RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster

RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Nnanji -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/24/2017 3:16:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Whichever his answer, then ask him how that's not simplistic mumbo jumbo. You're back, I thought you had left because of the vast quantity of my "personal insults" directed at you. He has no friends so he comes here. Often times he posts one after another just to have something to do. Don't be fooled when he says he doesn't care if he interacts with you or not. It's all he has.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/24/2017 3:18:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I see we've reached the personal insult portion of the "discussion." I'll consider that my cue that you've nothing left to say and need a way to huff off into the sunset. Enjoy. We're done here. Actually, you reached th personal insult portion some time ago when you were dictating who did and who did not understand things. Although, you probably don't see that sort of thing as insulting. I imagine it's why you've never had any friends. Thanx, there many who feel if they don't call you a ^#@E^%^%E%$#@@ then they haven't been insulting.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/24/2017 3:20:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Whichever his answer, then ask him how that's not simplistic mumbo jumbo. You're back, I thought you had left because of the vast quantity of my "personal insults" directed at you. He has no friends so he comes here. Often times he posts one after another just to have something to do. Don't be fooled when he says he doesn't care if he interacts with you or not. It's all he has. I didn't know, I'll try to be nicer. [:D]

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/25/2017 1:34:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ... Really? You feel I have insulted you? Care to point out the specific post #? Your post 215 says: quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ... He will not answer. He has no answers. He is simply a mindless critic. It says nothing about the OP and is directed at me and somehow does not seem to be a compliment. [8\|] Ahhh, I didn't realize you were so sensitive. I do apologize for my reckless comment.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/25/2017 1:58:32 PM)
quote: It seems that you do not understand what I’m saying. What you are saying here is exactly what I am saying to the evolutionists that say evolution is a “proven fact”. What is being said is a difference without a distinction as you might understand by reading Jay Gould's words here: SOURCE Each of the words "evolution", "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis. So, as you might perceive, words are often imprecise in their definition and uses. I don't recall ever reading a Court Opinion or Dictum asserting that we are bound to use the word "proven" according to the understanding of Mr. Milesnmiles. Perhaps our difference is in we all don't accept your detective story definition of "proven." And then is it proven beyond any reasonable doubt? Just how precise must the jury be? quote: Yes, as soon as a scientist starts to draw conclusions from the facts personal bias is often involved. Naaah..We do have a peer review system that challenges biases. You are aware of that, right? And also if gene 3F60 has a certain recorded frequency of appearance it is a number and there is no room for bias. Nope, numbers are much more important than you care to give them credit. quote: No, not silly but you must realize that there is a difference between laboratory science and what is going on with evolutionary science. Evolutionary science has no “eggs” to test cooked or uncooked and thus has no “hard numbers” to evaluate so as to draw unbiased conclusions from. Since the advent of Genomics as an accurate science, what you say would be wrong.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/25/2017 3:33:47 PM)
vincentml: quote: Do you favor the idea that every gene pool now present on earth was present from the beginning of life on this planet and created by a supernatural power? Milesnmiles: quote: Yes I do, it seems a better version of how we got here. Although I don't believe it happened over night or in 144 hours. I believe it happened in a progression, over a period of time, much like building a house, you don't build the roof and then put a house underneath it. I don't really feel there are "new" gene pools here in the present day. I think that all the "new" gene pools are the reslut of the natural variations of the original gene pools, like wolves and dogs. There seems to be a contradiction here. You say all current gene pools were here from the beginning but then changed over time. Then you refer to the changes in the wolf gene pool. The earliest dogs were quite similar in morphology and behavior to wolves, so I am discounting all the man selected "breeds." I am fine with that but I do run into a problem when I consider the gene pool of humanoids. The human and primate gene pools seem very limited in time. Even the wolf gene pool is limited in time. The oldest primate fossil dates back some 55 million years. Presumably, there was an ancestor gene pool. We haven't found evidence of it in the fossil record yet. How much different was the morphology of the ancestor, I wonder? You agree that there has been change, that evolution has taken place, don't you? How different do you suppose was the morphology of the original gene pool of primates or wolves? Evolution here being defined as change in gene pool and resulting morphology over time. quote: Like I said in my answer to question 2, I think the answer lies in the natural variations of the original gene pools. Well, I must say without any intention of disrespect I see no difference in your belief and in the general belief of what Evolution is all about, except, and this is very important, in each gene stream we assume from lack of evidence there is such a radical change somewhere in time that we no longer identify the ancestor as similar creature to the progeny. There was an event at some time, we think, when there was such a radical change in the primate gene stream that humanoids must be recognized as a unique branch of the primate development. quote: Like I said in my answer to question 2, I think the answer lies in the natural variations of the original gene pools. Also I don't believe "God" is "supernatural", everything "God" does is in harmony with what is natural and is not above it or beyond it. I need some clarification of your thinking here. In your answer to my Question #1 you agreed that all gene pools at the beginning were created by a supernatural power. But here you say god is not supernatural but is One with Nature. (I am paraphrasing) I assume the first was not your true answer. Allow me to summarize my understanding of your narrative of the changing of life on this planet. Each gene pool was here from the beginning and changed over time. You believe in the natural variations of the gene pools. I see nothing different in your theory versus the more accepted theory of what evolution is except you say that change is the result of a natural moving force. Darwin OTOH, says change occurs in the gene pools because of changes in the environment. He does not say that the change in environment directly causes the change in the gene pool. He says instead, as you do, there are variants and some of these variants are better suited to the changes in environment so they survive in preference to the variants of their siblings. Here is what I don't get . . in your scheme what role does nature play in the change in the gene pool? Does the original designer come along and make adjustments? Thanks for your cooperation, MnM. I feel we are moving closer to an understanding.