be "junk" DNA, a few years back the then "fact" of junk DNA was a proof for evolution. Now that you guys admit you were wrong it is also a proof for evolution. Creationists predicted finding a purpose for every bit of DNA, and they were right. Mostly mutations are a loss of information, because half of each parent is used the "good" copy replaces the bad one. Only when both parent have the mutation does it's harmfull effect show. IF mutations were nutral as you say, why then should brothers and sisters not have kids together? PLEASE answer this question....?]

Looking at all the mountains and mountains of evidence, there is no other logical answer other than evolution. There is no assumption; that is not the way science works (unlike creationism which starts with the assumption of a supernatural entity, and then tries to fit the evidence to that assumption...and the only way that it can be done is to completely ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary!). Science looks at the fact, and then tries to come up with the simplest explanation for those facts. Then it is tested...if the explanation is correct, then we would expect to see the following. That is the way it works). Evolution didn't have to be right - it needs no faith to be right. It just is right, as none of the facts and evidence disproves it.

{Read some on the philosophy of science, your whole pleading point will be made mot by people like popper and kuhn. It has been clearly shown that you cannot think without a bias, you have an anti god bias. Empirical observations are not the only sources of truth. This is nonsens that you are trying to sell}

I shall pass on your "dare", for the simple reason that if I want to learn about Biology, then I choose to read a book by a biologist, such as saw Dawkins. If I want to learn about Physics, then I read books by people with qualifications in the subject - Hawking for example. If I want to learn about the natural world then I read listen & watch someone like Attenborough. If I wanted to learn about chemistry, chess, or a particular religious cult, then I might read Safarti, but, for all his claims, he has never had a single paper (other than one on chemistry) accepted by a recognised scientific paper. Why? Because his ridiculous claims are not science.

{Not true, he is a briliant man that has done lot's of real lab science, but he will not get published because he has challenged the current paradigm. He dared to defy the god of evolution. It is a peer presure thing}
thenack
...
written by thenack, September 20, 2010
Gee Dissol, I just started reading the article you told me to read at talk origins. It seems even this guy disagrees with you. I quote "While it is true that most mutations are either harmful, as suggested by the creationists, or neutral...." by Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D.

Now I quote you "Why do you assume that mutations are normally degenerative? Where does that information come from?"

So do you want to subtract this point or what now? Slide out of it like usual?

But mister MAx then starts lying just like you when he says Creationists deny nuetral or "benificail" mutations. We point to them all the time. Dr Sarfati has an excellent article on the interesting cases of Sickle Cell Anemia and chloroquine resistant malaria, (which by the way require two simultaneous degenerative, but cicumstancially benificial) mutation.

In fact a mutation can be degenerative but still be beneficial.

Say you have a engine that has been tuned to be reliable, fast and economic. You can make it faster by losing economy and reliability, so if a "mutation" took away the means to regulate gas flow, you would go fast all the time. Good for a racecar but probably lethal elsewhere. The niche environment is the only place where this is beneficial, everywhere else it is not.

If I have time I will refute that article, but again, if you can be so glaringly inconsistent, why would I go to the trouble....?

Add your 2Cents
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Member Login