Blue eye gene

[artsylady]

QUOTE

artsylady

I don't mean imaginative drawings based on a tooth or a part of a skull when I say evidence. I mean, evidence that follows the scientific method.

The evidence wasn't drawings, did you even look at it? Whatever, I've posted it, it's there if you want it, but don't try to tell me that I haven't.

I've seen and heard all of this so called evidence before many times, but it's not scientific evidence, following the scientific method.

As in this. from wikipedia

The essential elements[9][10][11] of a scientific method[12] are iterations,[13] recursions,[14] interleavings, and orderings of the following:

* Characterizations (observations,[15] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)

* Hypotheses[16][17] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[18]

* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[19] from the hypothesis or theory)

* Experiments[20] (tests of all of the above)

Now, evolutionary theories are WONDERFUL at the first two, characterizations and hypothesis. They have hypothesis coming out of the ying-yang, so much so that there isn't even one that all evolutionists even can agree upon, as stated many times before and acknowledged.

The problem is that they are lacking the predictions (I'm sure they used to be have given up a long time ago) How many times have i heard "evolution DOESN'T MAKE PREDICTIONS! As in the case of the the fish in the pond that I'm trying to get you guys to contemplate. Although they SAY the fish grew legs and lungs, to predict that it will happen in a similar environment as happened before is, of course, ludicrous. And as far as the experiments go, they are also sorely, sorely lacking. I think they are conducting experiments ALL THE TIME, but rarely publishing anything because it's not working in their favor.

The fossils are used by creation scientists as well. They are observable data and are also accepted by creation scientists. Evolutionists seem to think they have the only answers for these fossils, but that's simply not true.

[artsylady]

See thread entitled evolution is not science"

I've read the article in the OP, and his four points that he thinks evolution is based on are rubbish. The only axioms evolution is based on are:

1. Genetic mutation happens at a low frequency.

2. Animals reproduce and pass on their genes.

3. The environment imposes pressures on the animals that causes some genetic codes to survive and reproduce.

All of which are obvious almost to the point of self-evidence.

The four points of what makes a theory science are the components of the scientific method, as stated above.

QUOTE

artsylady

Are you sure you can't post from Talk Origins. I do. I find some pretty dubious stuff there and post it.

Maybe they are lenient with believers but last time I posted a link, it was deleted.

It could have been on another board that I posted from there.

QUOTE

artsylady

They all look like horses. Some are standing, one is eating and one is galloping. Lol Seriously thought, it all looks macro to me. We could line up a shetland pony, a quarter horse, a zebra and clydsdale and it would be the same difference.

Actually, if you look closely you can see the little numbers under the images, they get significantly bigger, but more striking is the change in foot and tooth structure. Especially in the Merychippus, you can see it still retains the

Look at a Shetland pony and a clydesdale. Or a donkey and a thoroughbred. If the shetland and the clydesdale were both long extinct, they'd have the shetland as the predeceasor because it's so much smaller. If the donkey and throughbred had been long extinct, they'd have the donkey as the more primitive species. See what I mean? Ironic thing is we've probably been breeding the thoroughbreds for hundreds of years now, selecting the best genes and yet the basic components are still the same as a donkey. A throughbred could mate with a donkey. It wouldn't be much of a beauty but THIS is how creation scientists classify 'kinds' as outlined in the Bible. One 'horse' kind went on the ark and all of these various species became a result of it.

I've also heard many times that the ark was too small. It wasn't. It was the size of a football stadium with three levels. If the writer in ancient times, was speaking of a localized flood, why on earth would he think to make the thing so humongous anyway? How many animals could possibly have been indigenous to the writer's vicinity in the first place? A hundred? Or why did it rain for so long and take so darn long to dry it up? Sorry, I'm way off on another tangent now.

QUOTE

artsylady

It's the huge leaps that I cannot fathom and there is no proof of. We have millions of fossils, but fewer than 1000 transitionals? (if you accept them as transitionals, like these horsies here) But even the numbers don't add up.

