Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

I just gave you someone supporting my views of the fossil record from your side but yet you don't except it. Why would you accept it if i provide one that say's all organisms exp mutations ?

Think for a second drock, why would any organism not exp errors in their genes ?

Talk about deliberately denying science.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I just gave you someone supporting my views of the fossil record from your side but yet you don't except it. Why would you accept it if i provide one that say's all organisms exp mutations ?

Think for a second drock, why would any organism not exp errors in their genes ?

Talk about deliberately denying science.

No, your view is nothing similar to the link the provided.

You dismiss all fossils. The link says most fossils erode, aren't found, aren't complete, etc. Most doesn't equal all, being able to find good fossils even if they're the minority is still great, hard evidence. Your scientific fact-denying perspective is the exact opposite of everything your link stated.

Your view is "most fossils erode and aren't found, so the ones they do find in great condition I'll just shove my fingers in my ears and deny those too, it's what God wants to hear." I can assure you, that's not what the author of those writings is saying.

Retype your other question; "why would any organism not exp errors in their genes ?", I'm not sure what you're asking. Did exp mean experience?

 

[FurthurBB]

No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.

There are so much bacteria we would be seeing new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .

Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around? How do we survive?

Humans, that God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.

We do not live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around. I am pretty sure most US children older than 10 would know that.

 

[FurthurBB]

Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.

I have seen macroevolution.

What ?

I HAVE SEEN MACROEVOLUTION maybe you need new glasses.

 

[FurthurBB]

Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.

It wasn't chance and it is not random. Have you not noticed that lots of things in nature have a similar symmetry. Even Bacteria and viruses have a certain, albeit less complex, symmetry and they do not even have homeobox genes, which we know control our symmetry. For those who never learned much biology Discovering the Homeobox.

So viruses and bacteria are no longer bacteria and viruses ? That is not macro-evolution that is micro-adaptations.

Wow! You really took a wrong turn somewhere. Maybe you should read that again.

 

[FurthurBB]

You've been brainwashed.

Thanks, if you think I am brainwashed I must be doing something right!

What if you're wrong ?

It is extremely unlikely with the massive amounts of evidence that I have seen and read that keeps leading back to evolution with every new discovery. I definitely could be wrong about some things, just like anyone else, but evolution will not be toppled and no scientists are going to find the answers you are looking for. Why don't you just believe what you want to believe and leave science out of it.

 

[FurthurBB]

Beacause we see variations in each family and the ability to adapt is not a sound reason to believe everything was a product of evolution,especially when we see what genetics can do through cross breeding and knowing the harm of mutations that cause change.

You are looking at the big picture. It was the variation that led Darwin to his theory, but now it is so much more. There is more evidence for the evolutionary theory than any other theory in science. I know that all you understand is what you see with your eyes, but if you are really interested in this subject it would behoove you to know a tiny bit about it.

 

[FurthurBB]

Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?

All organisms do experience mutations, that is why polymerases have error rates.

That was the wrong way to put it, this is how we know the error rates of polymerases.

There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen. Just impacts the likeliness.

I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.

There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game. All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common. maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species. Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.

 

[Dr.Drock]

All organisms do experience mutations, that is why polymerases have error rates.

That was the wrong way to put it, this is how we know the error rates of polymerases.

There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen. Just impacts the likeliness.

I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.

There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game. All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common. maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species. Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.

There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math. Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.

If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.

Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.

Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around? How do we survive?

Humans, that God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.

We do not live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around. I am pretty sure most US children older than 10 would know that.

Really google how many species that have gone extinct that have ever existed.
,
How many new species can you point to and prove it hasn't existed all along ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have seen macroevolution.

What ?

I HAVE SEEN MACROEVOLUTION maybe you need new glasses.

Provide this macro-evolution that is not just an adaptation ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I just gave you someone supporting my views of the fossil record from your side but yet you don't except it. Why would you accept it if i provide one that say's all organisms exp mutations ?

Think for a second drock, why would any organism not exp errors in their genes ?

Talk about deliberately denying science.

No, your view is nothing similar to the link the provided.

You dismiss all fossils. The link says most fossils erode, aren't found, aren't complete, etc. Most doesn't equal all, being able to find good fossils even if they're the minority is still great, hard evidence. Your scientific fact-denying perspective is the exact opposite of everything your link stated.

Your view is "most fossils erode and aren't found, so the ones they do find in great condition I'll just shove my fingers in my ears and deny those too, it's what God wants to hear." I can assure you, that's not what the author of those writings is saying.

Retype your other question; "why would any organism not exp errors in their genes ?", I'm not sure what you're asking. Did exp mean experience?

We disagree on a few things but he suggested the many things i have commented on concerning the fossil reord.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen. Just impacts the likeliness.

I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.

There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game. All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common. maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species. Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.

There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math. Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.

If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.

Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.

Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.

Do you realize mathematics can't answer a question it can only suggest.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen. Just impacts the likeliness.

I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.

There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game. All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common. maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species. Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.

There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math. Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.

If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.

Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.

Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.

Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.

 

[Dr.Drock]

There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game. All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common. maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species. Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.

There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math. Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.

If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.

Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.

Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.

Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.

Not sure how you can say that when you've never corrected me, with facts or science that is.

And again no, the article didn't repeat any of your positions. Your position is everything science says about fossils is wrong, the article states the opposite repeatedly.

 

[koshergrl]

There would have to be one for every species, I am not playing that game. All organisms have a constant rate of mutations and mutations are extremely common. maybe you could look up the genome of every species on NCBI, they have all the known point mutations in every species. Home - PubMed - NCBI, other than that I do not know what to tell you.

There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math. Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.

If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.

Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.

Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.

Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.

Drock is a propagandist. He doesn't acknowledge fact when it doesn't fit in with his ideology, and will continue to spout lies in the face of fact.

That's the way Nazis work, too.

 

[Dr.Drock]

There wouldn't have to be, it's based on math. Certain species are more likely to have mutations than other species, and you have to factor in population size.

If I were to find the answer to some crazy long math problem with time and population size it is most likely that most species will have individuals with mutations, but you can't say it's 100%.

Maybe you can, and I'm wrong, I'll concede that point when i get proof of it.

Keep in mind we're on the same side of the evolution and mutation debate.

Drock you have a real problem with being corrected.

Drock is a propagandist. He doesn't acknowledge fact when it doesn't fit in with his ideology, and will continue to spout lies in the face of fact.

That's the way Nazis work, too.

Lol the more someone is losing an argument, the more they repeat the word Nazi.



I've never seen someone go so far off the deep end on a mesasge board. I hope how you type on this board isn't a reflection of your life or personality.

 

[LOki]

That is where faith comes in.

Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?

Things that were written by men in the bible at the time man had no way to know such things.

Like how the hare chews cud, that bats are birds, and the strength of unicorns? That sort of thing? The sort of thing we still don't know about?

Please don't waste our time with your cumbersome and ludicrous rationalizations for why so many presumptions and statements of fact in the Bible are inconsistent with the verifiable facts of reality. Besides, I already addressed 101 of them.

We know it takes intelligence to build and design.

If true, then fairy tales, fables and superstitions are indications it doesn't take terribly much intelligence.

In any case, all you're doing is asserting your question-begging argument. It's just not valid.

Complexity don't arise on it's own.

Except snowflakes and imaginary friends ... right?

Molecular machines can't arise on their own,they are products of design.

The evidence suggests otherwise. To borrow the (apparently unassailable) refutation of Creationists: You haven't proven anything.

There is so much bacteria there should be new families of organism's constantly arising and it is not happening.

Why? Why do you say this? And why do you say the theory of evolution predicts this is necessary?

We are seeing a decline in the amount of organism's not an increase.

Really? I was of the impression that we are identifying new species faster than we can identify them going extinct. Interesting.

The evcidence is overwhelming that life produces life.

The evidence is also overwhelming that this fact is not in dispute. The evidence is also overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, the interactions non-living things.

The evidence is also overwhelming that you have not recognized the validity of those facts of reality.

We have perfectly aligned planets and if they were not Aligned properly there would be no life.

You have no evidence of this necessary relationship between the planets, nor does the logic follow to the necessity of this relationship.

Welcome to the weak anthropic principle, BTW.

To much evidence to be ignored from a rational thinker.

What verifiable evidence have you submitted? None. Your validations for your "evidence" all--and I mean without exception--rest upon a question begging argument.

Which of course is just fine considering that by invoking faith as the foundation for this explanation of yours, you admit to no fundamental or necessary substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I accept this. And just to be clear, I've stopped asking you to validate with evidence your explanation whose foundation has no explanation in evidence. I think I have been clear that I accept this. But I'm not sure you do. So I'll ask again, and read the question carefully; I am uninterested in more "evidence" that is fundamentally irrelevant to you anyway; I'm looking for your justifications for dismissing other faith-based creation
"theories" along with evolution:

"Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?"​

 

[LOki]

Humans, that God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.

Odin?

No,YAHWEH.

Upon what fact of objective reality and/or valid logic do you base this?

 

[Woyzeck]

No one is commenting on DNA found from a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur knowing the decay rate for DNA that is a problem for many modern theories.

Why exactly is it a problem, precisely?



Lol, yeah okay buddy. We have a long list of transitional fossils. There are far more than that site shows, especially once you understand what conceptually constitutes a transitional fossil.



Okay...? Parental genetics having a hand in your own is not exactly a new idea in the field of biology. We all were taught punnet squares and the work of Gregor Mendel in high school biology class.



Except we know for a fact the information isn't present. Mutations are caused by errors in DNA code, when the DNA is replicating itself. That causes new sequences of DNA, ones that are only marginally different than the parent, but still different. If the same information was constantly floating around the gene pool, we'd end up with clones during reproduction.



Wouldn't the appearance of bigger heads in our evolutionary past to accommodate bigger brains count as a 'morphological' change?



Not really, we can see and study mutations, not so much for God. We know mutations cause change in organism, we can see DNA replication in action.

So I'm not sure why you want to throw in the God bit. It doesn't really fit in at all.



What the devil is a 'family' precisely? We have in fact seen the rise of new species, both in nature and laboratory experiments.





Your straying into abiogenesis, something which evolution keeps mum about. These two questions are essentially the same, because other organisms have some degree of intelligence as well, even if they may not be able to solve calculus or have some other human marker of 'intelligence.'



I'm not sure what you mean by this. We do see new species arising at the cell and germ level. You've heard of superbugs, correct? Strong strains of diseases that can withstand medicine? That's natural selection in action.



Well, we can. In fact I just gave an example. You just tend to ignore anything contrary to your view, and then give a flimsy reason to ignoring it. The other question has no relevance to what you're trying to get at, but it's good to note we call them errors in DNA transcription.



Except their not exactly the same as your parents, in biology that's called a clone. You still don't seem to understand mutations or even how things evolve, or even the time it takes.



Like themselves, but not an exact copy. If you have set of parents A, and they have children B. Well, B is certainly very much like A, but B has it's differences in DNA as well. B has kids called C, and C certainly resembles B, but still has differences as well. Let's skip ten or twenty generations, all the way down to some descendents, we'll call them Z. Z certainly resembles its parents, Y, but have marked differences.

Now, how much resembles does Z have to A? This is how evolution and genetics work, the answer is they won't resembles each other, because the original DNA is slightly altered every time. Eventually it won't resemble what you started with, because so much has changed. This is why if you take a rabbit from now, and look at a rabbit from hundreds of thousands of years ago, they won't look quite the same. And if you could look at a rabbit from that many years into the future, it still wouldn't be an exact copy of a rabbit from today.

