DNA Junk or Not?

[Socrates]

March 4, 2003
By C. CLAIBORNE RAY

Q. How do scientists know that there aren't sections of junk DNA - the introns between genes - that have some biological function?

A. For years, more and more research has, in fact, suggested that introns are not junk but influence how genes work. Though they are discarded when a gene's directions for making a protein are read from the exons and carried out, introns do have active roles.

For one recent example, scientists have found that changes in just two genetic letters, one in each of two introns, determine whether a gene that causes lactose intolerance after weaning is switched on or off.

Also, certain so-called junk DNA sequences persist in many organisms over thousands or even millions of years, suggesting that they are essential to these organisms. [Or rather, that the common sequences were the result of a common DESIGNER who used them because it was good design! -- Soc.]

Other possible functions for introns include enhancing or damping the level of gene activity; shaping the folded arrangement of chromosomes within the cell nucleus; and providing reservoirs of change that allow DNA to be shuffled and rearranged in novel patterns that may eventually contribute to evolution, or conversely acting as a buffer against interloping DNA sequences that might cause a change too quickly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/04/science/04QNA.html?ex=1048569646&ei=1&en=7f6e6b012f4c1634

[RufusAtticus]

:rofl:

Explain how the inability to manufacture asorbic-acid and endogenous retrovirus are good design.

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse creatam
naturam mundi, quanta stat praedita culpa.

Lucretius De Rerum Natururm II, 180

[Socrates]

RufusAtticus is clearly incapable of sticking to the topic. He of course could not refute any of the points that show that "junk" DNa is no such thing!Explain how the inability to manufacture asorbic-acid and endogenous retrovirus are good design.Explain why I should waste time on a topic-changer who is willingly ignorant of the FALL!

[QED]

Soc, you misunderstand. Rufus is a couple of steps ahead of you here. See, having junk DNA with function is not a problem for evolution. But, since some phylogenetic analyses (and thus, genetic evidence for evolution) rely on less conserved regions in non-coding DNA, then the discovery of a sequence-specific function for this DNA would damage that evidence in terms of the creationism debate. Genetic similarities in non-coding DNA might then be ascribed to common design.

Common design (as you point out with your Fall Theology hypothesis above) does not explain similarities in the LGGLO protein, when the similarities are the mutations that prevent its operation to produce vitamin C. This is a common piece of evidence in the creationism debate, because we share the broken gene (broken in the same way) with other primates, differing in exactly the pattern that would be expected by the accepted phylogenetic tree.

Likewise for endogenous retrovira. We share them at the same point of insertion with other primates and mammals according to the predictions of the standard phylogenetic tree.

The point was missed because Rufus was on the big picture.

[RufusAtticus]

03-14-2003 @ 03:07 AM
Socrates:

RufusAtticus is clearly incapable of sticking to the topic. He of course could not refute any of the points that show that "junk" DNa is no such thing!Explain how the inability to manufacture asorbic-acid and endogenous retrovirus are good design.Explain why I should waste time on a topic-changer who is willingly ignorant of the FALL!

Socrates wants to talk about junk DNA, but he doesn't even know what junk DNA is. (Hint: I haven't changed the subject at all.)

[Berserker]

They do have Biological functions many in fact... but they don't code for genes.

Introns allow genes to be used to code for more then one protein… enhancing efficiency and viability

Most DNA in our genome is purely structural in use. It is needed to make a chromosome compatible with its duplicate during crossing over in meiosis. It is need to allow for the separation of chromatids from each other during mitosis. It is need to protect genes from decay. It is useful as genetic material to work with in mutation for evolution. Though most of what is called “junk DNA” once server a purpose as genes in our distance ancestors. Some of it are transponding elements or basically parasite DNA that just hitching a ride… some have evolved from a viri.

[Socratism]

Berserker,

So as usual evolutionists jumped to a wrong conclusion on the basis of a lack of knowledge.

Science marches on, leaving previous evolutionary speculations in the dust.

[Socratism]

03-14-2003 @ 10:07 AM
RufusAtticus:
Socrates wants to talk about junk DNA, but he doesn't even know what junk DNA is. (Hint: I haven't changed the subject at all.)

Another jump to a conclusion before fully understanding something. This practice is why the dogmatic belief in evolution is actually a barrier to scientific progress, because an evolutionary rationalization is always available to "fully explain" any finding.

Not.

[RufusAtticus]

03-14-2003 @ 11:44 AM
Socratism:

Another jump to a conclusion before fully understanding something. This practice is why the dogmatic belief in evolution is actually a barrier to scientific progress, because an evolutionary rationalization is always available to "fully explain" any finding.

Not.

It's not jumping to a conclusion. The fact that Socrates thinks that I have changed the subject when I haven't, shows that he doens't understand junk DNA.

[RufusAtticus]

03-14-2003 @ 11:36 AM
Socratism:

Berserker,

So as usual evolutionists jumped to a wrong conclusion on the basis of a lack of knowledge.

Except for the fact that evolution had nothing to do with the coining of the term "junk DNA."

Science marches on, leaving previous evolutionary speculations in the dust.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Socratism]

I doubt if anything biologists do or say these days could be said to "have nothing to do with evolution".

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

[Tycho]

Evolution may go a long way in explaining the junk DNA that's common between humans and other species, but I think what RufusAtticus is saying is that the term wasn't derived from evolution.

[RufusAtticus]

03-14-2003 @ 01:35 PM
Socratism:

I doubt if anything biologists do or say these days could be said to "have nothing to do with evolution".

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

Yes no matter where you look in the biological word the fact of evolution is inescapable. But that doesn't mean the coining of the term "junk DNA" had anything to do with evolution.

If you think otherwise, please tell us the evolutionary reason why scientists coined the term "junk DNA" to refer to non-coding regions of chromosomes.

[Berserker]

Today @ 10:36 AM
Socratism:

Berserker,

So as usual evolutionists jumped to a wrong conclusion on the basis of a lack of knowledge.

Science marches on, leaving previous evolutionary speculations in the dust.

What are you saying??? I just told you a lot of things we know about the usefulness of "junk" DNA and you call it "lack of knowledge" this does not just deserving my usual "¿Que?" this is like in through one ear out the other with you people!

You give me a theory that explains things better then evolution and I will believe it, but until then you give me a argument and not this smoke screen fallacy above with no actually premise in it!

[Sher]

Today @ 01:51 PM
RufusAtticus: Yes no matter where you look in the biological word the fact of evolution is inescapable. But that doesn't mean the coining of the term "junk DNA" had anything to do with evolution. If you think otherwise, please tell us the evolutionary reason why scientists coined the term "junk DNA" to refer to non-coding regions of chromosomes. Here are two references:"Junk DNA" is actually the "software" that allowed complex organisms to evolve, according to an Australian molecular biologist. Professor John Mattick of Queensland University's Institute of Molecular Bioscience argues that scientists have been too focused on the protein-production role of DNA and ignored its role in helping to put all the proteins together at the right time and place. "The genetic program has to do two things," said Professor Mattick. "It has to specify the protein components, the bricks if you like, but it also has to specify the patterns in which those things are put together." Traditionally, scientists have written off non-protein-coding DNA as "junk". Professor Mattick sees it differently. --http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_594118.htm

This appears to be saying that scientist coined the term.

And: The second stunner was how much human genetic material -- more than 90 percent -- is made up of what scientists were calling "junk DNA." The term was coined to describe similar but not completely identical repetitive sequences of amino acids (the same substances that make genes), which appeared to have no function or purpose. The main theory at the time was that these apparently non-working sections of DNA were just evolutionary leftovers, much like our earlobes. --http://fractogene.com/full_genome/berkeley.html

This appears to confirm that assumption, and states the evolutionary reason (leftovers) that they coined it to describe sequences that appeared to have no function or purpose.

[Sher]

RufusAtticus: "Except for the fact that evolution had nothing to do with the coining of the term 'junk DNA'." IBTD: Apparently, it was coined by evolutionists, used by evolutionists first, and now bound toward discard by evolutionists. :rofl:

http://www.cityofhope.org/ctb/ohno_bio.html {Dr. Susumu Ohno's} classic 1971 book Evolution by Gene Duplication, which coined the term "junk DNA", pointed to fundamental mechanisms of molecular evolution. His article "Genetic Implication of Karyological Instability of Malignant Somatic Cells" (Physiological Reviews, 1971) enhanced our understanding of cancer as a genetic disease.

[Stratnerd]

Well, that is the current "story" that is told, but unfortunately it conflicts with findings in other fields that evolution happens less quickly in smaller populations. Pity. Please post a citation or two with a claim like this....

[Berserker]

IBTD: Apparently, it was coined by evolutionists, used by evolutionists first, and now bound toward discard by evolutionists.

That’s the way science works... got a problem with that?
We come up with a idea, test it, see that it fails and through it away... or it works, and we retest it forever only become more sure of is validity.

[Yog^sothoth]

Most of the coined terms and scientific knowledge that exsists in the world is only reported on by the media. Because we see it in the newspapers and on TV we think wow, a new idea is proven. Later they talk about how stupid the idea was and how it failed. Media taints all things science. Science may end up being the savior of christianity for all the non-believers of the world but too many christians are too against it to notice anything of benefit to them discovered by scientists.

And then they turn on their computer in their central heated house in their synthetic clothing totally surrounded by gadgets and scientific progress and begin to complain about sciences downfalls.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 06:40 PM
Berserker:
What are you saying??? I just told you a lot of things we know about the usefulness of "junk" DNA and you call it "lack of knowledge" this does not just deserving my usual "¿Que?" this is like in through one ear out the other with you people!

So just who was it that coined the term by jumping to the wrong conclusion? I already had said that "Science marches on".

You give me a theory that explains things better then evolution and I will believe it, but until then you give me a argument and not this smoke screen fallacy above with no actually premise in it!

Actually we already have advanced a better theory, but the only one you would accept would have to be "naturalistic", right?

[Sher]

Today @ 12:35 AM
Berserker:

That’s the way science works... got a problem with that?Yes, I do ... when incorrect assumptions are dogmatically thrown-up as truth.We come up with a idea, test it, see that it fails and through it away... or it works, and we retest it forever only become more sure of is validity. Yup. And in the meantime, people come to forums and pretend they know-it-all :dufus:

But that is neither here, nor there. Talk about "swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat"; you completely overlooked my comment's point in rebuttal to RA's claims that it has/had nothing to do with evolution.

{edited for grammar typo}

[Sher]

Today @ 04:20 AM
Yog^sothoth:

Most of the coined terms and scientific knowledge that exsists in the world is only reported on by the media. Because we see it in the newspapers and on TV we think wow, a new idea is proven. Later they talk about how stupid the idea was and how it failed. I don't think this is the point, Yog^sothoth. You may be correct about: "Media taints all things science" but I think it is rather the aggravation against those that promote those "stupid ideas" ... that later do/will fail ... as truth. This is usually not the scientists that are actually working on the projects, but rather the non-scientist, or scientists with a humanist agenda. Those that post on forums, lists, and websites as if the failing science is their god ... and force-feed it as if it should be everyone else's.Science may end up being the savior of christianity for all the non-believers of the world but too many christians are too against it to notice anything of benefit to them discovered by scientists.This is a common misconception ... albeit one sometimes fostered by the Christian himself. When we speak out against "science", it isn't against God's science, i.e. that which God set in place for us and/or the things that we humans can do with that which was set in place. It is against "science" at large ... the community of people and their over-confident assertions that later fail to come to fruition. Many Christians are scientists, many dabble in and/or teach science, and many ... like myself (well, I home educate too, but I was referring to teaching in the universities and schools) ... just have a strong appreciation for scientific things. This doesn't mean that we: turn on their computer in their central heated house in their synthetic clothing totally surrounded by gadgets and scientific progress and begin to complain about sciences downfalls but rather that we are sick of sanctimonious attitudes that are later followed by failure.

I personally have a lot more respect for the person who admits that they don't know everything there is to know, that they have observed certain scientific things that lean them more toward one theory over another, but keep their attitudes in check precisely because they, as fallible humans, cannot be sure that their observations are infallible ... in fact the likelihood is greater that they are fallible. Their eyes could be deceiving them, preconceived notions can be discoloring their outlook, or they could just plain be wrong in their interpretation.

Irregardless, this observation that Christians are "against" science in general is false. We have always supported God's science and the wonders that He created ... and often love some of the gadgets and gizmos that man has created. It is the difference in interpretation ... science viewed through God-colored glasses, opposed to humanistic-colored ones.

{edited typo}

[Berserker]

Oh something that proves true better then evolution, oh please show me this theory and it over whelming evidence! One again in through on ear and out the other with you people. Its not a "assumption” any more if its proven true repeatedly. If evidence supports a theory and this theory has been able to accurate predicted the out come of its factors its false? :rofl: No I'm guessing you want me to believe in something that has no evidence and has not been able to accurately predict anything?

[Tycho]

Today @ 05:44 AM
Socratism:
Actually we already have advanced a better theory, but the only one you would accept would have to be "naturalistic", right?
Do you even know what methodological naturalism is and why scientific theories are naturalistic?

[Sher]

Today @ 08:41 AM
Berserker:

Oh something that proves true better then evolution, oh please show me this theory and it over whelming evidence!Who are you addressing this question to, Berserker?

... with you people...
:hrm: Isn't this a bit, well, bigoted?

[Berserker]

Why what a wonderful stalling fallacy SherBear. You know who I was talking to, so don't change the issue. You want me to name names: you and Socratism.

When I said you people I meant again: you and Socratism... and so far you have supported my theory about you. As for RA response that Junk DNA was not contrived off some idea supported by evolution, so far the evidence you, I and everyone else has given seems to proven RA wrong, congratulations you manage to red herring the argument and prove you right on it, but that has no relevance to the threads issue now does it?

I also say above the term “junk DNA” was meant to refer to the defunked gene that lay inside us… so far some of it does fit this description but it turns out that junk DNA no longer produces protein but does in fact do other non-genetic actives as I have describe above. So yes Junk DNA is not useless… but no it does not produce proteins like genes do and is junk only in that term.

[Sher]

Today @ 09:42 AM
Berserker:

Why what a wonderful stalling fallacy SherBear. You know who I was talking to, so don't change the issue. You want me to name names: you and Socratism. My, aren't we quick out of the gate with an insult? I wasn't stalling, I was making sure the question wasn't directed to someone else before I responded ... since you didn't quote anyone before your question. when I said you people I meant again: you and Socratism... and so far you have supported my theory about you. And you have re-enforced my observation of your opinions ... that they are grounded in bigotry.As for RA response that Junk DNA was not contrived off some idea supported by evolution, so far the evidence you, I and everyone else has given seems to proven RA wrong, congratulations you manage to red herring the argument and prove you right on it, but that has no relevance to the threads issue now does it?Red Herring? Relevance? Let's see .... looking back at the title: "DNA Junk or Not?", at your explanation about how "junk DNA" isn't (which is OnT), at Socratism's comment of "So as usual evolutionists jumped to a wrong conclusion on the basis of a lack of knowledge. Science marches on, leaving previous evolutionary speculations in the dust.” (which is an OnT observation about the topic), then at RA's rebuttal "Except for the fact that evolution had nothing to do with the coining of the term " (which is an OnT rebuttal to the previously stated observation about the topic), then my answer/evidence that it does in fact have to do with evolution, and *was* in fact coined by an evolutionary scientist (which is an OnT answer to the rebuttal about the previously stated observation about the topic) ... nope, no red herrings there (Although I feel like the author of the "House that Jack Built"... this is the ... that ... the ....)

FYI: "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue" --http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

How do you figure that someone answering an already presented on-topic rebuttal should be accused of committing a RH fallacy? Not only that, if in fact "the evidence you, I and everyone else has given seems to proven RA wrong", how am "I" responsible for managing "to red herring the argument"? We all gave different evidences of RA's error, yet it is my sole responsiblity for some fallacy (already disproven as not being one)?

It actually appears that you simply don't like to see an evolutionist misspeak without all the facts in order, and someone point out that error, and will say anything to strike out at others. :frown:

Anyway, back to your question ... even though it isn't about "DNA Junk or not" and is actually the only red herring issue here ... we have discussed this on other topics. Evidence is not present for either "side" but rather the interpretation of said evidences is what gives us our separation. You interpret the evidence to be related to evolution, I to creation.

[Berserker]

Bigorty is to define a group of people under some personal values... I just define you and Socratism, which is not a group just 2 people. Yes you were stalling because you did not refute my argument.

The argument of the thread was "DNA Junk or Not" I answered it plain and simple a long time ago. Any rebutal to that would have been under the threads issue... what RA saying and your rebutals to it are not connected to the main issue.

Ooooh I see here, I misinterpreted what Socratism said to me: he was talking about before not now. Yes Socratism science does discard statements it says that later it find to be untrue... no evolution is still a primary theory of science because as of yet nothing has come up to disprove it, only affirm it.

[Socratism]

Today @ 01:35 PM
Berserker:

Bigorty is to define a group of people under some personal values... I just define you and Socratism, which is not a group just 2 people. Yes you were stalling because you did not refute my argument.

The argument of the thread was "DNA Junk or Not" I answered it plain and simple a long time ago. Any rebutal to that would have been under the threads issue... what RA saying and your rebutals to it are not connected to the main issue.

Ooooh I see here, I misinterpreted what Socratism said to me: he was talking about before not now. Yes Socratism science does discard statements it says that later it find to be untrue... no evolution is still a primary theory of science because as of yet nothing has come up to disprove it, only affirm it.

Goo to you evolution can never be disproven to an evolutionist because they refuse to consider the possibility that God designed life. Evolutionists claim that science cannot consider such a possibility because it deals only with "naturalistic" explanations.

If they stick with that then they will never find the truth, because the truth has been revealed by the entity who designed life in the first place. "And the truth shall make you free".

[Yog^sothoth]

This is a common misconception ... albeit one sometimes fostered by the Christian himself. When we speak out against "science", it isn't against God's science, i.e. that which God set in place for us and/or the things that we humans can do with that which was set in place.

If God created everything, which he did, did he not also create the science which is not gods science? Wouldn't that also make what you call "not god's science" also definetly Gods science. What you are talking about is a sure fire way for humankind to test that which was set in place. Otherwise, what use is science at all?

[Sher]

Today @ 01:35 PM
Berserker:

Bigorty is to define a group of people under some personal values... I just define you and Socratism, which is not a group just 2 people. Yes you were stalling because you did not refute my argument.group n. 1. An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the road. 2. Two or more figures that make up a unit. Ergo, even two are a group, and bigotry n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance/ bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. As the very definitions of the words rebut your erroneous statement, we move on to:The argument of the thread was "DNA Junk or Not" I answered it plain and simple a long time ago. Any rebutal to that would have been under the threads issue... what RA saying and your rebutals to it are not connected to the main issue.What argument was that? :hrm: I asked who the question you posed was directed to, and then answered it.Ooooh I see here, I misinterpreted what Socratism said to me: he was talking about before not now. Yes Socratism science does discard statements it says that later it find to be untrue... no evolution is still a primary theory of science because as of yet nothing has come up to disprove it, only affirm it. Well, thank you then for admitting, albeit in a less obvious manner, that I was not responsible for a red herring ... because even if you believe it to be an "irrelevant topic" you concur that I wasn't the one that presented it. :thumb:

[Sher]

Today @ 02:23 PM
Yog^sothoth:

If God created everything, which he did, did he not also create the science which is not gods science? Wouldn't that also make what you call "not god's science" also definetly Gods science. I don't believe so Yog^sothoth. God's science would probably be best illustrated as the evidence that surrounds us. God, being omniscient, knows exactly what the truth of that evidence is. We are not omniscient, so we have to interpret that evidence ... man's science. It is the difference between saying that God created everything "in the beginning", and holding God responsible for the creation of atomic weapons and illegal drugs. God created the atom and the plants that the drugs came from; man made or abused that creation ... a sacrilege. What you are talking about is a sure fire way for humankind to test that which was set in place. Otherwise, what use is science at all?Although we are delving into another topic, I think the short answer is that man is interested in his surroundings and inner workings for various reasons. If, when we test that which was set in place, we maintain the understanding that we are fallible, and that our interpretations can only be likewise, the dogmatic assertions and the politics that follow them would cease and so would a lot of silly arguments. It would be a step toward community. This error isn't something exclusively creationist or exclusively evolutionist; we are all guilty of it.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 08:08 AM
SherBear:

But that is neither here, nor there. Talk about "swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat"; you completely overlooked my comment's point in rebuttal to RA's claims that it has/had nothing to do with evolution.


SherBear,

You've rebutted nothing since you haven't offered any evolutionary reason for coining the term, "Junk DNA." In fact your quotes show that evolution had nothing to do with the choice of the term. You apparent glossed over the statement, "The term was coined to describe similar but not completely identical repetitive sequences of amino acids (the same substances that make genes), which appeared to have no function or purpose.” As you see, the term was coined because certain regions of DNA did not code for proteins or RNA product and didn't regulate them. That has nothing to do with evolution. It, however, has a lot to do with nucleic acid biochemistry.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
RufusAtticus:

You've rebutted nothing since you haven't offered any evolutionary reason for coining the term, "Junk DNA." In fact your quotes show that evolution had nothing to do with the choice of the term. You apparent glossed over the statement, "The term was coined to describe similar but not completely identical repetitive sequences of amino acids (the same substances that make genes), which appeared to have no function or purpose.” As you see, the term was coined because certain regions of DNA did not code for proteins or RNA product and didn't regulate them. That has nothing to do with evolution. It, however, has a lot to do with nucleic acid biochemistry.I'm sorry, RA, but could you please explain to me how
"apparently non-working sections of DNA" that were "just evolutionary leftovers, much like our earlobes"
"... which coined the term "junk DNA", pointed to fundamental mechanisms of molecular evolution"
how "Junk DNA" is actually the "software" that allowed complex organisms to evolve" show that there was no "evolutionary reason", that "evolution had nothing to do with the coining of the term 'junk DNA'", and that it has "nothing to do with evolution"? :huh:

Also, doesn't the evolutionist believe "nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"? Therefore, how, from your standpoint, can it have nothing to do with it?

Now, if we are looking at it from a creationist standpoint, no ... none of it has anything to do with evolution :brow:

[TenDimensions]

03-14-2003 @ 09:05 PM
SherBear:
IBTD: Apparently, it was coined by evolutionists, used by evolutionists first, and now bound toward discard by evolutionists.


Well, you don't see any Creationists making any groundbreaking scientific discoveries, do you? Of course the show is being run by scientists - they're the only ones doing any kind of real research into the matter!

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 04:20 AM
Yog^sothoth:
And then they turn on their computer in their central heated house in their synthetic clothing totally surrounded by gadgets and scientific progress and begin to complain about sciences downfalls.

Amen!! :rofl:

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 08:08 AM
SherBear:

Yes, I do ... when incorrect assumptions are dogmatically thrown-up as truth.

Science never claims to know anything about truth as you're describing. Science deals in probabilites as in "it is highly probable that you evolved from an ape-like ancestor that bore descendents such as the chimp and gorilla."

Yup. And in the meantime, people come to forums and pretend they know-it-all

That's a statement that is a double-edged sword, my friend.

[Sher]

Today @ 03:36 AM
TenDimensions:

Well, you don't see any Creationists making any groundbreaking scientific discoveries, do you?Sure. Some of them: Carver, Irwin, Leavitt, Lister, Mendel, Pasteur, Von Braun.Of course the show is being run by scientists - they're the only ones doing any kind of real research into the matter! This implies that scientists are only evolutionist, which is of course wrong.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 03:56 AM
SherBear:

Sure. Some of them: Carver, Irwin, Leavitt, Lister, Mendel, Pasteur, Von Braun.
This implies that scientists are only evolutionist, which is of course wrong.

Excellent points and correct on both counts, I admit. My point was merely that if evolutionists coined the term new research is can just as easily lead them to decide the term is not appropriate if they choose to.

Science is self-correcting and often turns out to be wrong. Aspects of evolution are still yet to be discovered and current ideas about how evolution works still might be overturned. It is highly unlikely that evolution itself, however, will be overturned at this point, though. The evidence is just too overwhelming.

[Sher]

Today @ 04:21 AM
TenDimensions:

My point was merely that if evolutionists coined the term new research is can just as easily lead them to decide the term is not appropriate if they choose to.Agreed. However, that wasn't the issue. The issue was that I begged to differ (IBTD) that it *was* coined by evolutionists in response to RA's assertion "Except for the fact that evolution had nothing to do with the coining of the term 'junk DNA', and completed the thought that it was to be rejected by evolutionists in response to the o.p., again referring how it had to do with evolution.

Irregardless, thanks for the concession on the scientists point :smile:

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 03:20 AM
SherBear:
"apparently non-working sections of DNA" that were "just evolutionary leftovers, much like our earlobes"

That sentance has nothing to do with the coining of the term.

"... which coined the term "junk DNA", pointed to fundamental mechanisms of molecular evolution"

Again that sentance does not say why "junk DNA" was chosen as the term.

how "Junk DNA" is actually the "software" that allowed complex organisms to evolve" show that there was no "evolutionary reason", that "evolution had nothing to do with the coining of the term 'junk DNA'"[/list]

Again, nothing in there about coining the term.

Also, doesn't the evolutionist believe "nothing in Biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"? Therefore, how, from your standpoint, can it have nothing to do with it?

:argh: I never said that junk DNA had nothing to do with evolution. Only that the coining of the term "junk DNA" had nothing to do with evolution. In fact, it was coined for biochemical reasons.

It is silly to argue that because the coiner of the term was an evolutionist that it had anything to do with evolution. The coiner was also a man and Japanese, yet I don't hear you claim that either of those two attributes went into the coining of the term.


Sure. Some of them: Carver, Irwin, Leavitt, Lister, Mendel, Pasteur, Von Braun.

Got anyone recent? Say a biologist after the Modern Synthesis?

[Berserker]

Why thank you for such a excellent difionition of bigot, lest look through this
"The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance/ bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Jee If I was Intolerant I would not be here now or at the very lest I would be calling you things like Socrates calls me. Also I’m not “strongly partial” to my own group (what ever that is) if you want to define me and RA as a group then maybe you should notice that I’m not very partial to him when I blamed him for the source of a that red harring.

And no my issue with SM was not related to yours.

[Socrates]

Sherbear (listing creationist scientists):

Some of them: Carver, Irwin, Leavitt, Lister, Mendel, Pasteur, Von Braun.RufusAtticus:Got anyone recent? Say a biologist after the Modern Synthesis?Why does it have to be? The usual argument is that science, including biology, would collapse without evolution, yet these scientists clearly managed to be great scientists, including biologists, without evolution. But indeed there are plenty even today. E.g. Dr Duane Gish published what leading chemical evolutionist Fox called "outstanding" papers in protein synthesis, which have a direct bearing on chemical evolution. In my country, Dr Ian Macreadie is a prizewinning microbiologist, Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Raymond Damadian was one of the pioneers of MRI, which has numerous medical applications. Richard Porter is one of the world's ledading experts on the human spine. The missionary surgeon Denis Burkitt discovered Burkitt's Lymphoma, the first known tumour to have a viral origin.

[Sher]

Today @ 12:02 PM
Socrates:

Sherbear (listing creationist scientists):

RufusAtticus:Got anyone recent? Say a biologist after the Modern Synthesis?Why does it have to be? The usual argument is that science, including biology, would collapse without evolution, yet these scientists clearly managed to be great scientists, including biologists, without evolution. But indeed there are plenty even today. Don't forget about other more recent creation scientists:
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/r_humphreys.asp) "co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches" and award winner of "two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory."

AND

Dr. Donald James Batten (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/d_batten.asp), Creationist Agricultural Scientist (Australia). "Dr. Batten's research in floral induction of lychee and mango has resulted in a complete overturning of previously accepted thought on this (see Batten and McConchie, 1995), which was a big impediment to scientific progress in the field as well as a cause for economic loss caused by erratic flowering due to inappropriate management of these crops."

And here are some others (http://members.aol.com/jcsaves3/Famous.htm) from across the ages.

And RA, I am not going to argue your semantics with you any longer. I feel you were wrong but this back-and-forth is counterproductive and will probably just result in moderator admonishment. :xmm:

[Sauron]

Today @ 09:41 AM
SherBear:

Don't forget about other more recent creation scientists:


Yes, let's have a look, shall we....? :ahem:

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/r_humphreys.asp) "co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches" and award winner of "two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory."


Who has zero experience in biology, genetics, or any field related to evolution. Hint: engineers and electronics experts, by their profession, are more an expert in evolution than a truck driver would be.


AND

Dr. Donald James Batten (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/d_batten.asp), Creationist Agricultural Scientist (Australia). "Dr. Batten's research in floral induction of lychee and mango has resulted in a complete overturning of previously accepted thought on this (see Batten and McConchie, 1995), which was a big impediment to scientific progress in the field as well as a cause for economic loss caused by erratic flowering due to inappropriate management of these crops."


Again: no experience in the relevant areas. :bonk:

[Tycho]

Today @ 10:41 AM
SherBear:
Don't forget about other more recent creation scientists:
Tsk tsk. Have you forgotten about Project Steve already?

Project Steve: FAQs (http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp)

[Socratism]

From project Steve:
Woese argues (e.g., in his "On the evolution of cells," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2002 Jun 25; 99 [13]: 8742-8747) that "horizontal" transfer of DNA, proteins, and other cellular components was more important in the evolution of the basic cellular components at the root of the evolutionary tree -- about 3.5 billion years ago -- than was "vertical" intergenerational transfer. His research suggests that it may be impossible for us ever to resolve the connection between the three domains of living organisms and the earliest life on earth. It also implies that the phrase "common ancestry" -- which emphasizes vertical transfer -- is somewhat misleading when applied near the root of the phylogenetic tree. Above the root, there is no doubt about common ancestry. Woese's work ought not to be of any comfort to creationists

I find it comforting that even the diehards are admitting what we creationists have known all along, namely that life was created in multiple types at the very beginning.

This destroys the concept of large scale evolution for it would be very unlikely (to say the least!!) that the DNA code to have "evolved" multiple times to the same structure we see today.

Thus, evolution (goo to you) is falsified at the very root of the "Tree of Life".

[Berserker]

Perhaps you misinterpreted Steve with you slippery slope fallacy there. What the article is saying is that due to the interconnectedness of early life it is impossible for us to tell what developed from what.

[Tycho]

Today @ 07:10 AM
Socratism:

From project Steve:


I find it comforting that even the diehards are admitting what we creationists have known all along, namely that life was created in multiple types at the very beginning.

This destroys the concept of large scale evolution for it would be very unlikely (to say the least!!) that the DNA code to have "evolved" multiple times to the same structure we see today.

Thus, evolution (goo to you) is falsified at the very root of the "Tree of Life".
Why do you persist in attacking evolution when it's obvious that you lack even the basic understanding of it? I'll tell you what: why don't you describe, in your own words, just what you think evolution is--please be specific. Afterwards, I should have a better idea of what you think you're arguing against. As it is, you persist in using Creationism's rhetorical techniques of obfuscation, equivocation, and misrepresentation, which makes it rather difficult to even know what flaws you see in evolutionary theory.

[RufusAtticus]

So when I ask for a recent creationist biologist, I get a couple biochemists, a few MDs, an agronomist, and an engineer.

:rofl: :rofl:

Got anyone with any relevant qualifications?

[RufusAtticus]

Socrates,

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the inability to manufacture asorbic-acid and endogenous retroviruses are good design.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 09:10 AM
Socratism:
I find it comforting that even the diehards are admitting what we creationists have known all along, namely that life was created in multiple types at the very beginning.

This destroys the concept of large scale evolution for it would be very unlikely (to say the least!!) that the DNA code to have "evolved" multiple times to the same structure we see today.

Thus, evolution (goo to you) is falsified at the very root of the "Tree of Life".

I can't resist adding to what others have already said here in response to your post.

You seem to think that DNA being the basis for all organic life on Earth must mean that only one type (I was going to use "kind", but thought it a bad pun) of lifeform would have developed and that all life would have descended from that. An extremely overly simplified view.

What the quote is stating is that it is very likely that different kinds of chemical replicators formed early life in such an open system that exchanging DNA code between existing organisms (such as what bacteria does today) would make it impossible to trace back the three large branches of life back to just a single type of organism.

And by the way, nothing says that other early replicators were all DNA based. I think it's likely that DNA in the form of A-T/G-C was not the first kind of replicating material, but that it competed early on with other forms and lost out. There is no reason to think that extinction would only begin to occur with fully formed organisms.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:52 AM
Tycho:

Tsk tsk. Have you forgotten about Project Steve already?Pardon me, but what are you rattling on about? :hrm: Project Steve is a result of, by their own words, their assertion that "Creationists are fond of circulating statements denouncing evolution signed by as many scientists as they can muster, with the intention of conveying the impression that evolution is a theory in crisis." My reply has nothing to do with the implied fallacious appeal to authority, nor that evolution is a theory in crisis (no matter that I think it is). TenDimensions asked, "Well, you don't see any Creationists making any groundbreaking scientific discoveries, do you?" and we are answering her question providing some that have and are making those discoveries. Your reference to "Project Steve" is completely irrelevant to my reply.

(You wouldn't happen to be from NZ, would you? :huh: Your posts remind me of someone on another forum that I frequent that exhibits the same type of disjointed replies, used in an effort to be insulting to creationists, instead of addressing the relevant points.)

Sauron: Your comments also don't make any sense because I specifically introduced them in the post as more recent creation scientists, not biologists. I continued my previous listing, including some contemporaries.

[Socrates]

SherBear rightly gave these examples of highly qualified creationist scientists:
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. "co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches" and award winner of "two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory."
But the village-atheist Lizard Being hissed:
Who has zero experience in biology, genetics, or any field related to evolution. Hint: engineers and electronics experts, by their profession, are more an expert in evolution than a truck driver would be.As a nuclear physicist, he is very capable of showing up the weaknesses in radiometric dating, and has contributed to other areas where physics is very relevant, e.g. cosmology and other young-earth evidence.
Dr. Donald James Batten, Creationist Agricultural Scientist (Australia). "Dr. Batten's research in floral induction of lychee and mango has resulted in a complete overturning of previously accepted thought on this (see Batten and McConchie, 1995), which was a big impediment to scientific progress in the field as well as a cause for economic loss caused by erratic flowering due to inappropriate management of these crops."
Lizzie:
Again: no experience in the relevant areas. Actually, HEAPS of relevance. His work required extensive knowledge of botanical design, and his hybridization experiments are directly relevant to the boundaries of the created kinds.

[Socrates]

RufusAtticus spouted:
Socrates,

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the inability to manufacture asorbic-acid and endogenous retroviruses are good design.
RufusAtticus,

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the inability to understand the role of the Fall in today's biology can possibly make anyone take you seriously.

[Socrates]

In the latest New Scientist (177(2386):38-39, 15 March 2003), there is an interesting article called 'Live Wire'. It's how DNA is an excellent hole conductor, and how guanine residue strings at the edge of introns may function as "cathodic protection". That is, if there is any accident that steals a whole from one of the bases, then the resulting 'hole' migrates along the DNA until it comes to a GG twin or GGG triplet at the edge of the introns, and then oxidises one of the Gs in those. This deflects the damage from the coding regions. It's analogous to 'cathodic protection', where, say, zinc sacrifically protects iron from oxidative damage (in this case, rusting).

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 02:08 AM
Socrates:

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the inability to understand the role of the Fall in today's biology can possibly make anyone take you seriously.

So you admit that your original statement about junk DNA was false.

Furthermore, with your statement you admit that there is common ancestory between humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. So I guess that would make Adam and Eve creatures similar to gibbons. :bonk:

That is the problem with your explaination. These features of junk DNA are shared, unless they are the result of common design, they are the result of common descent. So either God's common design contained errors, or Humans are not a specially created kind.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 05:01 PM
TenDimensions:
You seem to think that DNA being the basis for all organic life on Earth must mean that only one type (I was going to use "kind", but thought it a bad pun) of lifeform would have developed and that all life would have descended from that. An extremely overly simplified view.

What the quote is stating is that it is very likely that different kinds of chemical replicators formed early life in such an open system that exchanging DNA code between existing organisms (such as what bacteria does today) would make it impossible to trace back the three large branches of life back to just a single type of organism.

And by the way, nothing says that other early replicators were all DNA based. I think it's likely that DNA in the form of A-T/G-C was not the first kind of replicating material, but that it competed early on with other forms and lost out. There is no reason to think that extinction would only begin to occur with fully formed organisms.

I am certainly aware that other highly ingenious and imaginary explanations have been offered by evolutionists to explain why it may never be possible to have the evidence they would like to support their main concepts. But at least they have now publicly admitted that they have no evidence to support such imaginary fantasies.

It reminds me of the imaginary "possibilities" oft invoked by cosmic evolutionary theorists: e.g. multiple parallel universes.

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 05:41 PM
SherBear:
My reply has nothing to do with the implied fallacious appeal to authority, nor that evolution is a theory in crisis (no matter that I think it is).
Care to give some reasons for the belief that it's a theory in crisis?
TenDimensions asked, "Well, you don't see any Creationists making any groundbreaking scientific discoveries, do you?" and we are answering her question providing some that have and are making those discoveries. Your reference to "Project Steve" is completely irrelevant to my reply.
I'm more interested in the discoveries themselves.
(You wouldn't happen to be from NZ, would you? :huh: Your posts remind me of someone on another forum that I frequent that exhibits the same type of disjointed replies, used in an effort to be insulting to creationists, instead of addressing the relevant points.)
Hmm...disjointed and insulting? I suspect that you are confusing your own posts with mine somehow. I wouldn't have said anything, but your response to my post really doesn't address much and ends with an insult itself.

[Sher]

Today @ 01:18 PM
Tycho:

Care to give some reasons for the belief that it's a theory in crisis?Nope.I'm more interested in the discoveries themselves.That's all well and good, but it still had nothing to do with my answer to the question TenDimensions posed, and your implication that my answer was somehow wrong as indicated by your reply to me: Tsk tsk. Have you forgotten about Project Steve already?It was disjointed because it was "separated from the main point" of the question ("Well, you don't see any Creationists making any groundbreaking scientific discoveries, do you?") that I answered. TenDimensions questioned whether creationists were making the discoveries; she didn't inquire into the discoveries themselves. But either way, it still had nothing whatsoever to do with your reply. Nothing in the question, nor the answer, had to do with listing scientists in order to argue from authority against evolution, the main point of the site you hyperlinked. Therefore, your post was also insulting, because it bore false witness against me. Which leads me to:Hmm...disjointed and insulting? I suspect that you are confusing your own posts with mine somehow. I wouldn't have said anything, but your response to my post really doesn't address much and ends with an insult itself. That post didn't address much because it was in response to your post which didn't address anything, except some need to scoff at me. There was no intended insult on my part, just an observation of the facts that I have expounded upon above, and a sincere question because your style of posting is more than a bit similar to this other person's posts, in syntax and attitude. But that is neither here nor there; I don't really care anymore if you are that person or another. It was simple curiosity on my part. I'm sorry you were insulted.

:rockon: Rock on ...

[Socrates]

Now Rufus claims I made a false statement in my original post. But this was pointing out FUNCTIONS in so-called "junk" DNA, which means that the term should be junked.

I also gave an in principle argument that some things that are alleged to be "bad design" could be the result of the Fall. Other examples, like the supposedly backwardly designed human retina, are just the results of crass ignorance of eye physiology by the likes of Dawkins and Miller.

As for RA's other silly claim, see Are pseudogenes ‘shared mistakes’ between primate genomes? (Are pseudogenes ‘shared mistakes’ between primate genomes? ) (PDF).

[Stratnerd]

S-

you're link doesn't work

have you decided a priori how to decide what features can be attributed to "the Fall" and what features might indicate "suboptimal design" (i.e., God probably didn't do it). Is it possible to work within kinds to do this?

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 10:31 PM
Socrates:
Now Rufus claims I made a false statement in my original post. But this was pointing out FUNCTIONS in so-called "junk" DNA, which means that the term should be junked.
Do you know what junk DNA refers to and why it was termed so?

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:20 AM
Tycho:


Do you know what junk DNA refers to and why it was termed so?

I'll bite. Tell me what and why.

[tgamble]

Today @ 05:31 AM
Socrates:
I also gave an in principle argument that some things that are alleged to be "bad design" could be the result of the Fall.


But since the fall never happened, it's a useless explanation!

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 12:31 AM
Socrates:

Now Rufus claims I made a false statement in my original post. But this was pointing out FUNCTIONS in so-called "junk" DNA, which means that the term should be junked.

Your original post claimed that God designed junk DNA because it does something, i.e. it is "good." In a later post you claimed that the Fall "designed" junk DNA because it is not functional, i.e. it is "bad." The contradiction is obvious.

As for RA's other silly claim, see Are pseudogenes ‘shared mistakes’ between primate genomes? (Are pseudogenes ‘shared mistakes’ between primate genomes? ) (PDF).

I found the link (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/tj14_3-jw_pseudo.pdf). Thanks, I needed a laugh. For example, Woodmoreappe has no idea what a "pseudogene" is, otherwise he wouldn't be bringing up LINEs, SINEs, and ALU repeats. He even tries to argue that "pseudogenes" are functional but ignores the fact their premature stop codons make that impossible. He doesn't even attempt to explain shared endogenous retroviruses or the shared errors, including stop codons in the GLO ("vitamin-C") and Uox (Urate oxidase) pseudogenes, for example.

So your still left with the fundamental problem: common descent or common design flaws.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

Now Rufus claims I made a false statement in my original post. But this was pointing out FUNCTIONS in so-called "junk" DNA, which means that the term should be junked.
RA:
Your original post claimed that God designed junk DNA because it does something, i.e. it is "good." In a later post you claimed that the Fall "designed" junk DNA because it is not functional, i.e. it is "bad." The contradiction is obvious.Well, doh :doh: So there is SOME junk DNA (I would say most) that actually has an important function, and OTHER junk DNA that resulted from the Fall. Why not take a course in elementary logic :dufus:

Similarly, I would say that anyone who claims that the vertebrate retina is badly wired is ignorant of eye anatomy and physiology (see www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1146.asp), but that the shrivelled eyes of fish in caves are the result of mutations that happened since the Fall. Again, no contradiction because different explanations work for different cases. It would be a contradition only if I used mutually incompatible explanations for the same case :doh:.

Soc.
As for RA's other silly claim, see Are pseudogenes ‘shared mistakes’ between primate genomes? (PDF).
RA:
I found the link. Thanks, I needed a laugh. For example, Woodmoreappe has no idea what a "pseudogene" is, otherwise he wouldn't be bringing up LINEs, SINEs, and ALU repeats. He even tries to argue that "pseudogenes" are functional but ignores the fact their premature stop codons make that impossible. He doesn't even attempt to explain shared endogenous retroviruses or the shared errors, including stop codons in the GLO ("vitamin-C") and Uox (Urate oxidase) pseudogenes, for example.As if anyone in their right mind would take RA's word for anything.

This was an overview article so covered a lot, but there's no requirement for him to kiss the patoot of every misotheistic bigot and explain absolutely everything.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 10:34 PM
Socrates:
Well, doh :doh: So there is SOME junk DNA (I would say most) that actually has an important function, and OTHER junk DNA that resulted from the Fall.

You say this as if you can tell the difference. If I give you a nucleotide sequence, what methods will you use to tell me if it is caused by the God or the Fall? Where do the GLO and UOX pseudogenes and shared endogenous retroviruses fit? They lack an important function, so by your above criteria they are the result of the Fall. However, since they are shared between Humans, Chimps, and Gorillas the three taxa must have shared a common ancestro since the Fall. Yet that is something that is absolutely forbidden by creationists. So the contradiction still exists in your argument.

As if anyone in their right mind would take RA's word for anything.

:rofl: It takes a desperate man to favor the views of a geologist over a geneticist on the subject of genetics. You must be getting desperate if you want to argue that I shouldn't be trusted on the subject of genetics. But if you want to do that, go take a college level genetics course or read a genetics textbook, and show me where I am wrong and Woodmoreappe is right.

This was an overview article so covered a lot, but there's no requirement for him to kiss the patoot of every misotheistic bigot and explain absolutely everything.

If he didn't cover my points, why did you bring it up as a refutation of them? Did you even bother to read it?

Hey Socrates, how about you drop the slanderous/libelous rhetoric? Spreading lies about me is no way to operate on an intellectual level. I bet you'd be too afraid to say such things if my Christian wife was in the room.

[Socrates]

RA:
You say this as if you can tell the difference. If I give you a nucleotide sequence, what methods will you use to tell me if it is caused by the God or the Fall? Where do the GLO and UOX pseudogenes and shared endogenous retroviruses fit? They lack an important function, so by your above criteria they are the result of the Fall. However, since they are shared between Humans, Chimps, and Gorillas the three taxa must have shared a common ancestro since the Fall. Yet that is something that is absolutely forbidden by creationists. So the contradiction still exists in your argument.This would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. There is also a possibility of mutational hotspots.

As if anyone in their right mind would take RA's word for anything.
It takes a desperate man to favor the views of a geologist over a geneticist on the subject of genetics.Woodmorappe has a degree in biology too, and the website has articles by Ph.D. molecular biologists too, if you want to play the Argumentum ad verecundiam game (i.e. appeal to authority). And as I said, you have no problems pontificating about all manner of topics in which you have no qualifications. You must be getting desperate if you want to argue that I shouldn't be trusted on the subject of genetics.
This was an overview article so covered a lot, but there's no requirement for him to kiss the patoot of every misotheistic bigot and explain absolutely everything.

If he didn't cover my points, why did you bring it up as a refutation of them? Did you even bother to read it?
:doh: to cover the arguments in priniciple, rather than every pathetic argument a misotheist brings up.
Hey Socrates, how about you drop the slanderous/libelous rhetoric? Spreading lies about me is no way to operate on an intellectual level.What lies? I just state it as it is, and don't care if it offends those brought up in an unhealthy victim culture. I bet you'd be too afraid to say such things if my Christian wife was in the room.Why would I be? I would doubt the Christian character of any woman who flagrantly disobeyed the Apostle Paul's command against being unequally yoked to such a bigoted God-hater. That's unless she converted after marriage, in which case she should remain in the marriage unless the unbeliever leaves.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 02:36 AM
Socrates:

This would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. There is also a possibility of mutational hotspots.

Address them then.

Woodmorappe has a degree in biology too, and the website has articles by Ph.D. molecular biologists too, if you want to play the Argumentum ad verecundiam game (i.e. appeal to authority).

Is Woodmorappe a geneticist? No. It shows in the fact that he doesn't even understand the difference between pseudogenes and repetive DNA. Yet you expect this article to be a rebuttal to shared pseudogenes signalling common descent. If you don't want to believe me, how about you go pick up a genetics textbook or take an undergraduate genetics course? Your use of Woodmorappe shows you need it.

And as I said, you have no problems pontificating about all manner of topics in which you have no qualifications.

Such as? How much do you even know about my qualifications in various subjects?


:doh: to cover the arguments in priniciple, rather than every pathetic argument a misotheist brings up.

Yeap, a man who can't tell the difference between pseudogenes and repetive DNA sure has refuted me in principle and exposed my argument as "pathetic." :bonk: Meanwhile, the specifics still exist as refutations of special creation, unless you're willing to accept error-proned design.

What lies? I just state it as it is, and don't care if it offends those brought up in an unhealthy victim culture.

No, you state it as you want it to be. Trying to label me "misotheist bigot" might make you feel better about yourself. However, what you want and what is are two entirely different things.

Why would I be?
Because she'd expose your flagrant lies in a heartbeat.

I would doubt the Christian character of any woman who flagrantly disobeyed the Apostle Paul's command against being unequally yoked to such a bigoted God-hater. That's unless she converted after marriage, in which case she should remain in the marriage unless the unbeliever leaves.

Let's see. A Christian who has never met me thinks I am a bigoted God-hater. A Christian who knows me better than anyone else, thinks I am not.It doesn't take a high-school diploma to figure this one out.

[Socrates]

Socrates:
And as I said, you have no problems pontificating about all manner of topics in which you have no qualifications.
RA:
Such as? How much do you even know about my qualifications in various subjects?Such as the history of creation. As well as defining macro-evolution as speciation, which no creationist denies, because it is a part of the Creation/Fall/Flood model.
... to cover the arguments in priniciple, rather than every pathetic argument a misotheist brings up.
Yeap, a man who can't tell the difference between pseudogenes and repetive DNA sure has refuted me in principle and exposed my argument as "pathetic."Yep, an overview of junk DNA in general that brough up several examples, without equating them. Meanwhile, the specifics still exist as refutations of special creation, unless you're willing to accept error-proned design.Not at all, unless you can prove that they were fallen from the beginning. And I might remind you that at the time of the Scopes Trial, Piltdown Man and Haeckelesque Embryonic Recapitulation were touted as "refutations" of special creation, as well as >80 "vestigial" organs in the human body.
Because she'd expose your flagrant lies in a heartbeat.How could she, since they are not lies but a plain statement of fact, strongly stated.

I would doubt the Christian character of any woman who flagrantly disobeyed the Apostle Paul's command against being unequally yoked to such a bigoted God-hater. That's unless she converted after marriage, in which case she should remain in the marriage unless the unbeliever leaves.
RA:

Let's see.
A Christian who has never met me thinks I am a bigoted God-hater.I don't have to go to the Antarctic to know that it's cold. Fact is, from your posts it's clear that you regard all religions as "cultic" and despise the Bible, testimony of Christ, and the idea of God as creator.
A Christian who knows me better than anyone else, thinks I am not.Begging the question of whether she is a Christian, and I have only your word for that. And if she is, then I would have to regard her as too emotionally involved and in violation of the Apostle Paul's commands to marry someone who spends his spare time attacking Christianity and the Bible.

[QED]

As well as defining macro-evolution as speciation, which no creationist denies, because it is a part of the Creation/Fall/Flood model.

The definition of macro-evolution was decided upon by scientists in the early part of the twentieth century, without regards to what creationism denies. Science will likely never start defining terms in such a way as to exclude any creationist belief. It isn't how science is done.

The fact is that creationists claim to deny macro-evolution, but nowadays they admit that change above the species level does happen - i.e. they do accept macroevolution.

What they deny, nowadays, is in universal common descent, and "increasing information". There was a time in the past where many creationists denied macroevolution as it was properly defined. Now only a very few creationists, among those who understand the subject well enough to hold an independent opinion on the matter, hold that position.

[Socrates]

I wrote:
As well as defining macro-evolution as speciation, which no creationist denies, because it is a part of the Creation/Fall/Flood model.

QED the Quisling wrote:
The definition of macro-evolution was decided upon by scientists in the early part of the twentieth century, without regards to what creationism denies. Science will likely never start defining terms in such a way as to exclude any creationist belief. It isn't how science is done. Once more, the monolithic view of "science". But where is the proof for the claim?

The fact is that creationists claim to deny macro-evolution, but nowadays they admit that change above the species level does happen - i.e. they do accept macroevolution. As we have pointed out, a population becoming reproductively isolated from another is no problem for biblical creation. If you disagree, then please explain. Call it "macroevolution" if you want, it will make not the slightest difference. Call it "fred" for all I care.

What they deny, nowadays, is in universal common descent, and "increasing information".True. Yet some bozos still insist that a LOSS of wings in a beetle population on a windy island or LOSS of eyes in cave fish is somehow a great disproof of creation.

In any case, the "General Theory of Evolution" was a term coined by the evolutionist Gerald Kerkut, and DOES mean common ancestry of all living creatures, and that this common ancestor came from non-living chemicals.
There was a time in the past where many creationists denied macroevolution as it was properly defined. Now only a very few creationists, among those who understand the subject well enough to hold an independent opinion on the matter, hold that position. More assertion. As I've pointed out, way back in 1941, Frank Marsh realised that the created kind (baramin) was broader than the man-made classification of "species". The creationist classic The Genesis Flood incorporated this in 1961. So for >40 years, this has been mainstream creationist thinking.

Socrates to RA:
Fact is, from your posts it's clear that you regard all religions as "cultic" and despise the Bible, testimony of Christ, and the idea of God as creator.

QED backs up the atheist, hardly surprising:

How so? Can you quote even one word from RA that supports any of these contentions? I don't think so.Only today in another thread on the science forum, he spruiked:
"Every religion is cultic in one way or another." And just look at some of his other posts where he completely trashes the Bible and any idea of divine creation.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 05:26 AM
Socrates:

RA:
Such as? How much do you even know about my qualifications in various subjects?Such as the history of creation. As well as defining macro-evolution as speciation, which no creationist denies, because it is a part of the Creation/Fall/Flood model.

Socrates, what makes you think I've defined macroevolution incorrectly? Creationist sources that have have no clue what it is? :rofl: I challenge you to find a college level biology textbook that would disagree with my defination. Perhaps, after all that trouble you will then learn to use the term correctly.

Yep, an overview of junk DNA in general that brough up several examples, without equating them.

Did you even read the article? He clearly calls LINEs, SINEs, and ALU repeats "pseudogenes." Nothing could be more inaccurate.
Woodmorappe needs to learn what pseudogenes actually are before he pontificates on them.

Not at all, unless you can prove that they were fallen from the beginning.
I note you're still avioding addressing the issue: common descent or common design flaw? Which one is it?

How could she, since they are not lies but a plain statement of fact, strongly stated.

A lie never becomes true simply by repeating it again.

I don't have to go to the Antarctic to know that it's cold. Fact is, from your posts it's clear that you regard all religions as "cultic"

All religions are cultic to one degree or another. That's because "cult" is a subjective term. One man's cult is another man's denomination. As such, it is hardly the pejorative that mainstream organizations use it to be.

and despise the Bible, testimony of Christ, and the idea of God as creator.

Just because I don't buy your unbaised assertions and interpretations of the Bible, does not mean I dispise it.

Begging the question of whether she is a Christian, and I have only your word for that. And if she is, then I would have to regard her as too emotionally involved and in violation of the Apostle Paul's commands to marry someone who spends his spare time attacking Christianity and the Bible.

:rofl: Your creationist beliefs != Christianity or the Bible.

You can keep saying that she married someone who "spends his spare time attacking Christianity and the Bible," but she knows better.

[QED]

Today @ 11:43 AM
Socrates:

QED the Quisling wrote:

Small minded insults will not boost your credibility in this debate.


Me, previously: The definition of macro-evolution was decided upon by scientists in the early part of the twentieth century, without regards to what creationism denies. Science will likely never start defining terms in such a way as to exclude any creationist belief. It isn't how science is done.

Socrates: Once more, the monolithic view of "science". But where is the proof for the claim?

Which claim? That scientists don't go out of their way to make sure that their theories bear directly on creationist ideas? Or that this particular word "macro-evolution" means variation above the level of species, and not "just whatever creationists don't believe"?

Me, previously: The fact is that creationists claim to deny macro-evolution, but nowadays they admit that change above the species level does happen - i.e. they do accept macroevolution.
Socrates: As we have pointed out, a population becoming reproductively isolated from another is no problem for biblical creation. If you disagree, then please explain. Call it "macroevolution" if you want, it will make not the slightest difference. Call it "fred" for all I care.

I have pointed out that it is not disputed by many modern creationists - not that it isn't a problem for creationism. But that is not at issue, and not what I will pursue. What is at issue is that when claims of "no macroevolution" are shot down with evidence of macroevolution, there is no impropriety.

Me, previously: What they deny, nowadays, is in universal common descent, and "increasing information".
Socrates: True. Yet some bozos still insist that a LOSS of wings in a beetle population on a windy island or LOSS of eyes in cave fish is somehow a great disproof of creation.

I think that those changes you mention are normally given as evidence against the claim of "no beneficial mutations". Anyone who claims they "disprove" Special Creation is probably in over there heads. However, in debating Special Creationists, it is always handy to have the counter-evidence for "no beneficial mutations", just in case it, or a closely related argument come up.

In any case, the "General Theory of Evolution" was a term coined by the evolutionist Gerald Kerkut, and DOES mean common ancestry of all living creatures, and that this common ancestor came from non-living chemicals.

You notice that not many scientists, textbooks or evolution debaters have adopted this General Theory of Evolution. That is because the claim that distinguishes it from the modern synthesis is abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is unproven.


QED backs up the atheist, hardly surprising:

How so? Can you quote even one word from RA that supports any of these contentions? I don't think so.Only today in another thread on the science forum, he spruiked:
"Every religion is cultic in one way or another." And just look at some of his other posts where he completely trashes the Bible and any idea of divine creation.

Actually, I withdrew my comments moments after entering them (using edit) because I found RA's recent post shortly after I posted. Nevertheless, I've seen RA's explanation for his comment, and it makes sense with his general position - one which is very respectful of Christianity and other religions, judging from all of his posts that I have seen.

I have actually never seen a post where trashes the Bible (except as evidence admissable in a scientific debate), nor where he trashes any idea of Divine Creation, except the common anti-eovlutionary ones that are thrown out on this board. Trashing your idea (as unscientific) is not the same as trashing reasonable ideas about divine creation that come from, and are expressed in, terms of faith rather than science.

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:29 AM
RufusAtticus:
:rofl: It takes a desperate man to favor the views of a geologist over a geneticist on the subject of genetics.

He probably sees it as favoring the views of a Christian over and evil godless atheist. To hell with the evidence!
:argh:

[tgamble]

Such as the history of creation. As well as defining macro-evolution as speciation, which no creationist denies, because it is a part of the Creation/Fall/Flood model.

Of course, no such model exists.

In any case, there are plenty of creationists who deny speciation.

As we have pointed out, a population becoming reproductively isolated from another is no problem for biblical creation.

Neither is anything else. Biblical creation is a myth that can include anything and everthing.

Creationism! What a joke! Of course, being reproductivly isolated is obviously the creation of a new kind by the definition in the bible of a kind. "reproduce after your kind". If two populations can no longer reproduce, you have a new "kind". But creationists never let facts get in their way and continue to insist that what's observed is impossible.

[Socrates]

I wrote:
Such as the history of creation. As well as defining macro-evolution as speciation, which no creationist denies, because it is a part of the Creation/Fall/Flood model.

Our latest creation-hating spammer lied:
Of course, no such model exists. Mainly because gamble would reject it a priori because it involves the supernatural at certain points.

TG:
In any case, there are plenty of creationists who deny speciation.Then PUT UP OR SHUT UP!! And I mean from the major creationist organisations, not your Aunt Sally. I can think of evolutionists who believe in astrology too.

Soc:
As we have pointed out, a population becoming reproductively isolated from another is no problem for biblical creation.

Neither is anything else. Biblical creation is a myth that can include anything and everthing.What would you know?


Creationism! What a joke! Of course, being reproductivly isolated is obviously the creation of a new kind by the definition in the bible of a kind. "reproduce after your kind". And that's exactly right. When they were first created, the kinds would have counted as a single biological species. But it didn't guarantee that every descendant would be able to reproduce with every other descendant. It still indicates that an additive criterion for delimiting kinds would be hybridization at least to the point of fertilization. If two populations can no longer reproduce, you have a new "kind". Not at all. gamble is showing his ignorance again -- these evolutionists should stay off topics they don't understand, e.g. Biblical exegesis. The Bible has a number of examples of barren women, but nothing to suggest that they are no longer part of humankind. Therefore a lack of ability to interbreed with a parent population is hardly proof that a different kind has formed.But creationists never let facts get in their way and continue to insist that what's observed is impossible.Another ipse dixit. And what facts would get in the way of Lewontin's determination to produce a materialistic explanation, no matter how absurd, "because we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

[Berserker]

Macro-evolution is not speculation, we have proof that it occurs.

If two populations can no longer reproduce, you have a new "kind".

When he side this he was referring to organism that could still reproduce (with viable offspring) but only with "their kind"

As for everything else you have said Socrates: your reduction to Ad homs. and smoke screen is perhaps a sign we are winning here.

Also I am willing to let "a divine foot into the door" but you will need to have proof.

[Socrates]

Beserker shows his selective morality and outright hypocrisy. Where was he when tgamble told all his lies about YECs being a "cult", lying, being after money, having a leader with a messianic complex, etc.? Once again, one rule for YECs and another for our foes.

[Berserker]

You did not say anything to back your claims against me there :bonk:

[tgamble]

Our latest creation-hating spammer lied:

Of course, no such model exists.

I thought insults and false accusations were discouraged on this board. Socrates calls me a "spammer" but nothing I've done meets the definition of one.

Then PUT UP OR SHUT UP!! And I mean from the major creationist organisations, not your Aunt Sally.

Who cares what you mean? I said there were lots of creationists who deny speciation and that's 100% true.

Neither is anything else. Biblical creation is a myth that can include anything and everthing. What would you know?

I know that nothing will ever convince you the bible is wrong. I know what creationists themselves have stated.

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the "facts" of science can contradict the Bible."

Henry Morris in the first paragraph of Scientists Confront Creationism
edited by Laurie R. Godfrey

"...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science
(1970) p.32-33

"Bible-believing students of the biological sciences possess a guide for their interpretation of the available data, the Biblical record of Divine Creation contained in Genesis." --Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975, p. 69)


"The Christian student of origins approaches the evidence from geology and paleontology with the Biblical record in mind, interpreting that evidence in accord with the facts divinely revealed in the Bible" --Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975, p. 40)


"Creation science begins with wholly Biblical presuppositions and interprets data from all of reality, including science, within that framework." --Donald Chittick (Rohr, 1988, p. 156)


"If the Bible is the Word of God--and it is--and if Jesus Christ is the infallible and omniscient Creator--and He is--then it must be firmly believed that the world and all things in it were created in six natural days and that the long geological ages of evolutionary history never really took place at all." -- Henry Morris (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, 251)


"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture." -- Henry Morris (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 15)


"It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to interpret the actual facts of science within its revelatory framework."--Henry Morris (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, p. 184)


"While as scientists creationists must study as objectively as possible the actual data of geology, as Bible-believing Christians, we must also insist that those be correlated within the framework of Biblical revelation." --Henry Morris (Morris, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1974, p. 173, cited in Plaintiff's Pre- Trial Brief, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)


"We are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation." -- Henry Morris (Morris, 1966, p. 114)


"The instructed Christian knows that the evidences for full divine inspiration of Scripture are far weightier than the evidences for any fact of science. When confronted with the consistent Biblical testimony to a universal Flood, the believer must certainly accept is as unquestioningly true." -- John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 118)


"The final and conclusive evidence against evolution is the fact that the Bible denies it. The Bible is the Word of God, absolutely inerrant and verbally inspired." --Henry Morris (Morris, 1967, p. 55)


"We believe that the Bible, as the verbally inspired and completely inerrant Word of God, gives us the true framework of historical and scientific interpretation . . . We take this revealed framework of history as our basic dictum, and then try to see how all the pertinent data can be understood in this context." --John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. xxvi)


"Even though we emphasize the scientific aspects of creationism-- especially in our debates and campus seminars--we also stress the fact that all true science supports Biblical creationism as well . . . We believe that God's inerrant word must always prevail over the historical speculations of what the Bible calls 'science falsely so called'." --Henry Morris (Morris, Back to Genesis, October 1995)


"The only Bible-believing conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1- 11 is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed." --Henry Morris, (Morris 1972, p. 82)

"Evolution teaches that the Bible has errors and cannot be trusted. Christians need to have their questions answered and doubts removed. Churches, seminaries and denominations need to be called back under the authority of the Book that they have been taught to doubt. That is the real message of creationism." (Morris, Acts and Facts, June 1995) "With the rise of evolution and naturalism, 'science' has become the enemy of Christianity, but true science 'declares the glory of God' (Psalm 19:1). ICR desires to return science to its proper, God-glorifying, position." (Morris, Acts and Facts, June 1995).
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/aims.htm

And that's exactly right. When they were first created, the kinds would have counted as a single biological species. But it didn't guarantee that every descendant would be able to reproduce with every other descendant.

We're not talking about sterile individuals. We're talking about an entire population who can reproduce amoungst themselves but not with the population they were once part of. Furthermore, you claim that "kind" equals "species" is contraticted by AIG who claims "kind" is anything from species to family. Whatever works to cram all those animals on the ark! LOL!

Not at all. gamble is showing his ignorance again -- these evolutionists should stay off topics they don't understand, e.g. Biblical exegesis.

You shoud stay off topics you don't understand. e.g. Science, history, genetics, geology, astronomy etc. etc.

The Bible has a number of examples of barren women, but nothing to suggest that they are no longer part of humankind. Therefore a lack of ability to interbreed with a parent population is hardly proof that a different kind has formed.

Yet another example of creationist dishonesty. I'm not talking about sterile individuals (which is another thing creationists can't explain) I'm talking about an entire population splitting away. They can reproduce just fine amoungst themselves but not with the population they were once a part of. Therefore, by the Biblical definition, a new "kind" is produced.

In fact, creationists can't even define what a "kind" really is! They have to claim that a kind can be an entire family or order to make the flood myth look plausable! Obviously creationists really do accept macroevolution but can't admit it! You loose again!

And what facts would get in the way of Lewontin's determination to produce a materialistic explanation, no matter how absurd, "because we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

The supernatural is not and cannot be a part of sciene for reasons that should be obvious.

Beserker shows his selective morality and outright hypocrisy.

More insults! It's all socrates ever gives since he has no evidence.

Where was he when tgamble told all his lies about YECs being a "cult", lying, being after money, having a leader with a messianic complex, etc.?

They weren't lies. They were all true. You're lying yourself now. I never said they had a leader with a messianic complex, that was merely an example given a broader trait.

[RufusAtticus]

I notice that Socrates still hasn't answered my question, despite his claims that creationists never ignore evidence.

Shared endogenous retroviruses and shared pseudogenes are the product of _____________?

Shared Ancestry Shared Design Flaws

[RufusAtticus]

Bump

[Woman]

Not at all. gamble is showing his ignorance again -- these evolutionists should stay off topics they don't understand, e.g. Biblical exegesis. The Bible has a number of examples of barren women, but nothing to suggest that they are no longer part of humankind.

Beneath you! Tsk Tsk

[Socrates]

Socrates:
Not at all. gamble is showing his ignorance again -- these evolutionists should stay off topics they don't understand, e.g. Biblical exegesis. The Bible has a number of examples of barren women, but nothing to suggest that they are no longer part of humankind.

Woman replied:
Beneath you! Tsk TskWhat's your problem? I was merely pointing out that there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits infertility arising between members of the same kind. Therefore the production of a reproductively isolated population (aka a new "biological species") is NOT contrary to the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model, despite the dishonest attempts of some to claim otherwise.

There was nothing intended in that post as a slur on women, and neither can this be fairly inferred, even.

[Sher]

03-21-2003 @ 02:15 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41818#post41818)
RufusAtticus:

I notice that Socrates still hasn't answered my question, despite his claims that creationists never ignore evidence.Actually, I believe he called it a false dilemma.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 12:32 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43436#post43436)
SherBear:

Actually, I believe he called it a false dilemma.

How can it be a false dilemma when the two answers offered are the two situations that Socrates himself has outlined in this thread for explaining junk DNA, (Creation & Fall)?

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 05:09 AM What's your problem? I was merely pointing out that there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits infertility arising between members of the same kind. Therefore the production of a reproductively isolated population (aka a new "biological species") is NOT contrary to the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model, despite the dishonest attempts of some to claim otherwise.

I already pointed out the arguments in this response. How typical of you to ignore them!

I'm not talking about sterile individuals (which is another thing creationists can't explain) I'm talking about an entire population splitting away. They can reproduce just fine amoungst themselves but not with the population they were once a part of. Therefore, by the Biblical definition, a new "kind" is produced.

In fact, creationists can't even define what a "kind" really is! They have to claim that a kind can be an entire family or order to make the flood myth look plausable! Obviously creationists really do accept macroevolution but can't admit it! You loose again!

[Socrates]

I wrote:
What's your problem? I was merely pointing out that there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits infertility arising between members of the same kind. Therefore the production of a reproductively isolated population (aka a new "biological species") is NOT contrary to the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model, despite the dishonest attempts of some to claim otherwise.

I already pointed out the arguments in this response. How typical of you to ignore them!Yeah, how typical to ignore the non-response of a vexatious person who's just here to character-assassinate creationists.
I'm not talking about sterile individuals Makes no difference to the PRINCIPLE involved, i.e. that an inability for a couple to have children does NOT mean they aren't part of humankind. (which is another thing creationists can't explain)Yes we can -- it's called the Fall! I'm talking about an entire population splitting away. They can reproduce just fine amoungst themselves but not with the population they were once a part of. Therefore, by the Biblical definition, a new "kind" is produced.No at all. There is nothing that says a kind cannot reproduce into varieties, and nothing that says that the varieties have to be interfertile.In fact, creationists can't even define what a "kind" really is! They can and have, e.g. if two creatures can hybridize at least up to fertilization with each other or with the same third creature, then they are part of the same created kind.They have to claim that a kind can be an entire familyCreationists don't elevate a man-made category like "family" to the level of "kind" in all cases. Rather, in a NUMBER of cases, creatures within the same family hybridize. In fact, there are a number of examples where creatures of different genera within the same family will produce FERTILE offspring, making them the same "biological species". and or order to make the flood myth look plausable! More likely, evolutionists want to equate "kind" with modern taxonomic species in a desperate attempt to refute the truth of Noah's Flood, because it's evidence that God really judge sin!
Obviously creationists really do accept macroevolution but can't admit it! You loose again!More likely, evolutionists like you dishonestly play bait'n'switch games.

[Socratism]

03-21-2003 @ 02:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41818#post41818)
RufusAtticus:

I notice that Socrates still hasn't answered my question, despite his claims that creationists never ignore evidence.

Shared endogenous retroviruses and shared pseudogenes are the product of _____________?

Shared Ancestry Shared Design Flaws

C. Neither

[RufusAtticus]

Socratism,

Then what are they the product of? If they're not the product of Creation and not the Product of the Fall, what are they the product of?

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44551#post44551)
RufusAtticus:

Socratism,

Then what are they the product of? If they're not the product of Creation and not the Product of the Fall, what are they the product of?

I am not familiar with the specific case you referred to, but my experience in similar things leads me to believe that our understanding of DNA is in a very, very early stage and thus it is premature to rule out possibilities other than the ones you mentioned. In fact I would go further and predict that neither of the options you listed will eventually turn out to be the correct answer.

[Tycho]

Today @ 09:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44609#post44609)
Socratism:
I am not familiar with the specific case you referred to, but my experience in similar things leads me to believe that our understanding of DNA is in a very, very early stage and thus it is premature to rule out possibilities other than the ones you mentioned.
Though there may ultimately be other possibilities to consider, you understand that shared ancestory would have predicted shared endogenous retroviruses and shared pseudogenes, right?
In fact I would go further and predict that neither of the options you listed will eventually turn out to be the correct answer.
But based on the data that we do have (and not the data that you hope we may eventually have), can you answer the question?

[Socratism]

Today @ 11:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44613#post44613)
Tycho:
Though there may ultimately be other possibilities to consider, you understand that shared ancestory would have predicted shared endogenous retroviruses and shared pseudogenes, right?


You may be right. Certainly there is evidence that "fits" the ancestry paradigm. But there is also evidence that doesn't.

But based on the data that we do have (and not the data that you hope we may eventually have), can you answer the question?

My feeling is not so much based on hope as it is on my experience with things like this.

Which permits me to again state my feeling that jumping to conclusions like you are doing inhibits scientific understanding of these things because if one feels that the answer is known why look into it any furtherl?

[tgamble]

Today @ 05:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44633#post44633)
Socratism:
You may be right. Certainly there is evidence that "fits" the ancestry paradigm. But there is also evidence that doesn't.


The bible doesn't count as evidence.

Which permits me to again state my feeling that jumping to conclusions like you are doing inhibits scientific understanding of these things because if one feels that the answer is known why look into it any furtherl?

Who's jumping to conclusions?

[WinAce]

Shared endogenous retrovirii = powerful evidence for common ancestry. Smoking gun with fingerprints on it found next to the scene of a dead body with a bullet wound = powerful evidence for murder. We know how ERVs originate. We know how gunshot wounds originate.

Should any creationist or defense attorney argue for gods or ghosts instead of the obvious, they're obligated to at least present a demonstrable method by which those gods or ghosts can produce results that exactly mimick natural processes. Showing zero-wavelenth cosmic rays producing new ERVs in random genomes or bullet wounds actually being ghost bite wounds would do a lot for their credibility.

[Socratism]

Today @ 04:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44804#post44804)
WinAce:

Shared endogenous retrovirii = powerful evidence for common ancestry. Smoking gun with fingerprints on it found next to the scene of a dead body with a bullet wound = powerful evidence for murder. We know how ERVs originate. We know how gunshot wounds originate.

Should any creationist or defense attorney argue for gods or ghosts instead of the obvious, they're obligated to at least present a demonstrable method by which those gods or ghosts can produce results that exactly mimick natural processes. Showing zero-wavelenth cosmic rays producing new ERVs in random genomes or bullet wounds actually being ghost bite wounds would do a lot for their credibility.

Well I can't speak for other creationists but I think you have some misconceptions about creationists.

We are not pagans who invoke an act of God for anything that is puzzling. Generally speaking the only supernatural intervention we use in these discussions is the creation of the universe and first life.

The particlar case you have highlighted undoubtedly has a perfectly natural explanation, and when science has determined more about how things work there may be other explanations than common descent.

The reason I feel this way is that this is not the first time that people have jumped to conclusions in their zeal to "prove" that evolution is a "fact". Sadly, all such "smoking guns" in the past have been blanks. I keep track of these things and have been doing so for a long time, which is why I expect this latest one will be no more lasting than the others.

One most be patient about things like this for like many other headline stories, there is frequently a later retraction in small print on the "back pages". At least this has been my experience, and you can be sure that I will highlight the retraction when and if it occurs. Didn't I mention this "moving target" aspect of evolution where old "proofs" inevitably fade away and are forgotten to be replaced by the latest "big thing"?

[tgamble]

Today @ 09:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44804#post44804)
WinAce:

Shared endogenous retrovirii = powerful evidence for common ancestry. Smoking gun with fingerprints on it found next to the scene of a dead body with a bullet wound = powerful evidence for murder. We know how ERVs originate. We know how gunshot wounds originate.


A creationist is like a detective who walks into a room with a dead guy in the middle of it. He has a knife in hias back and his room ramsacked.

He thinks suicide is just as valid an interpretation as murder.

[tgamble]

Today @ 10:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44843#post44843)
Socratism:

Well I can't speak for other creationists but I think you have some misconceptions about creationists.

We are not pagans who invoke an act of God for anything that is puzzling. Generally speaking the only supernatural intervention we use in these discussions is the creation of the universe and first life.


:rotfl: Your use the supernatural to explain the creation of ALL life 6000 years ago!

The particlar case you have highlighted undoubtedly has a perfectly natural explanation, and when science has determined more about how things work there may be other explanations than common descent.

And you'd reject that as well if it isn't consistent with the bible! It's not likely through. CD is a good explanation.

The reason I feel this way is that this is not the first time that people have jumped to conclusions in their zeal to "prove" that evolution is a "fact". Sadly, all such "smoking guns" in the past have been blanks.

Simply untrue. An unsupported assertation with no evidence whatsoever.

One most be patient about things like this for like many other headline stories, there is frequently a later retraction in small print on the "back pages". At least this has been my experience, and you can be sure that I will highlight the retraction when and if it occurs.


It's not likely you'll have to. Retractions are usually big news.

Didn't I mention this "moving target" aspect of evolution where old "proofs" inevitably fade away and are forgotten to be replaced by the latest "big thing"?

And this differs from the rest of science how exactly?

[Socratism]

Since I had never heard the SER argument previously I did a search and came up with a brief description from, of all places, talk.origins.

Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

My first observation would be regarding the final comment that this effect is "rare" and "fairly random". I doubt that either set of adjectives is an accurate descriptive of the actual situation. For example, the word "random" is frequently used when it is not known what causes an event and it is not immediately apparent that there is a predictable pattern. The use of "fairly random" is almost an oxymoron.

Much is made of the fact that humans and chimps and perhaps others "share" the same insertions in the same chromosome positions. I do not understand why this is considered to be the "absolute proof" as implied. There may be a perfectly natural biochemical reason for this, other than the inference of implied ancestry. This type of reasoning can be fragile because if it later turns out that a creature whose line of descent is different turns out to also have the same insertion at a similar chromosome position the theory would be appear to be falsified. This sort of thing has occurred in the past when more data failed to support the initial enthusiasm for proof of common ancestry.

Just a few observations off the top of my head and I certainly do not claim that they are worth all that much.

[Woman]

Socrates: The Bible has a number of examples of barren women, but nothing to suggest that they are no longer part of humankind.
Woman:: Beneath you! Tsk Tsk
Socrates: What's your problem? I was merely pointing out that there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits infertility arising between members of the same kind. Therefore the production of a reproductively isolated population (aka a new "biological species") is NOT contrary to the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model, despite the dishonest attempts of some to claim otherwise.

There was nothing intended in that post as a slur on women, and neither can this be fairly inferred, even.

Soc, my "Tsk Tsk" was addressing your silly statement about individuals. The discussion is about animals being dissimilar enough that they (as a group) can no longer breed - yes? And you toss in the line about specific infertile couples, clearly in the minority...and feign wide-eyed innocence and say "nothing to suggest that they are no longer part of humankind." DUH!

The comment about "nothing against women" I totally fail to understand. My reaction had nothing to do with men/women, but rather your attempt to compare individual barren people to whole groups who are unable to breed.

BUT - Soc, ol' pal - Now that you mention it. Why is it that in revealed scripture, (inerrant even with regard to science according to you) seems to completely ignore the fact that males can be infertile? There are indeed numerous cases of couples in the Bible who are unable to conceive - just as there are today. But in every one, without exception, it is assumed that the Woman is barren, unable to give her husband sons. Why do you suppose that is?

1. Biblical authors were oblivious to the existance of infertile men.

2. The men in the ANE may have suspected that some of them were sterile, but would necessarily never admit it.

3. Men of the ANE were strapping examples of manhood, fairly bursting with virility and were not visited with infertility or impotence as a result of the Fall. Only women were so cursed.

4. Oh it's all just a coincidence.

[tgamble]

Today @ 10:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44859#post44859)
Socratism:

Since I had never heard the SER argument previously I did a search and came up with a brief description from, of all places, talk.origins.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

My first observation would be regarding the final comment that this effect is "rare" and "fairly random". I doubt that either set of adjectives is an accurate descriptive of the actual situation. For example, the word "random" is frequently used when it is not known what causes an event and it is not immediately apparent that there is a predictable pattern.

Right. Throwing a dice shouldn't be called random because maybe some unknown force causes it to roll on a certain number. Maybe it's GOD who sends you to Jail. Directly to jail. Do not pass go.....

The use of "fairly random" is almost an oxymoron.


How's that?

Much is made of the fact that humans and chimps and perhaps others "share" the same insertions in the same chromosome positions. I do not understand why this is considered to be the "absolute proof" as implied. There may be a perfectly natural biochemical reason for this, other than the inference of implied ancestry.


That's the great thing about science, if you find one, you can point it out and things will change.

And nobody claims it's "absolute proof". It's EVIDENCE, not absolute proof. There is a difference.

This type of reasoning can be fragile because if it later turns out that a creature whose line of descent is different turns out to also have the same insertion at a similar chromosome position the theory would be appear to be falsified.

Bingo! Just one more way to TEST evolution.

"Potential Falsification:
It would make no sense, macroevolutionarily, if certain other mammals (e.g. dogs, cows, platypi, etc.), had these same retrogenes in the exact same chromosomal locations. For instance, it would be incredibly unlikely for dogs to also carry the three HERV-K insertions that are unique to humans, as shown in the upper right of Figure 4.4.1, since none of the other primates have these retroviral sequences."

Let us all know when one is found so we can kill the one who found it and surpress the knowlege so we can continue to win souls for our DARk LORD! .:rofl:

One thing we can be sure of, if they are found or if they are not creationists will still claim either supports creationism better than evolution.

This sort of thing has occurred in the past when more data failed to support the initial enthusiasm for proof of common ancestry.


But didn't falseify it. The nice thing is that continued research showed this. Scientists were NOT forbidden (by who?!) to do research and question. There was no set dogma.

[tgamble]

03-15-2003 @ 01:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=35628#post35628)
SherBear:

Here are two references:


Neither of which have anything to do with the coining of the term.

[Tycho]

Today @ 10:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44633#post44633)
Socratism:
You may be right. Certainly there is evidence that "fits" the ancestry paradigm. But there is also evidence that doesn't.
Don't leave us hanging! What, exactly is this evidence that disconfirms the predictions of shared ancestory?

My feeling is not so much based on hope as it is on my experience with things like this.

Which permits me to again state my feeling that jumping to conclusions like you are doing inhibits scientific understanding of these things because if one feels that the answer is known why look into it any furtherl?
You're right. I guess we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the Earth orbits the Sun! That would inhibit scientific understanding!

How unfortunate for you that the scientific method never advocates the cessation of discovery and observation. You see, while religion almost never requires any evidence whatsoever, science depends on continued observation. This is why scientific theories are only tentatively true--even if all the evidence supports a theory, the next observation could reveal that the theory is inaccurate.

[Tycho]

Today @ 03:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44849#post44849)
tgamble:
A creationist is like a detective who walks into a room with a dead guy in the middle of it. He has a knife in hias back and his room ramsacked.

He thinks suicide is just as valid an interpretation as murder.
Hey! It could be suicide! After all, you're just "interpretting" the evidence according to your naturalistic bias! Besides, you shouldn't jump to conclusions--that might inhibit the suicide investigation.

But seriously, the creationist who argues against abiogenesis to strike at evolution is like a detective who walks into a room with a corpse in the middle of it--and concludes that the man isn't dead because we don't know exactly how or why he died.

[WinAce]

Today @ 05:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44859#post44859)
Socratism:

Since I had never heard the SER argument

ERV, actually. Although closely related to the genetic evidence from pseudogenes, transposons and the like, they're (IMO) far better as evidence.

My first observation would be regarding the final comment that this effect is "rare" and "fairly random".

You won't find many absolute statements in scientific literature. They abound in textbooks and popular works, but the peer-reviewed papers are loaded with terms like 'seems', 'fairly', 'appears', 'plausible', etc.

I doubt that either set of adjectives is an accurate descriptive of the actual situation. For example, the word "random" is frequently used when it is not known what causes an event and it is not immediately apparent that there is a predictable pattern.

No, not necessarily. One can know what causes a coin to flip heads or tails (i.e. initial speed of flip, initial position, wind speed, gravity, friction, velocity, height at which you flip it, etc.) but still say it's random. Similarly, we know that ERVs are deposited by retrovirii because we've observed it in the lab. The characteristic viral genes are a dead giveaway and the only known natural process that creates them is an infection.

The reason that it's rare is that for an ERV to get established in a population sufficient to conduct tests of ancestry, several unlikely conditions have to be met. For one, a reproductive cell must be infected, not a regular one. That reproductive cell must then be passed on to the next generation. Finally, it must piggyback on the success of the individual and get established in the population. All three of these conditions put together make independent insertion all but impossible.

The use of "fairly random" is almost an oxymoron.

Certain retrovirii are more apt to infect certain parts of the cell than others; although this might at first offer a hope of salvaging the creationist hypothesis, this still only cuts down on the chances of two independent insertions somewhat - from an identical paragraph at the same place in a library to an identical paragraph at the same place in a large novel. Still astronomically unlikely.

Much is made of the fact that humans and chimps and perhaps others "share" the same insertions in the same chromosome positions.

Yes, because it's very powerful evidence for common ancestry.

I do not understand why this is considered to be the "absolute proof" as implied.

It's not. It just comes close to proving it, much like various arguments do for the round earth. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would be a better term than "absolute proof".

There may be a perfectly natural biochemical reason for this, other than the inference of implied ancestry.

Doubtful. For one, other explanations (such as independent insertions by the same virus) have already been tested and falsified. It appears that one can only appeal to 'God made it that way', but that's not very useful in scientific discourse, anymore than 'the earth is actually flat but the magic core bends light around it so it looks round".

This type of reasoning can be fragile because if it later turns out that a creature whose line of descent is different turns out to also have the same insertion at a similar chromosome position the theory would be appear to be falsified.

Eh? That's actually an advantage of evolution - even more potential tests.

This sort of thing has occurred in the past when more data failed to support the initial enthusiasm for proof of common ancestry.

Perhaps you could start a new thread for that. I'd be delighted to hear what evidence for evolution is no longer considered valid. I've heard everything from the erroneous 'organs are no longer vestigial' to Haeckel's fudged drawings, which don't undermine the valid evidence from embryology regardless.

Just a few observations off the top of my head and I certainly do not claim that they are worth all that much.

Right. I'd be interested to hear your response.

[TenDimensions]

Hey, since you guys are talking about retroviruses if you're interested in a good science fiction novel:

Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear. Pretty fun and entertaining read.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 11:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44609#post44609)
Socratism:

I am not familiar with the specific case you referred to
Then shouldn't your answer be "I don't know" instead of "neither."

but my experience in similar things leads me to believe that our understanding of DNA is in a very, very early stage and thus it is premature to rule out possibilities other than the ones you mentioned.

We know much more than you think. For example we know the structure of DNA, the ways in which it is transmitted, and how these mutational events arrise. The fact that they are rare events tells us that it is very unlikely for the exact same event to happen four separate times. Thus these similarities exist because of shared ancestry. In other words, they happened only once in an ancestral population and have been transmitted to descendent species in the genera Homo, Pan, Gorilla, and Pongo.