The idea of transitionals is entirely arbitrary (like the distinction between micro and macroevolution). In actuality, every animal is a transitional because they are all changing.

No, transitionals NEED to be found in order to prove evolution. Darwin even said so. Transitions between fish and amphibians, transitionals between whales and cows etc. If that's what evolution claims then there needs to be proof to substantiate it. And there isn't nearly enough - if any, and at that, only if you have a really good imagination. (ie : you can imagine strong fins turning into legs)

[artsylady]

See thread entitled evolution is not science"

I've read the article in the OP, and his four points that he thinks evolution is based on are rubbish. The only axioms evolution is based on are:

1. Genetic mutation happens at a low frequency.

2. Animals reproduce and pass on their genes.

3. The environment imposes pressures on the animals that causes some genetic codes to survive and reproduce.

All of which are obvious almost to the point of self-evidence.

The four points of what makes a theory science are the components of the scientific method, as stated above.

QUOTE

artsylady

Are you sure you can't post from Talk Origins. I do. I find some pretty dubious stuff there and post it.

Maybe they are lenient with believers but last time I posted a link, it was deleted.

It could have been on another board that I posted from there.

QUOTE

artsylady

They all look like horses. Some are standing, one is eating and one is galloping. Lol Seriously thought, it all looks macro to me. We could line up a shetland pony, a quarter horse, a zebra and clydsdale and it would be the same difference.

Actually, if you look closely you can see the little numbers under the images, they get significantly bigger, but more striking is the change in foot and tooth structure. Especially in the Merychippus, you can see it still retains the

Look at a Shetland pony and a clydesdale. Or a donkey and a thoroughbred. If the shetland and the clydesdale were both long extinct, they'd have the shetland as the predeceasor because it's so much smaller. If the donkey and throughbred had been long extinct, they'd have the donkey as the more primitive species. See what I mean? Ironic thing is we've probably been breeding the thoroughbreds for hundreds of years now, selecting the best genes and yet the basic components are still the same as a donkey. A throughbred could mate with a donkey. It wouldn't be much of a beauty but THIS is how creation scientists classify 'kinds' as outlined in the Bible. One 'horse' kind went on the ark and all of these various species became a result of it.

I've also heard many times that the ark was too small. It wasn't. It was the size of a football stadium with three levels. If the writer in ancient times, was speaking of a localized flood, why on earth would he think to make the thing so humongous anyway? How many animals could possibly have been indigenous to the writer's vicinity in the first place? A hundred? Or why did it rain for so long and take so darn long to dry it up? Sorry, I'm way off on another tangent now.

QUOTE

artsylady

It's the huge leaps that I cannot fathom and there is no proof of. We have millions of fossils, but fewer than 1000 transitionals? (if you accept them as transitionals, like these horsies here) But even the numbers don't add up.

The idea of transitionals is entirely arbitrary (like the distinction between micro and macroevolution). In actuality, every animal is a transitional because they are all changing.

No, transitionals NEED to be found in order to prove evolution. Darwin even said so. Transitions between fish and amphibians, transitionals between whales and cows etc. If that's what evolution claims then there needs to be proof to substantiate it. And there isn't nearly enough - if any, and at that, only if you have a really good imagination. (ie : you can imagine strong fins turning into legs)

[artsylady]

The two tiny circumstantial evidences you've posted fit with both evolution and creationism, so why choose the latter?

Ah. Now you're calling the evidence 'circumstantial'. Interesting. You say it fits with evolution. Would you call it circumstantial in this regard as well?

In any case, let's go over a few of these.

Just like evolution of language. Given the fact that out of 30 feral children ever found, none could ever learn to speak or communicate as adults. They missed the boat. Which means that language had to have been around right from the get-go. It fits.

Language cannot, or rather, has not, been explained through evolution, given the evidence above, true or false?

Given the evidence sited above, it would seem that language had to have been with humans from the beginning, true or false?

