one.opinion Posted December 8, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 8, 2019 20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: Perhaps you don't know what "recessive genes" are. They have nothing to do with observed gene duplications, or documented genes from non-coding DNA. A walking Dunning-Kruger effect... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 9, 2019 On 12/7/2019 at 10:48 AM, The Barbarian said: One of the advantages of being consistent in one's story, is one doesn't need a great memory. The truth doesn't change with one's personal outlook. Being consistent with one's story does not guarantee the story is true. Truth does not change, but personal outlooks can when one is confronted with facts that can't be falsified. Yes. That's what I showed you before. Dr. Wood and Dr. Wise admit that the evidence shows common descent. They are honest enough to say that the evidence shows one thing and their interpretations of the Bible say another. It is foolishness to quote one person, who has no evidence to support what he says, and paint all Christians with that brush. There are many more well qualified Christians scientist, who reject what Wood believers, and why do you not post the evidence he uses? Maybe you have finally figured out what constitutes verifiable evidence. If you are not afraid to post what he says, post it and I will show you why he is wrong. I hate to confuse you with the facts, but it is necessary. Which is no worse than believing the Earth is flat or that there is no evolution. They just have different presuppositions than you do. To say there are qualified Christians is an act of desperation and one of the silliest arguments one can make. That is why you try to link it with those who do not believe in evolution. What I believe is not a presupposition. Thanks for admitting yours is. My belief is based on real science, and an understanding of how "yom" is used in the Bible, yours is not. No, that's wrong. Science is inductive, inferring the rules by observing the particulars. Epistemologically, science never "proves" anything. It merely collects enough evidence to make the conclusion very, very certain. That is one of the most ignorant biased statements one can make about science. Science has proved there is more than one blood type and science can prove what type you have, and it can prove if you need a transfusion, which type will not kill you and which type will. There are many more thins science has proved. What you have said is an insult to the many accomplishments of real science. Evolution can't prove what the first life form was, and how did it originate. Real scsience proves/disproves; evolution speculates. On 12/7/2019 at 10:48 AM, The Barbarian said: All four of Darwin's points have been repeatedly verified. Talk is cheap. Post the evidence. Evolution, as you learned, is being directly observed. Talk is cheap, post the evidence. Most creationists now admit the fact of speciation, and allow common descent to the level of new species, genera, families, and sometimes orders. Would you like me to show you, again? Most Christians agree speciation takes place. It takes place from a necessary man-made definition None of them agree it makes a new species. I keep telling you salamanders remaining salamaners is not evidence of evolution and you keep ignoring giving an explanation. Why is that? Evolution requires a change of species. Let's take a look... Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. If there are gobs and gobs of evidence, it should be easy for you to post some of it.why don't you post the evidence for just one thing evolution presupposes. On 12/7/2019 at 10:48 AM, The Barbarian said: So Wood says there's gobs and gobs of evidence for evolution. Wise cites numerous examples. Would you like to see that? These are honest creationists who acknowledge the facts. I am not questing their honesty, I am questioning their science. Then post just one of these facts with the science that supports they admitted presuppositions. Yes I would like to see that with the science that supports it instead of you just saying it is true. It was a unicellular prokaryote. And and over time, prokaryotes evolved, likely by endosymbiosis, into eukaryotes. Do we have evidence for endosymbiotic evolution? We have an observed example. Would you like to learn about that? Here is your usual MO---making a dogmatic statement and not supporting it with some FACTS. Fortunately, we now know that mutation can duplicate and then alter genes to make new ones. Eukaryotes can also make new genes from non-coding DNA. So that's no problem for the theory, either. Here is you usual MO---making a dogmatic statement and not supporting it with some FACTS. No, and no. The basal eukaryote was neither a plant nor an animal. Some protist can photosynthesize as well as move about; others are sessile and photosynthesize. Others are sessile and don't photosynthesize. Plants and animals diverged from a eukaryote that was neither plant nor animal. Here is your usual MO---making a dogmatic statement and not supporting it with some FACTS. Would you like to see the evidence for that? Yes. That is why I keep asking for it, and you keep avoiding presenting it. It's pretty easy to do that, when (as your fellow creationists admit) the facts are on the evolutionist side. It takes a considerable amount of honesty for a creationist to admit it, however. Not all of them are up to it, but some of them are. Again you are putting all of your eggs in the one basket and their are many, many, more eggs that need to be in your basket. You will never be set free from the bondage of science ignorance unless you are willing to look at the other side with an open mind Note: I believe there are some post I have not responded to, but I don't think I am getting notified of them. It is not intentional. Love.peace, joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 9, 2019 17 hours ago, one.opinion said: A walking Dunning-Kruger effect... That is insulting and based only one the FACT that we disagree and you have not proved even one thing the TOE preaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 9, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, omega2xx said: That is insulting and based only one the FACT that we disagree and you have not proved even one thing the TOE preaches. Prove me wrong and admit you have a LOT to learn. I'll happily and readily offer a heart-felt apology at that point. Love, peace, and joy. Edited December 9, 2019 by one.opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 9, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, The Barbarian said: St. Augustine already did that. He did not. He gave his interpretation and the FACTS prove him and you wrong. No wonder you are willing to take what evolutionists say based on faith alone. As you see, it's absurd to assume literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them. I have explained why the sun is not needed. Would you like to me to tell you again? If you have to redefine the meanings of words to make your new revision work, that's a pretty good clue that it's a bad revision. So you say. But you haven't yet done that. I think I know why. I haven't redefined anything, you have and I know why. Barbarian observes: If you continue making false accusations, people will notice. No one here said they were incapable of making an error; that's your invention. Calm yourself, and stick with the truth. Take you own advice. You were the one who claimed someone here said they were incapable of making an error. And as you know, that's not true at all. Then post where I said that or it just another false claim you have made. Barbarian observes: You probably didn't know, but Stephen Gould himself accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate. What he accepted at one time is irrelevant. I am only interest is what real science says. Scott Wood got his PhD, no need to deny his beliefs. Then why do you deny what other PhD's say that refute what he says and there are more than 2 who do. You need to try and be consistent. On the other hand, if you want to get into the Insitute for Creation Research graduate school, you have to submit a loyalty oath to creationism to even apply. What is wrong with that as long is he person is well qualified to comment on his areas of expertise? That's not the way it works in a real educational institution. As you see, legitimate universities don't put such requirements on prospective students, but creationist schools do. That's the big difference between real universities and creationist schools. Of course they do. Most universities would not accept someone to teach in their science dept. who rejects evolution. As you learned, that's a false statement. Not on your say so, and that with no evidence to support what you have accepted on faith alone. It's why almost all biologists accept the observed fact of evolution. Evidently you are one of those who think the majority makes something true. Think again. love, peace, joy Edited December 9, 2019 by omega2xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 9, 2019 18 hours ago, The Barbarian said: There are several ways. One way is gene duplication, followed by mutation: Gene duplication (or chromosomal duplication or gene amplification) is a major mechanism through which new genetic material is generated during molecular evolution. It can be defined as any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication Another is mutation of non-coding DNA, which apparently is a larger source of new genes than previously realized: A team led by scientists from the University of Chicago (UChicago) has published a study (“Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza“) in Nature Ecology and Evolution that challenges one of the classic assumptions about how new proteins evolve. The research shows that random, noncoding sections of DNA can quickly evolve to produce new proteins. These de novo, or from scratch, genes provide a new, unexplored way that proteins evolve and contribute to biodiversity, according to the scientists. “Using a big genome comparison, we show that noncoding sequences can evolve into completely novel proteins. That’s a huge discovery,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, the Edna K. Papazian distinguished service professor of ecology and evolution at UChicago and senior author of the new study. https://www.genengnews.com/news/random-non-coding-dna-can-quickly-evolve-to-produce-new-proteins/ Perhaps you don't know what "recessive genes" are. They have nothing to do with observed gene duplications, or documented genes from non-coding DNA. YAWN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, omega2xx said: YAWN The two main ways you deal with evidence is either ignoring it or yawning. The most absurd thing is that you continue to state that no one ever shows you any evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 9, 2019 24 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Prove me wrong and admit you have a LOT to learn. The problem is not proving you wrong. The problem is you proving your are scientifically right. That you can't do. If you want to accept what evolution preaches, that is OK with me. I'll happily and readily offer a heart-felt apology at that point. I am not interested in your apology. You have exposed your true character and that is good enough for me. Love, peace, and joy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,051 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 9, 2019 Barbarian observes: Yes. That's what I showed you before. Dr. Wood and Dr. Wise admit that the evidence shows common descent. They are honest enough to say that the evidence shows one thing and their interpretations of the Bible say another. 3 minutes ago, omega2xx said: It is foolishness to quote one person, who has no evidence to support what he says, and paint all Christians with that brush. He cited dozens of examples. Do you think no one noticed? Didn't you notice? Perhaps you didn't. I'll put it up one more time for you... Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Regarding your cite of moon landing deniers: Which is no worse than believing the Earth is flat or that there is no evolution. They just have different presuppositions than you do. 9 minutes ago, omega2xx said: To say there are qualified Christians is an act of desperation and one of the silliest arguments one can make. If you said that, one person here said it. Are you arguing with yourself? 