[Socratism]

Winace,

I would like to respond but apparently all you said was that people think they know how these insertioins occur and that they are "fairly random". I believe a better wording to replace "random" in this case would be "currently unpredictable".

To mention one case that fell out of favor as more evidence surfaced, the reaction of blood serum of various different lifeforms comes to mind. You typically don't see this in textbooks any more.

[Socratism]

Rufus,

What would you say our level of knowledge of how DNA works would compare to what it will be 50 years from now?

Less than 5% or if more what percentage?

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 11:04 PM
To mention one case that fell out of favor as more evidence surfaced,

Mind explaining why this is a BAD thing?

the reaction of blood serum of various different lifeforms comes to mind. You typically don't see this in textbooks any more.

Please explain what you're talking about.

And why is it so terrible that evidence for evolution that is no longer valid isn't in textbooks anymore?

Isn't that what creationists WANT? Invalid evidence not in textbooks?

[Berserker]

I would say are understanding of "how DNA works" is very good and won't improve much more... proteinnomics on the other hand is the future to finalizing our understanding of our biology.

[WinAce]

Today @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45629#post45629)
Socratism:

Winace,

I would like to respond but apparently all you said was that people think they know how these insertioins occur and that they are "fairly random". I believe a better wording to replace "random" in this case would be "currently unpredictable".

Technically, we don't think we know how they occur - we know because we've observed it in the lab dozens of times. The only thing unpredictable about them is the fact that virii insert at random points in the genome, so you can never know where a new infection will occur, anymore than you can know which 100-digit number a random selection algorithm will pick.

To mention one case that fell out of favor as more evidence surfaced, the reaction of blood serum of various different lifeforms comes to mind. You typically don't see this in textbooks any more.

Okies, let's hear it. I'm particularly interested if anything except a chimp had the closest phylogenetic relationship to a human.

[Socrates]

Gynecopteryx wrote:BUT - Soc, ol' pal - Now that you mention it. Why is it that in revealed scripture, (inerrant even with regard to science according to you) seems to completely ignore the fact that males can be infertile? There are indeed numerous cases of couples in the Bible who are unable to conceive - just as there are today. But in every one, without exception, it is assumed that the Woman is barren, unable to give her husband sons. Why do you suppose that is?Which particular case did you have in mind? Does the Bible claim to be exhaustive truth, as opposed to true about whatver it speaks upon? Anyway, the examples of barren women were wives of husbands who managed to have children by other women, so clearly the barrenness was of the women. And there is nothing to suggest that any illness or condition is necessarily the result of a specific sin, and much Biblical evidence to the contrary.

[Socrates]

Socratism:

The reason I feel this way is that this is not the first time that people have jumped to conclusions in their zeal to "prove" that evolution is a "fact". Sadly, all such "smoking guns" in the past have been blanks.

tgamble, who is so scientifically untrained that he relies on the talk origins garbage in his vain attempts to undermine Biblical Christianity, spouts:
Simply untrue. An unsupported assertation with no evidence whatsoever.:rofl: Yeah, right, let's just forget Haeckel's embryonic recapitulation and forged pix of embryo similarities, Piltdown Man, "Archeoraptor" the Piltdown Bird (whichNational Geographic used to claim ‘We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals.’), the alleged oyster evolutionary series Ostraea to Gryphaea, staged photos of peppered moths, dicredited human ancestors such as Ramapithecus and Zinjanthropus boisei, dogmatic claims of life on a Martian meteorite, etc., etc.

[Woman]

Socrates:
Yeah, right, let's just forget Haeckel's embryonic recapitulation and forged pix of embryo similarities, Piltdown Man, "Archeoraptor" the Piltdown Bird (whichNational Geographic used to claim ‘We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals.’), the alleged oyster evolutionary series Ostraea to Gryphaea, staged photos of peppered moths, dicredited human ancestors such as Ramapithecus and Zinjanthropus boisei, dogmatic claims of life on a Martian meteorite, etc., etc.
You don't really want to play, "who's pawned off more fakes, censored more knowledge or made bigger asses of themselves".....do you?

Because I think you know there is enough shame in the Christian community to make even you humble. But what's the purpose?

You are always the first to say when I point to a fraud wearing a white colar that they don't represent true Christianity. Well, these are incidents that happen in every discipline. I haven't yelled "Poluxy Riverbed" at you for weeks now! And by the way, I never heard the alien life on the meteroite one!!!

:argh:

[Socrates]

I wrote:

Yeah, right, let's just forget Haeckel's embryonic recapitulation and forged pix of embryo similarities, Piltdown Man, "Archeoraptor" the Piltdown Bird (whichNational Geographic used to claim ‘We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals.’), the alleged oyster evolutionary series Ostraea to Gryphaea, staged photos of peppered moths, dicredited human ancestors such as Ramapithecus and Zinjanthropus boisei, dogmatic claims of life on a Martian meteorite, etc., etc.

Woman replied: You don't really want to play, "who's pawned off more fakes, censored more knowledge or made bigger asses of themselves".....do you?Hey, fair's fair :eek:. My comment was in reply to tgamble who claimed there was "no evidence whatsoever" for Socratism's statement:

The reason I feel this way is that this is not the first time that people have jumped to conclusions in their zeal to "prove" that evolution is a "fact". Sadly, all such "smoking guns" in the past have been blanks.

Then Woman continued with a little bit of elephant hurling:
Because I think you know there is enough shame in the Christian community to make even you humble. But what's the purpose?Because most of what people think they know about alleged Christian atrocities is fallacious, as shown by the book Christianity on Trial -- see this review (http://www.tektonics.org/chrtrial.html ).

Hmm, the claims of alleged life on a Martian meteorite even made the Australian newspaper headlines in about mid 1996. Naturally the various God-haters here in Australia trumpeted it as the final nail for Biblical Creation, while AiG showed the opposite at Life on Mars? Separating fact from fiction (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2461.asp). Naturally, AiG's arguments are the ones that have been vindicated (e.g. Mars Claims Weaken Further (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/1127.asp#mars)), while the Skeptics have crawled back into their holes and tried to play down their gullible and extravagant claims.

[WinAce]

First of all, no one wants to 'prove' evolution; it's as proven as any other theory will ever be. You might have individual scientists wanting to advance their own pet hypotheses as to how that fact occured, which means you'll ocassionally 'get a Haeckel' or a Piltdown. Red herrings with onion sauce are nice, but they don't distract from the fact there are dozens of intersecting lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion that are rock-solid.

Archaeoraptor was never even peer-reviewed, so listing it is dishonest; Bivalve evolution as solid as it ever was, with a few revisions to incorrect older ideas about relationships. Peppered moth photos being staged are no bigger a problem than animal photos in biology books being staged: hint, they rest on trees but aren't easy to approach naturally. 'Dogmatic claims of Martian life' weren't even related to evolution and so are a complete red herring.

Anything of substance you'd care to discuss? Things like 'Here's a refutation to endogenous retrovirii, pseudogenes and SINE repeats' will do fine. Things like 'here's a refutation of the valid evidence for evolution' will also do fine, but in another thread. Things like 'here's an irrelevant and mostly inaccurate list of 3 former proofs of evolution that were fake, so the thousands of others must be as well because my mythology won't allow me to accept them' are best reserved for other threads.

[tgamble]

tgamble, who is so scientifically untrained that he relies on the talk origins garbage in his vain attempts to undermine Biblical Christianity, spouts:

I see you still prefer insults to facts. Typical of creationists who can't offer any evidence to support their childish myths.

In an effort to support the lie that ALL smoking guns have been blanks, you offer only a few examples, only some of which are actually valid!

Haeckel's embryonic recapitulation and forged pix of embryo similarities,

Piltdown Man

Both frauds, but hardly desperate attempts tp prove evolution. Evolution was already well supported by that time. Both debunked long ago and no longer used. Heakel's drawings may be sometimes used but not as support for his debunked theory, only to support the FACT that embryology offers support for evolution. Something which accurate photographs also support.

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon4haeckel.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells
"Archeoraptor"

You must be desperate. Archeoraptor didn't even make it pass peer review! It was only published in NG who later published an apology.

the alleged oyster evolutionary series Ostraea to Gryphaea

I couldn't find anything on either fossil on the net. Most likely, it's a simply case of mistaken relationship abandoned due to new evidence. A concept creationists have never understood!

staged photos of peppered moths

Nothing wrong with that. No matter what the creationist liars spew out.

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon6moths.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells

dicredited human ancestors such as Ramapithecus and Zinjanthropus boisei

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/jscott.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#boisei

dogmatic claims of life on a Martian meteorite, etc., etc.

Nothing to do with evolution.

OF course, the creationist frauds and lies are much more desperate. The claim that the earth is young and a global flood occured. Debunked for over 200 years!

The lies against Donald Joanson, Gish's bullfrog proteins, the moondust as proof for a young earth etc. etc. etc.

[Berserker]

I thought most creationists gave into microevolution?, Since the process of microevolution is visible and impossible to refute (unless you start going beyond logical paths), but genuine macroevolution (such as a rat becoming a bat) is too slow to be seen so they always have that to cover under. Now with genetic evidence of linage patterns in genes as well as other signs only inherent of ancestral based evolution of all life… maybe macroevolution will be considered irrefutable to. Then what will become of the YEC?

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46084#post46084)
Berserker:

I thought most creationists gave into microevolution?, Since the process of microevolution is visible and impossible to refute (unless you start going beyond logical paths), but genuine macroevolution (such as a rat becoming a bat) is too slow to be seen so they always have that to cover under. Now with genetic evidence of linage patterns in genes as well as other signs only inherent of ancestral based evolution of all life… maybe macroevolution will be considered irrefutable to. Then what will become of the YEC?

We can always hope it will be fringe group as irrelevent as flat earthers but more likely they'll just do what they're doing now. Spew out a lot of misinformation and distortion and use every dishonest trick in the book to convince people that archaic myths are true.

[WinAce]

The funny thing is that flat-earthers or gravity-deniers could do the same thing. There are actual terms called 'microgravity' and 'macrogravity'. One could say "no one's ever observed macrogravity (i.e. planet movement due to gravity)", and there you go. Angels shove the planets around, just like the good 'ole days.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 06:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45637#post45637)
Socratism:

Rufus,

What would you say our level of knowledge of how DNA works would compare to what it will be 50 years from now?

Less than 5% or if more what percentage?

>95%.

[Socrates]

Beserker:
I thought most creationists gave into microevolution?, Since the process of microevolution is visible and impossible to refute (unless you start going beyond logical paths), but genuine macroevolution (such as a rat becoming a bat) is too slow to be seen so they always have that to cover under. Now with genetic evidence of linage patterns in genes as well as other signs only inherent of ancestral based evolution of all life… maybe macroevolution will be considered irrefutable to. Then what will become of the YEC?Actually, informed creationists say things far differently. E.g. on AiG's page Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp), they say under "What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?":

‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

[Berserker]

I thought we already prove to you that information increase does exist and happens in evolution. :bonk: You do remember?, we gave you examples of Micro and Macro version of genetic increase of information?, no wait I bet you don't. :brow:

[tgamble]

Today @ 03:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46576#post46576)
Berserker:

I thought we already prove to you that information increase does exist and happens in evolution. :bonk:

You're talking to a CREATIONIST! They don't care what you prove! They've never cared about evidence and never will.

[Berserker]

tgamble,

are you sure... you mean this is all like :argh: and is of no use, oh woo is me for trying to bring enlightenment to those that can never be enlightened. I sure after a few years they will crack

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46641#post46641)
Berserker:

tgamble,

are you sure... you mean this is all like :argh: and is of no use, oh woo is me for trying to bring enlightenment to those that can never be enlightened. I sure after a few years they will crack

Well, let me put it this way.

will anything you say here actually change what the Bible says? Do most creationists care about anything else besides what the Bible says? I've seen a few creationists change their mind but many are utterly beyohd hope and beyond help.

[RufusAtticus]

Once again Socrates demonstrates that AiG has no clue about the actual workings and understandings of science. The difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" has absolutely nothing to do with "information." Not to mention their false claim that information gain has never been observed. But then agian they're probably laboring under an amorphous concept of "information" that is irrevelent to biological evolution anyways.

[bandecoot]

:bump:

[Raptor]

:bump:
Arise, thread! Arise! :mummy:

[Roy]

:bump:
.