I don't need you to go into many hypotheticals here about what could have happened or what may yet be found. Based on THIS evidence, which theory, evolution or creation fits this evidence better?

Just like there are cave drawings of dinosaurs from ancient men. It fits.

Does this fit better with the creation or evolution model?

Just like there are creation stories similar to the creation story all around the world. It fits.

Does this fit better with the creation or evolution model?

Just like mtdna tells us we all came from one woman. It fits.

Does this fit better with the creation or evolution model?

Just like the thousands of anomalies in science frontiers. Not anomalies if your viewpoint is from the creation model.

The anomalies DO fit better with creation than evolution, otherwise they would not be anamolies. I'll answer that one for you.

QUOTE

artsylady

Well, let's take horses for instance, since that was the first thing I saw on the wikipedia page that you posted. what DID they evolve from? Whales too? Where's the proof? Evolutionists don't agree so what makes you so sure? Why do you say it fits? That all life began from a primordial soup? I think you are the one who is settling.

Or if you don't want to start with horses, we can start elsewhere. Fish? I'm trying to do that elsewhere. Whatever you think it the best evidence, present it.

I've posted evidence, you chose to ignore it, why should I repost?

Sorry, I missed your best evidence for fish evolution.

Can you just tell me where you posted it?

I think the best evidence of evolution is all around us. The strongest evidence there is for evolution is the fact that microevolution is universally accepted combined with the fact that no one can come up with a reason why micro doesn't lead to macro (which is especially telling as these are arbitrary terms).

I keep asking 'where does the new data that is input into the genetic code come from and how does the data find it's way into the dna"? But you haven't answered yet. Your answer is the same thing over and over - that it happens because microevolution happens, which is just a shuffling of the genes ALREADY THERE. I don't think you're understanding this.

You haven't offered a single proof of where or how this data comes from or how it is inputted into the genetic code, but you keep acting like it's a somehow a given that i accept that it happens.

I'll give you another example of the difference between micro and macro.

Micro.

You have a deck of cards. You keep shuffling this deck of cards and throwing out four cards on the table, randomly. You see what's there, take note, put the 52 cards back in the deck, shuffle again and repeat the process of dealing out four cards. Eventually four aces turn up! Yippee!

This is still microevolution. You're still dealing with the SAME deck. The SAME cards (ie, the SAME information)

Now, macroevolution is different.

You have a deck of cards. You keep shuffling this deck of cards and throwing out four cards on the table, randomly. You see what's there, take note, put the 52 cards back in the deck, shuffle again and repeat the process of dealing out four cards. Eventually three aces plus a UNO card from a UNO deck gets turned up! Yippee! You now have macroevolution. But the question is, how on earth did the UNO card get into the deck?

Now, what you seem to be saying over and over again, that given enough time, and given enough random shufflings, OF COURSE a uno card will be thrown out onto the table. How could it not?

I say "How on earth could it get into the deck?"

Do you see what I'm talking about yet?

When someone comes up with a valid reason, we can re-examine the evidence.

Science is not about coming up with a hypotheses and then "unless someone can prove it WRONG, we'll keep it and accept it". Science is about coming up with a hypotheses and then proving that it is true.

The onus of proof is on the evolutionists to prove how macro evolution happened.

Not, for the creationists to prove it did not. That's ridiculous because you know you cannot prove a negative.

So, where is the proof?

[artsylady]

The two tiny circumstantial evidences you've posted fit with both evolution and creationism, so why choose the latter?

Ah. Now you're calling the evidence 'circumstantial'. Interesting. You say it fits with evolution. Would you call it circumstantial in this regard as well?

In any case, let's go over a few of these.

Just like evolution of language. Given the fact that out of 30 feral children ever found, none could ever learn to speak or communicate as adults. They missed the boat. Which means that language had to have been around right from the get-go. It fits.

Language cannot, or rather, has not, been explained through evolution, given the evidence above, true or false?