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 5:55:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ... Really? You feel I have insulted you? Care to point out the specific post #? Your post 215 says: quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ... He will not answer. He has no answers. He is simply a mindless critic. It says nothing about the OP and is directed at me and somehow does not seem to be a compliment. [8\|] Ahhh, I didn't realize you were so sensitive. I do apologize for my reckless comment. Thanx, a lot worse has been directed at me and I've lived, I'd just rather be talking about the OP.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 6:43:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: It seems that you do not understand what I’m saying. What you are saying here is exactly what I am saying to the evolutionists that say evolution is a “proven fact”. What is being said is a difference without a distinction as you might understand by reading Jay Gould's words here: SOURCE Each of the words "evolution", "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis. So, as you might perceive, words are often imprecise in their definition and uses. I don't recall ever reading a Court Opinion or Dictum asserting that we are bound to use the word "proven" according to the understanding of Mr. Milesnmiles. Perhaps our difference is in we all don't accept your detective story definition of "proven." And then is it proven beyond any reasonable doubt? Just how precise must the jury be? As far as I care you can give the words "proven" and "fact" any definition you want but when Evolutionists use them to say all other possibilities have been eliminated, then I have to say; "no they have not". quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Yes, as soon as a scientist starts to draw conclusions from the facts personal bias is often involved. Naaah..We do have a peer review system that challenges biases. You are aware of that, right? And you are aware that that "peer review system" does not always work, right? And if the peers that are reviewing have the same biases, that is a little like asking the fox to guard to hen house. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML And also if gene 3F60 has a certain recorded frequency of appearance it is a number and there is no room for bias. Nope, numbers are much more important than you care to give them credit. Actually, I like numbers and if something has a recorded frequency, then that is a fact but problems can arise when talking about what that fact means. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: No, not silly but you must realize that there is a difference between laboratory science and what is going on with evolutionary science. Evolutionary science has no “eggs” to test cooked or uncooked and thus has no “hard numbers” to evaluate so as to draw unbiased conclusions from. Since the advent of Genomics as an accurate science, what you say would be wrong. Genomics as an accurate science? I think you should wait a while before calling this fledgling science "accurate". At first it was thought once you have the genome recorded all you had to do was figure out which one did what but now they are finding out that it is not that simple.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 7:11:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ... Also I don't believe "God" is "supernatural", everything "God" does is in harmony with what is natural and is not above it or beyond it. I need some clarification of your thinking here. In your answer to my Question #1 you agreed that all gene pools at the beginning were created by a supernatural power. But here you say god is not supernatural but is One with Nature. (I am paraphrasing) I assume the first was not your true answer. ... I'm going to make a quick comment and will go back and address each point in more detailed posts. With question #1, I debated whether to answer the concept of the question first or immediately address the secondary side thought of God being supernatural. I can now see now that because I just addressed the concept you feel that I was somehow untruthful in my reply to question #1 and I apologize.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 8:52:13 AM)
quote: Genomics as an accurate science? I think you should wait a while before calling this fledgling science "accurate". At first it was thought once you have the genome recorded all you had to do was figure out which one did what but now they are finding out that it is not that simple. I'll give you that. It is not so simple since the discovery of epigenetics. But counting gene frequency and marking change in the DNA strands or in the gene alleles seems fairly straight forward. True, there are problems in peer review . . but THEY ARE PUBLISHED . . . and available for further review.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 8:57:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ... Also I don't believe "God" is "supernatural", everything "God" does is in harmony with what is natural and is not above it or beyond it. I need some clarification of your thinking here. In your answer to my Question #1 you agreed that all gene pools at the beginning were created by a supernatural power. But here you say god is not supernatural but is One with Nature. (I am paraphrasing) I assume the first was not your true answer. ... I'm going to make a quick comment and will go back and address each point in more detailed posts. With question #1, I debated whether to answer the concept of the question first or immediately address the secondary side thought of God being supernatural. I can now see now that because I just addressed the concept you feel that I was somehow untruthful in my reply to question #1 and I apologize. Good grief, you are a tad paranoid. I never doubted your integrity. Should I? I am looking forward to your explanation of how Nature (the Force) implements change in the gene pool. Does Nature just come along and make occasional adjustments? What is the mechanism?