There's really good analogy a scientist filmed. He made a straight line, and then walked around the city he was in and found someone to trace the straight line. Then he asked someone else to trace the line the first guy he asked made. And then he found someone else to trace the line the second guy made. And so on and so on. Eventually by the end, the line didn't resemble anything close to the original straight line.



There aren't many for a variety reasons, chief among them being that rocks from the Precambrian go through metamorphic changes.



Well, that or Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. Richard Dawkins is one of the people who take the side of gradualism.

Also, evolution is the theory as a whole, macro-evolution is just a large span of time. It's not an individual theory in itself. So your quaint little "it's either this or this!" doesn't really have any water.



Speciation occurs, it has been proven. Stop wasting my time repeating the same buggery nonsense.

Variations in families are simply due to either being created as they appear,or interbreeding from the genetic data that is already present and it can't be proven otherwise.

Interbreeding as a theory doesn't hold up biologically, I've knocked it down before. Could you please stop being a broken record?

It shows the dating methods are way off and that dinosaurs did not go extinct as ecvolutionist claim. It shows they didn't die out and birds evoplved from dinosaurs.

I don't get it. Why does finding soft tissue in a dinosaur bone disprove radiometric dating? You haven't actually said why it does.

If there truly was transitional fossils there would have been no need for the punctuated equilibrium theory. Too many educated paleontologist are on record admitting so.

You realize that species that doesn't go extinct is a transitional fossil when it dies, right? Punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to explain why the fossil record isn't perfect (and it isn't, we sadly don't have a skeleton for all organisms that ever had one).

If you take a bunch of fossils and put some people in a room you can build an evolution tree.

If you take into account some more information that just random fossils. You must take into account:

Where on earth you found the fossils
What level of rock they were found buried in
How old they are
How much they resemble fossils we already recognize

And so on. There's probably a lot more to include when attempting to decide where to classify, but digging up fossils and classifying them is not something I'm that up to speed about. It's kind of boring.

Also one more thing. When scientists do decide to gather fossils and decide what to classify it as a species and so on, fierce debates can result from scientists arguing just what to classify it as. They don't always agree with each other 100%.

Do you realize how many full bodied fossils we have not many. Most animals we have only a few parts of a creature so they had to buils the animal from the imagination. The public goes into a fossil museum and what they actually see is a bunch of creatures created from the mind and they are constructed of plater.

Yes, I'm aware of this. Why is this an issue? This doesn't actually disprove evolution you know, it just shows how lacking the fossil record is. There's a reason Darwin was lamented it when he wrote Origin. But evolution has to use more proof that just fossils. Such proof as been presented to you.

Many times.

Yes,and you can't prove variations within a family is a result from something other then parental genetics.

Um, what? We know for a fact mutations (which at the very basic definition are CHANGES IN DNA) arise from errors in transcription. We know when you take a parent and a child of that parent, their DNA will not be precisely the same. I'm not sure why you keep having trouble understanding that's where new variations in DNA code come from. I even typed out a long example that should have made it clear.

You are taught genetics in college as well but they add to the theory saying random mutations are the reason for diversity. Mutations are mistakes and in most cases if they cause any change at all it's usually harmful to the organism. But your theory needs a lot of accumulative positive mutations over time for your theory to work,but they are just to rare to create all the diversity we see..

The chances of a mutation being positive usually run about 7-30%, it really varies depending on the organism. Are you trying to tell me, that with a rate even as low as 7%, the billions of years life has been around on earth isn't a long enough time? What on earth makes you think it isn't?

How do you prove our heads are bigger today ? neanderthals heads are no smaller.

I don't see why Neanderthal head size matters. There wasn't any significant gene flow between us and them. You have to go back to the other species in the genus Homo.