Given the evidence sited above, it would seem that language had to have been with humans from the beginning, true or false?

I don't need you to go into many hypotheticals here about what could have happened or what may yet be found. Based on THIS evidence, which theory, evolution or creation fits this evidence better?

Just like there are cave drawings of dinosaurs from ancient men. It fits.

Does this fit better with the creation or evolution model?

Just like there are creation stories similar to the creation story all around the world. It fits.

Does this fit better with the creation or evolution model?

Just like mtdna tells us we all came from one woman. It fits.

Does this fit better with the creation or evolution model?

Just like the thousands of anomalies in science frontiers. Not anomalies if your viewpoint is from the creation model.

The anomalies DO fit better with creation than evolution, otherwise they would not be anamolies. I'll answer that one for you.

QUOTE

artsylady

Well, let's take horses for instance, since that was the first thing I saw on the wikipedia page that you posted. what DID they evolve from? Whales too? Where's the proof? Evolutionists don't agree so what makes you so sure? Why do you say it fits? That all life began from a primordial soup? I think you are the one who is settling.

Or if you don't want to start with horses, we can start elsewhere. Fish? I'm trying to do that elsewhere. Whatever you think it the best evidence, present it.

I've posted evidence, you chose to ignore it, why should I repost?

Sorry, I missed your best evidence for fish evolution.

Can you just tell me where you posted it?

I think the best evidence of evolution is all around us. The strongest evidence there is for evolution is the fact that microevolution is universally accepted combined with the fact that no one can come up with a reason why micro doesn't lead to macro (which is especially telling as these are arbitrary terms).

I keep asking 'where does the new data that is input into the genetic code come from and how does the data find it's way into the dna"? But you haven't answered yet. Your answer is the same thing over and over - that it happens because microevolution happens, which is just a shuffling of the genes ALREADY THERE. I don't think you're understanding this.

You haven't offered a single proof of where or how this data comes from or how it is inputted into the genetic code, but you keep acting like it's a somehow a given that i accept that it happens.

I'll give you another example of the difference between micro and macro.

Micro.

You have a deck of cards. You keep shuffling this deck of cards and throwing out four cards on the table, randomly. You see what's there, take note, put the 52 cards back in the deck, shuffle again and repeat the process of dealing out four cards. Eventually four aces turn up! Yippee!

This is still microevolution. You're still dealing with the SAME deck. The SAME cards (ie, the SAME information)

Now, macroevolution is different.

You have a deck of cards. You keep shuffling this deck of cards and throwing out four cards on the table, randomly. You see what's there, take note, put the 52 cards back in the deck, shuffle again and repeat the process of dealing out four cards. Eventually three aces plus a UNO card from a UNO deck gets turned up! Yippee! You now have macroevolution. But the question is, how on earth did the UNO card get into the deck?

Now, what you seem to be saying over and over again, that given enough time, and given enough random shufflings, OF COURSE a uno card will be thrown out onto the table. How could it not?

I say "How on earth could it get into the deck?"

Do you see what I'm talking about yet?

When someone comes up with a valid reason, we can re-examine the evidence.

Science is not about coming up with a hypotheses and then "unless someone can prove it WRONG, we'll keep it and accept it". Science is about coming up with a hypotheses and then proving that it is true.

The onus of proof is on the evolutionists to prove how macro evolution happened.

Not, for the creationists to prove it did not. That's ridiculous because you know you cannot prove a negative.

So, where is the proof?

[artsylady]

When someone comes up with a valid reason, we can re-examine the evidence.

Evidence for macroevolution? There isn't any.

Until then I don't see any reason to because even if we did find from the fossils that macro can't happen, there would still be a massive hole in the theory as we still wouldn't know why.

You'll never find evidence that macro didn't happen because it's impossible to prove a negative.

artsylady

How do you know how much time it actually takes for macro to occur?

I have absolutely no idea because you have yet to post an accurate definition.

