God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Suit yourself, if you want to continue spouting obviously incorrect statement in an attempt to argue, that is really up to you.

I would like to ask you a sincere question, though. Do you have any desire to learn anything in this dialogue? You seem to be perfectly comfortable making false statements, and don't seem interested in the least in any sort of correction.

You have not proved anything I have said is wrong yet and you seem perfectly comfortable making dogmatic statements, offer no supporting evidence and expect me to accept them by faith alone, which you have done.  There are plenty of PhD creation scientists, as qualified as you, maybe even better qualified, who reject what you believe. So if you want to come off as being omniscient on this subject be my guest.  To date you have not offered one scintilla of verifiable evidence. All you have done is parrot the usual, unproven, evo talking points.

Love, peace, joy

[The Barbarian]

30 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Thanks for confirming that you have no idea what constitutes evidence--Man-made are only opinions of what some person thinks happened.  THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

The chart I showed you is based on genetic analysis; anyone can do the same analysis and will come up with the same data.   That's what evidence is.  

31 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You are also completely ignorant of what mutations can and can't do. 

I just showed you what they can do.   Perhaps you could learn why that's the case.   For example, the formation of entirely new genes seems to be largely by mutation of non-coding DNA:

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Sep 26; 370(1678)

New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein-coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation

Aoife McLysaght and Daniele Guerzoni

Abstract

The origin of novel protein-coding genes de novo was once considered so improbable as to be impossible. In less than a decade, and especially in the last five years, this view has been overturned by extensive evidence from diverse eukaryotic lineages. There is now evidence that this mechanism has contributed a significant number of genes to genomes of organisms as diverse as Saccharomyces, Drosophila, Plasmodium, Arabidopisis and human. From simple beginnings, these genes have in some instances acquired complex structure, regulated expression and important functional roles. New genes are often thought of as dispensable late additions; however, some recent de novo genes in human can play a role in disease. Rather than an extremely rare occurrence, it is now evident that there is a relatively constant trickle of proto-genes released into the testing ground of natural selection. It is currently unknown whether de novo genes arise primarily through an ‘RNA-first’ or ‘ORF-first’ pathway. Either way, evolutionary tinkering with this pool of genetic potential may have been a significant player in the origins of lineage-specific traits and adaptations.

Do some reading, and it will go better for you.

 

[omega2xx]

20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The chart I showed you is based on genetic analysis; anyone can do the same analysis and will come up with the same data.   That's what evidence is. "

Those pictures are not based on anything to do with genetics.  They are opinions based on the pre-conceived idea that man is an ape, that you have accepted by faith alone.

"I just showed you what they can do.   Perhaps you could learn why that's the case.   For example, the formation of entirely new genes seems to be largely by mutation of non-coding DNA:

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Sep 26; 370(1678)

New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein-coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation

Aoife McLysaght and Daniele Guerzoni

Abstract

The origin of novel protein-coding genes de novo was once considered so improbable as to be impossible. In less than a decade, and especially in the last five years, this view has been overturned by extensive evidence from diverse eukaryotic lineages. There is now evidence that this mechanism has contributed a significant number of genes to genomes of organisms as diverse as Saccharomyces, Drosophila, Plasmodium, Arabidopisis and human. From simple beginnings, these genes have in some instances acquired complex structure, regulated expression and important functional roles. New genes are often thought of as dispensable late additions; however, some recent de novo genes in human can play a role in disease. Rather than an extremely rare occurrence, it is now evident that there is a relatively constant trickle of proto-genes released into the testing ground of natural selection. It is currently unknown whether de novo genes arise primarily through an ‘RNA-first’ or ‘ORF-first’ pathway. Either way, evolutionary tinkering with this pool of genetic potential may have been a significant player in the origins of lineage-specific traits and adaptations."

Amusing.  NOTHING in that paragraph mentioned a new gene causing a change in the species.

"Do some reading, and it will go better for you."

Look at the other side of the coin and it will go much better for you---the truth will set you free from the bondage  of pseudo science.

love, peace, joy

 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by omega2xx

[The Barbarian]

16 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Look at the other side of the coin and it will go much better for you---the truth will set you free from the bondage  of pseudo science.

You have not proved anything I have said is wrong yet and you seem perfectly comfortable making dogmatic statements, offer no supporting evidence and expect me to accept them by faith alone, which you have done, in spite of all the evidence shown to you.   To date you have not offered one scintilla of verifiable evidence. All you have done is parrot the usual, unproven, creationist talking points.

Edited December 3, 2019 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

13 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You have not proved anything I have said is wrong

I don't have the time, nor do I care enough, to make a list of all the factual inaccuracies you have presented in this thread. You still cannot believe that speciation makes new species - the very definition of the process.

I think that speaks sufficiently about your desire to learn anything new.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

There are plenty of PhD creation scientists, as qualified as you, maybe even better qualified, who reject what you believe.

I have no doubt about this. I would readily admit Kurt Wise is more qualified than I in many areas. However, he is willing to look at evidence, and you are not. His qualified conclusion is that there is substantial evidence for evolution - including speciation and transitional fossils.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

So if you want to come off as being omniscient on this subject be my guest.

One hardly needs to be omniscient to exceed your knowledge of science...

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

To date you have not offered one scintilla of verifiable evidence.

I have. You chose not to look at it.

 

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Love, peace, joy

If you truly wish me love, peace, and joy, then you should possibly reconsider your negative and belligerent attitude. (I'm offering advice, not tell you what to do)

[omega2xx]

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I don't have the time, nor do I care enough, to make a list of all the factual inaccuracies you have presented in this thread."

