Creationists, I'd be interested in learning about your knowledge o

[Enoch2021]

 

Jerry, i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.  If you need a primer on evolution, it might be better to look at the National Center for Science Education or something similar.

 

Enoch:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" .  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.

 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?  I think you mean something else, but I want to make sure.

 

Quote:

You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".

 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

I don't need a primer, just trying to see if anyone here is willing to give a non-biased view on what the science says.

 

 

====================================================================================================

 

Reification (Fallacy)----"science" doesn't say anything, it's not alive.

 

The Theory of evolution is utterly bankrupt and leaves it followers with nothing more than a barrage of Logical Fallacies and enough pseudo-science to make 13th Century Alchemy and Phlogiston blush.

 

Oh and by the way, the Elephant is still in the Room; and he's still eating....

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

As for yet another ad hoc hypothesis (PE, Convergent et al)...."random mutation and natural selection"----- was put together with neolithic incompetence as an "end run" around Kerkut's definition out of sheer incoherent desperation; It's as dead as abiogenesis.

 

Meta Information (Instructions). This is Information about the Information.  About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information".  It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information).

DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information".  In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.

 

evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts.  hmmm

Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect)

 

Question:  If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S Green Earth are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a Good Day!)?

 

Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect?     

It's probably the reason why Drosophila,  after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail! And it's still a fly!

 

Ernst Mayr  Professor of Zoology at Harvard University...

 

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles. 

Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

Pierre Grasse:  Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.......

 

"This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."  

Pierre Grasse PhD

 

'‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study.  This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

Epigenetics renders all of this but a laughing stalk

[jerryR34]

 

 

Jerry, i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.  If you need a primer on evolution, it might be better to look at the National Center for Science Education or something similar.

 

Enoch:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" .  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.

 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?  I think you mean something else, but I want to make sure.

 

Quote:

You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".

 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

I don't need a primer, just trying to see if anyone here is willing to give a non-biased view on what the science says.

 

 

====================================================================================================

 

Reification (Fallacy)----"science" doesn't say anything, it's not alive.

 

The Theory of evolution is utterly bankrupt and leaves it followers with nothing more than a barrage of Logical Fallacies and enough pseudo-science to make 13th Century Alchemy and Phlogiston blush.

 

Oh and by the way, the Elephant is still in the Room; and he's still eating....

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

As for yet another ad hoc hypothesis (PE, Convergent et al)...."random mutation and natural selection"----- was put together with neolithic incompetence as an "end run" around Kerkut's definition out of sheer incoherent desperation; It's as dead as abiogenesis.

 

Meta Information (Instructions). This is Information about the Information.  About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information".  It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information).

DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information".  In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.

 

evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts.  hmmm

Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect)

 

Question:  If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S Green Earth are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a Good Day!)?

 

Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect?     

It's probably the reason why Drosophila,  after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail! And it's still a fly!

 

Ernst Mayr  Professor of Zoology at Harvard University...

 

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles. 

Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

Pierre Grasse:  Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.......

 

"This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."  

Pierre Grasse PhD

 

'‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study.  This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

Epigenetics renders all of this but a laughing stalk

 

I asked a pretty simple question that you do not seem to be able to answer.

[Enoch2021]

Can you tell me what secular science says about evolution without commentary?

 

Secular Science doesn't say anything, it's not alive: Ergo....Reification (Fallacy).  See: Barrage of Logical Fallacies, previous post.

[gray wolf]

 

Jerry, i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.  If you need a primer on evolution, it might be better to look at the National Center for Science Education or something similar.

 

Enoch:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" .  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.

 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?  I think you mean something else, but I want to make sure.

 

Quote:

You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".

 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

 

 

=============================================================================

 

 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?

 

This is my thinking....

 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Any questions?

 

So there we go.  You seem to be saying (as you have in the past) that a theory which primarily deals with past events does not pass muster.   I have to say (as a believer in creation as well) that this distinction between "operational" and "historic" science seems to be a product of creationist thinking.  Just do a general google search for historical science and you'll see what I mean.

 

 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

 

Baloney....

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

evolution without abiogenesis is tantamount to describing repairs to the Hubble Telescope before Space Flight.

 

That depends on a great extent, to whom you ask the question.

 

btw, what do you think of my new hat I got in California?

[jerryR34]

 

 

btw, what do you think of my new hat I got in California?

 

love the hat.

[Tristen]

Hi Jerry.

 

Evolution is the general term used to describe the secular explanation accounting for the observed variety of life on earth. It is variously defined; incorporating a range of concepts such as Natural Selection, Speciation, Genetic Mutations, Common Ancestry etc. It has been overly-simplistically defined as change over time. I have also seen it defined as any heritable change in a population.

 

 

[Am I permitted to respond to your posted claim that “evidence of evolution as overwhelming”? – if not, please disregard the following]

 

As a creationist, the only above concept I dispute is Common Ancestry (along with its required/assumed time frames and the necessary assumption of abiogenesis). There are no logical discrepancies between the other concepts and Biblical creationism. I suspect that the “overwhelming” amount of your “evidence” falls into one of these other categories. Also, since the creationist claim is that all of the facts that are interpreted to support evolution can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model, the amount of “evidence” is irrelevant. We all have the same facts (and therefore the same amount of facts). Neither position has the legitimate right to arbitrarily disregard any fact.

[GoldenEagle]

There should be a distinction as well between YEC (Young Earth Cretinism) and OEC (Old Earth Creationism).

[other one]

The theory of biological evolution is the theory that all biological diversity can be accounted for by unguided forces (most notably random mutation and natural selection) acting on a common cellular origin.

Like when God started creating all the different things he just made a general life form and flipped a few thousand genes and he had a cow and flipped a few thousand genes and he has a horse and on and on till he gets to man.......    then instead of just speaking into reality mankind he made us by hand.....    like a fine hand made car we turned out kind of special.

 

 

Then if you believe the book of Enoch and Jasper, one understands that the fallen angels did some gene flipping themselves....  messed up the whole worlds genome and God had to wipe it all out.......    but the remnants of all that are still in the different layers of the settlement of the flood for us to dig up and look through.  Did you know that when something is found that goes against evolution, the Smithsonian will get it if it can and either hide or destroy it; and if it can't ridicule it to death.

 

Is that the kind of thing your looking for Jerry?

[jerryR34]

Hi Jerry.

 

Evolution is the general term used to describe the secular explanation accounting for the observed variety of life on earth. It is variously defined; incorporating a range of concepts such as Natural Selection, Speciation, Genetic Mutations, Common Ancestry etc. It has been overly-simplistically defined as change over time. I have also seen it defined as any heritable change in a population.

 

 

[Am I permitted to respond to your posted claim that “evidence of evolution as overwhelming”? – if not, please disregard the following]

 

As a creationist, the only above concept I dispute is Common Ancestry (along with its required/assumed time frames and the necessary assumption of abiogenesis). There are no logical discrepancies between the other concepts and Biblical creationism. I suspect that the “overwhelming” amount of your “evidence” falls into one of these other categories. Also, since the creationist claim is that all of the facts that are interpreted to support evolution can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model, the amount of “evidence” is irrelevant. We all have the same facts (and therefore the same amount of facts). Neither position has the legitimate right to arbitrarily disregard any fact.

haha thanks Tristen...you are permitted to post anything you want here.  I was just trying to keep the thread from going too far off the rails.  I like your answer except for the "overly-simplistically" comment which implies some judgment...

 

the second post falls into the evidence for one thing can be evidence for everything category.  Evidence for everything is evidence of nothing.  Hindus, Muslims etc could all use our evidence to back up their claims.  Where do we draw the line.  I say we draw it just short of magic...

[jerryR34]

 

The theory of biological evolution is the theory that all biological diversity can be accounted for by unguided forces (most notably random mutation and natural selection) acting on a common cellular origin.

Like when God started creating all the different things he just made a general life form and flipped a few thousand genes and he had a cow and flipped a few thousand genes and he has a horse and on and on till he gets to man.......    then instead of just speaking into reality mankind he made us by hand.....    like a fine hand made car we turned out kind of special.

 

 

Then if you believe the book of Enoch and Jasper, one understands that the fallen angels did some gene flipping themselves....  messed up the whole worlds genome and God had to wipe it all out.......    but the remnants of all that are still in the different layers of the settlement of the flood for us to dig up and look through.  Did you know that when something is found that goes against evolution, the Smithsonian will get it if it can and either hide or destroy it; and if it can't ridicule it to death.

 

Is that the kind of thing your looking for Jerry?

 

while you put it very nicely, no, what I'm looking for is for you to explain what evolution is from the view of those you are opposed.  Do you know what the "other side thinks?  If one can't accurately describe that, it's really difficult to argue against it.