I'll help you out here. No one has any idea. Macroevolution is purely speculative and there's no evidence to substantiate it.

The time macro takes depends on the amount of change which at this stage is very wishy-washy.

If your definition is 'when info is added to the genetic code'

,

It's not even so much as 'when' but 'how'.

] then the amount of time is easy, one generation. After all, don't all children of one set of parents have different DNA with more or less "junk DNA" (that's how genetic fingerprinting works, by testing the length of the so called "junk")?

Right, but the parents have provided a new set of inherited traits, but no new information that's not already within the HUMAN dna code. Example, there may be shuffling between blue eyes, brown eyes, black skin, white skin, but the children cannot inherit a gene to 'grow wings' for example, because that information is not within either human parent's genetic code. And as you know, a human cannot produce offspring with a chicken, so the new information for change never came from this method either. (Unless you are watching the Island Of Doctor Moreau, which is actually a case of an intelligent (but wacked) source messing with the genetics)

Btw, before you knee jerk and say that "junk DNA" is junk and therefore not new information, I would like to point out that just because the information isn't used in any manner that we know of, doesn't mean it isn't information. A letter that is written in a different language and completely unintelligible to us still contains as much information as one we can read.

What do you mean?

QUOTE

artsylady

What about PE? (a theory that I find to be a desperate attempt to explain away the fact that the transitionals are not nearly enough in number to substansiate slower causes)

What's wrong with punctuated equilibrium? All it means is that evolutionary rates fluctuate.

Here's the problem. Darwin 'predicted' that there would be many many transitionals found, and if they weren't found, he was wrong. (I don't have exact quotes,but) So, they weren't found. PE was a desperate attempt to continue the theory of evolution going when they knew not only that the evidence was lacking, but with this new theory, evidence wasn't even necessary!! Aint that convenient!

[artsylady]

When someone comes up with a valid reason, we can re-examine the evidence.

Evidence for macroevolution? There isn't any.

Until then I don't see any reason to because even if we did find from the fossils that macro can't happen, there would still be a massive hole in the theory as we still wouldn't know why.

You'll never find evidence that macro didn't happen because it's impossible to prove a negative.

artsylady

How do you know how much time it actually takes for macro to occur?

I have absolutely no idea because you have yet to post an accurate definition.

I'll help you out here. No one has any idea. Macroevolution is purely speculative and there's no evidence to substantiate it.

The time macro takes depends on the amount of change which at this stage is very wishy-washy.

If your definition is 'when info is added to the genetic code'

,

It's not even so much as 'when' but 'how'.

] then the amount of time is easy, one generation. After all, don't all children of one set of parents have different DNA with more or less "junk DNA" (that's how genetic fingerprinting works, by testing the length of the so called "junk")?

Right, but the parents have provided a new set of inherited traits, but no new information that's not already within the HUMAN dna code. Example, there may be shuffling between blue eyes, brown eyes, black skin, white skin, but the children cannot inherit a gene to 'grow wings' for example, because that information is not within either human parent's genetic code. And as you know, a human cannot produce offspring with a chicken, so the new information for change never came from this method either. (Unless you are watching the Island Of Doctor Moreau, which is actually a case of an intelligent (but wacked) source messing with the genetics)

Btw, before you knee jerk and say that "junk DNA" is junk and therefore not new information, I would like to point out that just because the information isn't used in any manner that we know of, doesn't mean it isn't information. A letter that is written in a different language and completely unintelligible to us still contains as much information as one we can read.

What do you mean?

QUOTE

artsylady

What about PE? (a theory that I find to be a desperate attempt to explain away the fact that the transitionals are not nearly enough in number to substansiate slower causes)

What's wrong with punctuated equilibrium? All it means is that evolutionary rates fluctuate.

Here's the problem. Darwin 'predicted' that there would be many many transitionals found, and if they weren't found, he was wrong. (I don't have exact quotes,but) So, they weren't found. PE was a desperate attempt to continue the theory of evolution going when they knew not only that the evidence was lacking, but with this new theory, evidence wasn't even necessary!! Aint that convenient!