10 minutes ago, omega2xx said: That is why you try to link it with those who do not believe in evolution. What I believe is not a presupposition. Technically, it's an error; a new doctrine that is not supported by scripture or tradition. Barbarian explains: No, that's wrong. Science is inductive, inferring the rules by observing the particulars. Epistemologically, science never "proves" anything. It merely collects enough evidence to make the conclusion very, very certain. 12 minutes ago, omega2xx said: That is one of the most ignorant biased statements one can make about science. Science has proved there is more than one blood type and science can prove what type you have, and it can prove if you need a transfusion, which type will not kill you and which type will. No. It's established all of those things, but it has not proven them. It can't because it has no path to logical certainty. Here's a good, not too technical explanation: Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof Go to the site and read all of it. You'll come out of it, with a better understanding. Barbarian observes: Evolutionary theory has had changes, but nothing is fundamentally different. All four of Darwin's points have been repeatedly verified. 17 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Talk is cheap. Post the evidence. Variation in Populations In every species there is variation. This variability occurs even between related individuals. Inherited Traits Each species has traits determined by inheritance. Inherited traits passed from parents to offspring determine the characteristics of the offspring. Inherited traits that improve the odds of survival are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations. Offspring Compete Most species produce more offspring each year than the environment can support. This high birth rate results in competition among the members of the species for the limited natural resources available. The struggle for resources determines the mortality rate within a species. Only the surviving individuals breed and pass on their genes to the next generation. Survival of the Fittest Some individuals survive the struggle for resources. These individuals reproduce, adding their genes to the succeeding generations. The traits that helped these organisms to survive will be passed on to their offspring. This process is known as “natural selection.” Conditions in the environment result in the survival of individuals with specific traits which are passed through heredity to the next generation. https://sciencing.com/darwins-four-main-ideas-evolution-8293806.html These have been repeatedly verified. The gene studies of Darwin's finches on Daphne Major, for example, shows how allele frequencies vary according to selective pressures. A study of Adriatic island lizards confirms new features evolving over time, (in this case, a few decades) when the selective pressures change. In this case, a new digestive organ, among other things. Would you like to learn more about these? 25 minutes ago, omega2xx said: If there are gobs and gobs of evidence, it should be easy for you to post some of it.why don't you post the evidence for just one thing evolution presupposes. See above. As you learned, even honest creationists admit the fact. Dr. Wise cites dozens of examples. No point in denying the fact. 27 minutes ago, omega2xx said: I am not questing their honesty, I am questioning their science. Their big advantage over you is, they are real scientists. They actually know about the issue; they've studied it for a very long time; each has a relevant PhD, and each honestly admits the evidence, preferring to accept their own interpretations of Genesis instead. So you can see why they have vastly more credibility than you do. Barbarian offers: It was a unicellular prokaryote. And and over time, prokaryotes evolved, likely by endosymbiosis, into eukaryotes. Do we have evidence for endosymbiotic evolution? We have an observed example. Would you like to learn about that? 30 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Here is your usual MO---making a dogmatic statement and not supporting it with some FACTS. I'll take that as a "yes." So here's why: In the oldest rocks of the earth, we find only unicellular prokaryotes. Small, bacteria-like cells, with no nucleus. The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms It took a very, very long time for the next major step to eukaryotes. Maybe 2 billion years. But eventually it happened. We know it's a matter of endosymbiosis, because the evidence is still here. In our cells, we have (for example) mitochondria, the organelles that now provide energy conversions in almost all eukaryotes (a few eukaryotes have lost them.) They look like little bacteria, and they have their own, bacterial DNA which is quite different from eukaryote DNA. So do we have proof this can actually happen? Yes, it's been directly observed: Trends Cell Biol. 1995 Mar;5(3):137-40. Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae. Jeon KW1. Dept of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. Abstract The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival. The reason we know plants and animals evolved separately from eukaryotes that were neither plants nor animals are: 1. Genetic data showing the phylogenies of eukaryotes. And we can show the method works by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent. 2. Such organisms, still exist in nature. Would you like to see that? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 9, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, one.opinion said: The two main ways you deal with evidence is either ignoring it or yawning. The most absurd thing is that you continue to state that no one ever shows you any evidence. Neither you not barbarian have presented any real scientific evidence. All you bot so is make dogmatic statements and we are suppose to accept what you believe. Sorry but it doesn't work that way. To make my point, prove mutations are a mechanism to make a new species. When I yawn, it is because the post says nothing new, just the usual evo rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts