Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

1. Ah, but who "designed" those mistakes?

2. Ah, but who "designed" those single cell bacteria which were the result of the design mistake?

No mistake by the creator he handed down punishment we age and die. I believe this is how the creator intended for us to receive our punishment for sin.

What are Telomeres?

What you call mistakes is really Gods mechanism for how God carries out our sentence.

 

[daws101]

1. Ah, but who "designed" those mistakes?

2. Ah, but who "designed" those single cell bacteria which were the result of the design mistake?

No mistake by the creator he handed down punishment we age and die. I believe this is how the creator intended for us to receive our punishment for sin.

What are Telomeres?

What you call mistakes is really Gods mechanism for how God carries out our sentence.

your not a cut and paste link make no mention of god...

 

[daws101]

Have a good day monkey boy, sorry i had to expose your ignorance but someone had to.

Ah. A name-caller. That adds credibility to your conspiracy theories.

Notice that your "Y" chromosome conspiracy theory seems like not much of a conspiracy theory at all


Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected

Jan. 15, 2010 — Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation. By conducting the first comprehensive interspecies comparison of Y chromosomes, Whitehead Institute researchers have found considerable differences in the genetic sequences of the human and chimpanzee Ys -- an indication that these chromosomes have evolved more quickly than the rest of their respective genomes over the 6 million years since they emerged from a common ancestor. The findings are published online this week in the journal Nature.


I have this impression that your fundamentalist religious views are so extreme that you may actually pose a danger to those around you.

Speculative,no evidence, faulty assumption.

finally! you realised YOUR SHIT IS.. Speculative,no evidence, faulty assumption!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yeah, and vaccines cause autism. You must be a member of that Texas six flags over Jesus church that convinced the congregation that vaccines were the devil's work, and ended up giving their fucking children the measles, the No. 1 preventable viral disease. No evidence? Are you fucking nutz? You need to check your pants, man, because damn.

EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET HAS CHROMOSOME 2, AND IT IS A FUSED CHROMOSOME. There is nothing unambiguous about this. Many researchers are now working with genetic material from Chromosome 2 because it has quite a few genes on it suspected of causing disease. And every single one of those researchers will tell you that it is a fused gene. The fusion occurs as sperm and eggs develop, as pairs of chromosomes fold over each other and swap chunks of DNA. Sometimes two different chromosomes grab onto each other and then fail to separate. This is heavily documented in the scientific literature. You really shouldn't be getting your information from Casey Luskin, who is a friggin lawyer, not a scientist. You guys have so much in common with Climate change deniers, it's incredible, because they get their information from a friggin massage therapist and a former disc jockey. Congratulations.

The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists) : The Loom

Survival of Chromosomal Changes

Will you stop with this wishful speculation. I am still waiting for you to show a mechanism that will produce a new gene ? it's not just one gene but 41 new genes that would have to be produced for the morphological changes that would make an ape in to a human.

Will you stop with the willful lies? Of course you won't. What would you need to do to change an ape into a human being? Nothing you dumbass, because - clue - human beings ARE apes (except you, of course. You devolved into slime a long time ago.).

As for mechanisms that will produce new genes:

Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes | Learn Science at Scitable

Read it and weep.

You have no business calling someone a dumbass

Do you know what Pseudogenes are ?

Genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. It's impossible to add genes to any genome because you can't coordinate any new gene with existing genes.

You post something you didn't understand which is not surprising . Your article is talking about a new trait being added to a genome through rearranging of the genetic information in an existing gene whether it's harmful or beneficial. I am saying adding genes to go from 37 genes to 78 genes got it ?

Apes still have 37 genes and humans have 78 that is 41 new genes that had to be produced. What is this mechanism that produced 41 new genes ? apes do not have any gene generating system, apes do not have a gene insertion system.

gene duplication is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. the only organisms that can produce a new gene are bacteria.they can duplicate existing genes by mistake through gene duplication, this only occurs in single sex bacteria.

So i ask you again, what is this so called mechanism that produced 41 new genes ?

 

[orogenicman]

Will you stop with this wishful speculation. I am still waiting for you to show a mechanism that will produce a new gene ? it's not just one gene but 41 new genes that would have to be produced for the morphological changes that would make an ape in to a human.

Will you stop with the willful lies? Of course you won't. What would you need to do to change an ape into a human being? Nothing you dumbass, because - clue - human beings ARE apes (except you, of course. You devolved into slime a long time ago.).

As for mechanisms that will produce new genes:

Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes | Learn Science at Scitable

Read it and weep.

You have no business calling someone a dumbass

Stop being a dumbass and people won't pin the label on you.

Do you know what Pseudogenes are ?

Genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. It's impossible to add genes to any genome because you can't coordinate any new gene with existing genes.

Says who?

pseudogenes can regulate parental genes through siRNAs; evidence of this phenomenon has been found in both flies and mammals

As for new genes, this is what you are looking for. From the research paper:

New genes can additionally originate de novo from noncoding regions of DNA. Indeed, several novel genes derived from noncoding DNA have recently been described in Drosophila (Begun et al., 2007; Levine et al., 2006). For these recently originated Drosophila genes with likely protein-coding abilities, there are no homologues in any other species (hence they are new genes). Note, however, that the de novo genes described in various species thus far include both protein-coding and noncoding genes. These new genes sometimes originate in the X chromosome, and they often have male germ-line functions.

You post something you didn't understand which is not surprising.

Wrong. I posted something YOU didn't understand.

scientists have proposed several mechanisms by which new genes are generated. These include gene duplication, transposable element protein domestication, lateral gene transfer, gene fusion, gene fission, and de novo origination.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Will you stop with the willful lies? Of course you won't. What would you need to do to change an ape into a human being? Nothing you dumbass, because - clue - human beings ARE apes (except you, of course. You devolved into slime a long time ago.).

As for mechanisms that will produce new genes:

Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes | Learn Science at Scitable

Read it and weep.

You have no business calling someone a dumbass

Stop being a dumbass and people won't pin the label on you.



Says who?



As for new genes, this is what you are looking for. From the research paper:

You post something you didn't understand which is not surprising.

Wrong. I posted something YOU didn't understand.

scientists have proposed several mechanisms by which new genes are generated. These include gene duplication, transposable element protein domestication, lateral gene transfer, gene fusion, gene fission, and de novo origination.

You don't know genes work together to form body parts ?

You see your side knows that humans having 78 genes in the Y chromosome vs apes having 37 in their Y chromosome was a problem for their theory and it still is. Your article discussed mutations as a mechanism as well that is off topic because mutations happen with existing genes So do the mechanisms you say they put forward as a mechanism to produce new genes. They know this is devastating evidence to the theory.

Do you understand conjecture when you read it ? Do you understand the term proposed ? There is zero evidence of new genes being formed by any of these so called mechanisms and adding a new gene to any genome. They want you to believe this nonsense because if you don't your their theory is dead.

Their presuppositions are in the way of translating evidence properly. I have already told you that the only way during gene duplication a new gene can be produced is through a mistake and this mistake only happens in "EXISTING GENES" and this only happens in single sex bacteria. They are throwing shit out there hoping it sticks. You however do not have a strong enough background clearly to argue this.

You're are so desperate to come up with an answer to my question ,you throw any article out there that you think is a response to my question. Just like scientists propose mechanisms that have zero evidence doing what they propose. It's an acceptable answer until they find out they are wrong. This is their method of dodging the issue get it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You totally ignored this, apes do not have any gene generating system, apes do not have a gene insertion system.

This kills the rest of your so called mechanisms !

 

[orogenicman]

You have no business calling someone a dumbass

Stop being a dumbass and people won't pin the label on you.



Says who?



As for new genes, this is what you are looking for. From the research paper:





Wrong. I posted something YOU didn't understand.

scientists have proposed several mechanisms by which new genes are generated. These include gene duplication, transposable element protein domestication, lateral gene transfer, gene fusion, gene fission, and de novo origination.

You don't know genes work together to form body parts ?

They do much more than form body parts. You didn't know? Huh. Not only that, but not all genes form body parts. You didn't know this? Double Huh.

You see your side knows that humans having 78 genes in the Y chromosome vs apes having 37 in their Y chromosome was a problem for their theory and it still is. Your article discussed mutations as a mechanism as well that is off topic because mutations happen with existing genes.

You seem to believe that a gene must be newly formed (presumably out of nothing would be my assumption, since the poof factor seems to be the way creationists tend to explain things) in order to be "new". De novo genes are newly formed genes (though not out of nothing). You also seem to be of the opinion that evolution can only occur if population acquires "new" genes. This is certainly not the case, and the theory has never made that statement. And contrary to what you appear to believe, the fact that humans have more genes in the Y chromosome is evidence FOR evolution, not against. Any time a gene is added or deleted, that is evidence for evolution. They could just as easily have fewer and that would also be evidence for evolution. If you truly want evidence against evolution, you should try to find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, because THAT would refute evolution. Got anything like that?

So do the mechanisms you say they put forward as a mechanism to produce new genes. They know this is devastating evidence to the theory.

It is probably a good idea if you put the bottle down before you post.

 

[orogenicman]

You totally ignored this, apes do not have any gene generating system, apes do not have a gene insertion system.

This kills the rest of your so called mechanisms !

That is the most idiotic claim I've ever heard.

Here are 908,000 scholarly links that demonstrates how idiotic your claim actually is.

gene insertion system - Google Scholar

And here:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gene+insertion+in+apes&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,18&as_vis=1

You win another post on my wall of shame sig. Congratulations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Stop being a dumbass and people won't pin the label on you.



Says who?



As for new genes, this is what you are looking for. From the research paper:





Wrong. I posted something YOU didn't understand.

You don't know genes work together to form body parts ?

They do much more than form body parts. You didn't know? Huh. Not only that, but not all genes form body parts. You didn't know this? Double Huh.

You see your side knows that humans having 78 genes in the Y chromosome vs apes having 37 in their Y chromosome was a problem for their theory and it still is. Your article discussed mutations as a mechanism as well that is off topic because mutations happen with existing genes.

You seem to believe that a gene must be newly formed (presumably out of nothing would be my assumption, since the poof factor seems to be the way creationists tend to explain things) in order to be "new". De novo genes are newly formed genes (though not out of nothing). You also seem to be of the opinion that evolution can only occur if population acquires "new" genes. This is certainly not the case, and the theory has never made that statement. And contrary to what you appear to believe, the fact that humans have more genes in the Y chromosome is evidence FOR evolution, not against. Any time a gene is added or deleted, that is evidence for evolution. They could just as easily have fewer and that would also be evidence for evolution. If you truly want evidence against evolution, you should try to find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, because THAT would refute evolution. Got anything like that?

So do the mechanisms you say they put forward as a mechanism to produce new genes. They know this is devastating evidence to the theory.

It is probably a good idea if you put the bottle down before you post.

Geez, you keep showing your ignorance on this issue. You evidently have not heard or read the explanation given by scientists where they claim apes evidently lost genes over time because they have no mechanism that will develop a completely new gene to get to the human count

People agreeing with you are just as ignorant on the issue. I don't drink but maybe you should instead of carry on this charade.



They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has lost lots of genes that are present in humans, which suggests the human Y resembles that of the common ancestor more than does the chimp's Y. Chimpanzees only have two-thirds of the genes present in the human MSY.

Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly | Science/AAAS | News

Exposing your ignorance is not hard to do. This article is full of spin to hide the facts

Face it, you're are gullible and your background on this issue is obvious.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You totally ignored this, apes do not have any gene generating system, apes do not have a gene insertion system.

This kills the rest of your so called mechanisms !

That is the most idiotic claim I've ever heard.

Here are 908,000 scholarly links that demonstrates how idiotic your claim actually is.

gene insertion system - Google Scholar

And here:

gene insertion in apes - Google Scholar

You win another post on my wall of shame sig. Congratulations.

You don't know what you're talking about and neither does anyone who make such claims. How do you think they built this theory numbnuts ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

How many of your scholarly articles have been refuted due to new evidence ? We have learned a lot in the last 5 years and you know we are gonna find a lot more to refute even more of this fairytale.

 

[orogenicman]

You don't know genes work together to form body parts ?

They do much more than form body parts. You didn't know? Huh. Not only that, but not all genes form body parts. You didn't know this? Double Huh.



You seem to believe that a gene must be newly formed (presumably out of nothing would be my assumption, since the poof factor seems to be the way creationists tend to explain things) in order to be "new". De novo genes are newly formed genes (though not out of nothing). You also seem to be of the opinion that evolution can only occur if population acquires "new" genes. This is certainly not the case, and the theory has never made that statement. And contrary to what you appear to believe, the fact that humans have more genes in the Y chromosome is evidence FOR evolution, not against. Any time a gene is added or deleted, that is evidence for evolution. They could just as easily have fewer and that would also be evidence for evolution. If you truly want evidence against evolution, you should try to find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, because THAT would refute evolution. Got anything like that?

So do the mechanisms you say they put forward as a mechanism to produce new genes. They know this is devastating evidence to the theory.

It is probably a good idea if you put the bottle down before you post.

Geez, you keep showing your ignorance on this issue. You evidently have not heard or read the explanation given by scientists where they claim apes evidently lost genes over time because they have no mechanism that will develop a completely new gene to get to the human count

The paper you quote makes no claim whatsoever that "apes have lost genes over time because they have no mechanism that will develop a completely new gene to get to the human count."

Making shit up doesn't help your argument.

They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has lost lots of genes that are present in humans, which suggests the human Y resembles that of the common ancestor more than does the chimp's Y. Chimpanzees only have two-thirds of the genes present in the human MSY.

Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly | Science/AAAS | News

Did you even read the paper? Or is English a second language for you?

But the first comprehensive comparison of the Y chromosome in two species--specifically, humans and chimpanzees--shows that in fact, it is a hot spot of evolution.

 

[orogenicman]

You totally ignored this, apes do not have any gene generating system, apes do not have a gene insertion system.

This kills the rest of your so called mechanisms !

That is the most idiotic claim I've ever heard.

Here are 908,000 scholarly links that demonstrates how idiotic your claim actually is.

gene insertion system - Google Scholar

And here:

gene insertion in apes - Google Scholar

You win another post on my wall of shame sig. Congratulations.

You don't know what you're talking about and neither does anyone who make such claims. How do you think they built this theory numbnuts ?

Yeah, because every geneticist on the planet can't hold a candle to your mastery of science.

 

[orogenicman]

How many of your scholarly articles have been refuted due to new evidence ? We have learned a lot in the last 5 years and you know we are gonna find a lot more to refute even more of this fairytale.

And everything we've learned in those five years supports evolution. Arguing from ignorance and from the god of the gaps is not a scientific argument. It is an argument from desperation. You poor dear.

 

[HUGGY]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Is creationism scientific?

Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

 

[Youwerecreated]

They do much more than form body parts. You didn't know? Huh. Not only that, but not all genes form body parts. You didn't know this? Double Huh.



You seem to believe that a gene must be newly formed (presumably out of nothing would be my assumption, since the poof factor seems to be the way creationists tend to explain things) in order to be "new". De novo genes are newly formed genes (though not out of nothing). You also seem to be of the opinion that evolution can only occur if population acquires "new" genes. This is certainly not the case, and the theory has never made that statement. And contrary to what you appear to believe, the fact that humans have more genes in the Y chromosome is evidence FOR evolution, not against. Any time a gene is added or deleted, that is evidence for evolution. They could just as easily have fewer and that would also be evidence for evolution. If you truly want evidence against evolution, you should try to find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, because THAT would refute evolution. Got anything like that?



It is probably a good idea if you put the bottle down before you post.

Geez, you keep showing your ignorance on this issue. You evidently have not heard or read the explanation given by scientists where they claim apes evidently lost genes over time because they have no mechanism that will develop a completely new gene to get to the human count

The paper you quote makes no claim whatsoever that "apes have lost genes over time because they have no mechanism that will develop a completely new gene to get to the human count."

Making shit up doesn't help your argument.

They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has lost lots of genes that are present in humans, which suggests the human Y resembles that of the common ancestor more than does the chimp's Y. Chimpanzees only have two-thirds of the genes present in the human MSY.

Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly | Science/AAAS | News

Did you even read the paper? Or is English a second language for you?

But the first comprehensive comparison of the Y chromosome in two species--specifically, humans and chimpanzees--shows that in fact, it is a hot spot of evolution.

You have better put down that glass of whatever you're drinking.


They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has lost lots of genes that are present in humans, which suggests the human Y resembles that of the common ancestor more than does the chimp's Y. Chimpanzees only have two-thirds of the genes present in the human MSY.

http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2010/01/y-chromosome-evolving-rapidly



Don't be pathetic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is the most idiotic claim I've ever heard.

Here are 908,000 scholarly links that demonstrates how idiotic your claim actually is.

gene insertion system - Google Scholar

And here:

gene insertion in apes - Google Scholar

You win another post on my wall of shame sig. Congratulations.

You don't know what you're talking about and neither does anyone who make such claims. How do you think they built this theory numbnuts ?

Yeah, because every geneticist on the planet can't hold a candle to your mastery of science.

Wrong ,brilliant men out there that just do not want to admit they are stumped. This evidence fits the model apes and humans were created uniquely apart from each other.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How many of your scholarly articles have been refuted due to new evidence ? We have learned a lot in the last 5 years and you know we are gonna find a lot more to refute even more of this fairytale.

And everything we've learned in those five years supports evolution. Arguing from ignorance and from the god of the gaps is not a scientific argument. It is an argument from desperation. You poor dear.

Where do you think what I am showing you came from ? Further research after the both the human and chimp Genome was mapped.

Sorry you're a misinformed woman.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Is creationism scientific?

Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

Huggy is this all you have