[artsylady]

Actually, I was just posting the three axioms of evolution as I saw them in response to the four nonsensical axioms that were presented in the article in the thread you directed me to. The writer misrepresented evolution to make it easier to destroy (a strawman).

You're calling the scientific method "nonsensical" now?

QUOTE

artsylady

Now, evolutionary theories are WONDERFUL at the first two, characterizations and hypothesis. They have hypothesis coming out of the ying-yang, so much so that there isn't even one that all evolutionists even can agree upon, as stated many times before and acknowledged.

The problem is that they are lacking the predictions (I'm sure they used to be have given up a long time ago) How many times have i heard "evolution DOESN'T MAKE PREDICTIONS! As in the case of the the fish in the pond that I'm trying to get you guys to contemplate. Although they SAY the fish grew legs and lungs, to predict that it will happen in a similar environment as happened before is, of course, ludicrous. And as far as the experiments go, they are also sorely, sorely lacking. I think they are conducting experiments ALL THE TIME, but rarely publishing anything because it's not working in their favor.

When people say evolution doesn't make predictions, they mean it doesn't do specifics like 'a million years in the future, dogs will have 8 legs', but it does make testable predictions.

Are you saying now that it makes predictions and there are experiments to prove the hypotheses? If yes, please present. I've been asking for this for a loooong time.

It predicts speciation which has been confirmed by experiment (that's the 4th ticked off too).

It's all micro and creation scientists would not disagree as you know.

It predicts the extinction of species which is verified by the fossil record (and the fact that we haven't seen a T-Rex in quite a while tongue.gif ). It predicts the geographic distribution of species, which is proven by the world around us. It predicts animals adapting to their environment when it changes, which has been proven by examples like Luskyana's:

"Rosellas, for example, are a kind of bird that exists all over Australia. In the west they are more red-coloured, while in the east they are more green. In the centre of the country, their colouration is sort of in the middle, so they're green-red. Now the red rosellas can breed with the green-red rosellas, and their offspring are fertile, and the green rosellas can breed with the green-red rosellas, and their offspring are fertile. However, the red rosellas can't successfully breed with the green rosellas. This is an example of what happens when one species is in the middle of evolving into two separate species. In fact, if you removed the rosellas from the centre, then they would indeed be two separate species!"

Now that I've demonstrated how evolution addresses those four very important points, can you please do the same for creationism? What predictions does it make and how are these verified by experiment?

Thank you but you haven't proven anything macro yet at all. It's just like the horse and the zebra that can have offspring but those offspring are infertile. There's no new information here and nothing I'd argue with.

And, I've stated all along that creationism also does not follow the scientific method and does not make predictions.

I'm trying to make you understand that neither does evolution, or macroevolution because as you know - microevolution is accepted by all!

[artsylady]

However, even ignoring the fossil record, we still must assume that macro occurs as we have found no logical reason why it shouldn't.

You're kidding now, right?

I made the point above. The distinction between micro and macro is arbitrary and no attempt to define them has been made. The terms annoy me but I use them because it's easier to argue the case against them that way and removes some confusions. I have yet to see a reason why macroevolution isn't exactly the same as microevolution on a different scale (the scale difference being variable and undefined). I will continue to assume that they are both evolution until someone comes up with something solid (hence my 'arguments against macroevolution' thread).

Again, science is not about "well this hypotheses sounds good so it stands unless you can prove it otherwise". It's "this hypotheses sounds good so we'll make predictions and test it to see if it's true". Assuming is not scientific, nor is it logical to assume that fish just grew legs and lungs because of its environment.

[artsylady]

As I said, K-Ar dating is never used for dating things as old as the earth, so it really doesn't matter.

Okay, I'll reword that. If the earth and everything in it is actually young, K-AR is completely useless as a dating method to date anything. true or false?