2 or 3 will do.  Don't forget to include the verifiable science that makes me wrong.

"You still cannot believe that speciation makes new species - the very definition of the process."

You still haven't explained how salamanders remaining salamanders is evidence of evolution.  I thought the species had to change.

"I think that speaks sufficiently about your desire to learn anything new."

So now you can read my mind.  How do you do that?

"I have no doubt about this. I would readily admit Kurt Wise is more qualified than I in many areas. However, he is willing to look at evidence, and you are not. His qualified conclusion is that there is substantial evidence for evolution - including speciation and transitional fossils."

I was not referring to Kurt wise.  All of he scientist at ICR, and they all have PhD's is some field of science, reject evolution, and the fossil record.  I am not sure what they say about speciation. 

Ernst Mayr:  "The fossil record remains woefully inadequate."

Stephen Gould:  "I regard the failure to find  a clear vector of progress in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record."

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be intermediates.

"One hardly needs to be omniscient to exceed your knowledge of science..."

And you accuse  me of being negative and belligerent.   That comment it insulting and self-serving. Especially since you have not show where something I said was wrong.

"I have. You chose not to look at it."

I looked at it for over 20 years and since none of them ever included any real evidence, I started asking those who posted the link to go to their link an cut and paste 1 or 2 things they offered as evidence.  None of them, including you, are willing to take 5 minuets to do that.  Barbarian posted some man-made pictures thinking that is evidence.  Do you think it is?

"If you truly wish me love, peace, and joy, then you should possibly reconsider your negative and belligerent attitude. (I'm offering advice, not tell you what to do)"

My attitude is not negative about you, it is about what you believe and also telling me I don'[ know what I am talking about.  That  is far more negative than any comment I have made about you.  You specifically told me not to do something.  That  is not advice.

Love. peace joy---If I didn't meant it, I wouldn't say it.

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by omega2xx

[omega2xx]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You have not proved anything I have said is wrong yet and you seem perfectly comfortable making dogmatic statements, offer no supporting evidence and expect me to accept them by faith alone, which you have done, in spite of all the evidence shown to you.   To date you have not offered one scintilla of verifiable evidence. All you have done is parrot the usual, unproven, creationist talking points.

 

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You have not proved anything I have said is wrong yet and you seem perfectly comfortable making dogmatic statements, offer no supporting evidence and expect me to accept them by faith alone, which you have done, in spite of all the evidence shown to you.   To date you have not offered one scintilla of verifiable evidence. All you have done is parrot the usual, unproven, creationist talking points.

Creationism---Species are always after their kind---God.  Proved thousands of times every day.

Evolution---At some point a  species will produce not after their kind---Darwin.  Never proved.

Creationism---God created all life  out of nothing..

Evolution---Nothing grunted very hard  and out popped a single celled something.   It kept grunting and this single cell, became  the daddy of the millions of life forms, animal and plants. Ain't science wonderful?

[one.opinion]

21 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

"I don't have the time, nor do I care enough, to make a list of all the factual inaccuracies you have presented in this thread."

2 or 3 will do.  Don't forget to include the verifiable science that makes me wrong.

I started back at the beginning and went through less than half of the pages in this thread and have a list of ten at this point.

1.  Actually speciation does not change the species. (Speciation is the process of making new species, so yes, speciation does change the species.)

2.  The inability to mate doesn't make a new species. (When populations diverge to the point that they can no longer make fertile offspring, that is one way to make new species.)

3.  Evolution has never been observed to have happened (Evolution is easily provable and constant - some of the implications of evolution, like common ancestry, are not directly observable, but are based on real, observed evidence.)

4.  I am saying it is impossible genetically to have a new species. (No, it is absolutely possible. There are several examples of genome duplications that have led to speciation within a single generation.)

5.  To produce a new species the parents must give its offspring a trait for which it has no gene. (No, the origination of new genes is not required for speciation to occur. The speciation events due to genome duplications make good examples.)

6.  There is no fossils linking man to apes. (There are quite a few fossils of hominids that show transition to modern humans.)

7.  There  is no genetic evidence linking man to apes. (There is considerable evidence suggesting common ancestry between humans and other primates.)

8.  There is a single gene for whale fins, a different one for shark fins and a single, different gene for each SPECIES  of fish. (No, this is absolutely not true. Complex physical structures are build through the combined efforts of multiple genes, including genes that determine time and place of important genes for determining structure.)

9.  Genes do not interact with each other.  The have a God given a function to perform and they do that one the they were created for and nothing else. (Genes products are intricately intertwined and the proteins they produce often have multiple functions.)

10.  Genes do not modify.  They are static. (Genomes are slightly altered each generation through a variety of mechanisms. Some of these changes occur within gene sequences. Genes are not static, but constantly modifying.)

The list could grow much, much longer, but I think this illustrates that you have some serious content knowledge gaps. I'd be happy to provide more evidence rather than my own knowledge base, so if you would like more evidence, pick anything from the list so far.

There is no shame in admitting you haven't kept up with genetic studies over the last few decades, it is just beneficial to conversation to be realistic about it. If you want to learn more, I'd be willing to help you. I'm not as interested in just arguing for the sake of argument.

[HAZARD]

Evolution is man invented garbage inspired by the devil.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by HAZARD

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, HAZARD said:

Evolution is man invented garbage inspired by the devil.

That is certainly an opinion some have. Did you know that young earth creationist scientists even admit that there is substantial evidence supporting evolution?