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 10:49:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Do you favor the idea that every gene pool now present on earth was present from the beginning of life on this planet and created by a supernatural power? quote: Milesnmiles Yes I do, it seems a better version of how we got here. Although I don't believe it happened over night or in 144 hours. I believe it happened in a progression, over a period of time, much like building a house, you don't build the roof and then put a house underneath it. I don't really feel there are "new" gene pools here in the present day. I think that all the "new" gene pools are the result of the natural variations of the original gene pools, like wolves and dogs. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There seems to be a contradiction here. You say all current gene pools were here from the beginning but then changed over time. I guess I was unclear, what I’m saying is the gene pools once placed never changed. It’s just that the gene pools were not all plopped on the Earth at one time but were placed individually on the Earth over a period of time progressively and that that placement stopped a long time ago. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Then you refer to the changes in the wolf gene pool. The earliest dogs were quite similar in morphology and behavior to wolves, so I am discounting all the man selected "breeds." Again I was unclear, I do not believe that there have been changes to the wolf gene pool, only that dogs as well as wolves can be “dipped” from it. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I am fine with that but I do run into a problem when I consider the gene pool of humanoids. The human and primate gene pools seem very limited in time. Even the wolf gene pool is limited in time. The oldest primate fossil dates back some 55 million years. Presumably, there was an ancestor gene pool. We haven't found evidence of it in the fossil record yet. How much different was the morphology of the ancestor, I wonder? It seems you are trying to understand what I’m saying with an evolutionary mind set. Humanoids? Humans have their own gene pool and primates their own gene pools and there was no separate ancestor gene pool. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You agree that there has been change, that evolution has taken place, don't you? How different do you suppose was the morphology of the original gene pool of primates or wolves? Evolution here being defined as change in gene pool and resulting morphology over time. Yes, I agree that there has been change, and since the word evolution means change, I would say there has been evolution but simple change is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the concept of Evolution where one animal morphs into another and that I don’t agree with. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Like I said in my answer to question 2, I think the answer lies in the natural variations of the original gene pools. Well, I must say without any intention of disrespect I see no difference in your belief and in the general belief of what Evolution is all about, except, and this is very important, in each gene stream we assume from lack of evidence there is such a radical change somewhere in time that we no longer identify the ancestor as similar creature to the progeny. There was an event at some time, we think, when there was such a radical change in the primate gene stream that humanoids must be recognized as a unique branch of the primate development. No offence taken, the difference is that you see an Evolutionary “stream” and I see created “pools”. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: … Also I don't believe "God" is "supernatural", everything "God" does is in harmony with what is natural and is not above it or beyond it. I need some clarification of your thinking here. In your answer to my Question #1 you agreed that all gene pools at the beginning were created by a supernatural power. But here you say god is not supernatural but is One with Nature. (I am paraphrasing) I assume the first was not your true answer. I addressed this in post # 249 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Allow me to summarize my understanding of your narrative of the changing of life on this planet. Each gene pool was here from the beginning and changed over time. You believe in the natural variations of the gene pools. Once again, each gene pool was put here individually and except for some having gone extinct there has been no changing of those gene pools. Yes, there are natural variations of the what comes out of that gene pool; eye color, hair color, skin color, size and shape but that does not indicate that “Evolution” is taking place. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I see nothing different in your theory versus the more accepted theory of what evolution is except you say that change is the result of a natural moving force. Darwin OTOH, says change occurs in the gene pools because of changes in the environment. He does not say that the change in environment directly causes the change in the gene pool. He says instead, as you do, there are variants and some of these variants are better suited to the changes in environment so they survive in preference to the variants of their siblings. Here is what I don't get . . in your scheme what role does nature play in the change in the gene pool? Does the original designer come along and make adjustments? Again, the gene pools are not changing. Just because as you say; “some of these variants are better suited to the changes in environment so they survive in preference to the variants of their siblings”, that does not mean that then the “natural variations” of the siblings that don’t survive are removed from the gene pool, just that those variations may be “dormant” in the gene pool until needed at a later time. Nature does not change the gene pool. Nature may at one time according to need “dip” out certain qualities from the gene pool but that does not mean that Nature cannot at a future need “dip” out other qualities that have remained in the gene pool. As for “does the original designer come along and make adjustments”, he may in the future put as of now since the original placement he has not. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Thanks for your cooperation, MnM. I feel we are moving closer to an understanding. Thanx also for allowing me to express myself on this matter and I hope that you don’t think I’m trying to change your mind. I was taught as a youth that though discussion (debate) one can, if they listen, better understand, not just one side or both sides but the whole of a matter, to able to be able see where they want to stand on it. Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 11:30:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Genomics as an accurate science? I think you should wait a while before calling this fledgling science "accurate". At first it was thought once you have the genome recorded all you had to do was figure out which one did what but now they are finding out that it is not that simple. I'll give you that. It is not so simple since the discovery of epigenetics. But counting gene frequency and marking change in the DNA strands or in the gene alleles seems fairly straight forward. Aside from being a "backward ignorant numskull" who believes in "unscientific superstitious" Creation, I happen to like science. I have read with interest articles in Discover magazine and Scientific American, mostly on physics but genetics as well. One problem I see is that it seems that no matter how unrelated to the subject of "Evolution" the article may be, there is almost always a sentence or two about "Evolution" if not a paragraph or two and I'm left wondering why is this in this article? Could this be a case of ""The lady doth protest too much"? quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML True, there are problems in peer review . . but THEY ARE PUBLISHED . . . and available for further review. Not to put down peer review, I think for the most part it does it's job. But I think that Evolution is the 900 lb. gorilla in the room. Where does a 900 lb. gorilla sleep? Anywhere he wants to. Anyone that wants to argue against Evolution is considered a "backward ignorant numskull" who believes in "unscientific superstitious" Creation, just ask me I can cite examples. So, if you are a scientist writing up a proposal for say a two million dollar grant ...

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 11:36:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Do you favor the idea that every gene pool now present on earth was present from the beginning of life on this planet and created by a supernatural power? quote: Milesnmiles Yes I do, it seems a better version of how we got here. Although I don't believe it happened over night or in 144 hours. I believe it happened in a progression, over a period of time, much like building a house, you don't build the roof and then put a house underneath it. I don't really feel there are "new" gene pools here in the present day. I think that all the "new" gene pools are the result of the natural variations of the original gene pools, like wolves and dogs. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There seems to be a contradiction here. You say all current gene pools were here from the beginning but then changed over time. I guess I was unclear, what I’m saying is the gene pools once placed never changed. It’s just that the gene pools were not all plopped on the Earth at one time but were placed individually on the Earth over a period of time progressively and that that placement stopped a long time ago. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Then you refer to the changes in the wolf gene pool. The earliest dogs were quite similar in morphology and behavior to wolves, so I am discounting all the man selected "breeds." Again I was unclear, I do not believe that there have been changes to the wolf gene pool, only that dogs as well as wolves can be “dipped” from it. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I am fine with that but I do run into a problem when I consider the gene pool of humanoids. The human and primate gene pools seem very limited in time. Even the wolf gene pool is limited in time. The oldest primate fossil dates back some 55 million years. Presumably, there was an ancestor gene pool. We haven't found evidence of it in the fossil record yet. How much different was the morphology of the ancestor, I wonder? It seems you are trying to understand what I’m saying with an evolutionary mind set. Humanoids? Humans have their own gene pool and primates their own gene pools and there was no separate ancestor gene pool. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You agree that there has been change, that evolution has taken place, don't you? How different do you suppose was the morphology of the original gene pool of primates or wolves? Evolution here being defined as change in gene pool and resulting morphology over time. Yes, I agree that there has been change, and since the word evolution means change, I would say there has been evolution but simple change is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the concept of Evolution where one animal morphs into another and that I don’t agree with. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Like I said in my answer to question 2, I think the answer lies in the natural variations of the original gene pools. Well, I must say without any intention of disrespect I see no difference in your belief and in the general belief of what Evolution is all about, except, and this is very important, in each gene stream we assume from lack of evidence there is such a radical change somewhere in time that we no longer identify the ancestor as similar creature to the progeny. There was an event at some time, we think, when there was such a radical change in the primate gene stream that humanoids must be recognized as a unique branch of the primate development. No offence taken, the difference is that you see an Evolutionary “stream” and I see created “pools”. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: … Also I don't believe "God" is "supernatural", everything "God" does is in harmony with what is natural and is not above it or beyond it. I need some clarification of your thinking here. In your answer to my Question #1 you agreed that all gene pools at the beginning were created by a supernatural power. But here you say god is not supernatural but is One with Nature. (I am paraphrasing) I assume the first was not your true answer. I addressed this in post # 249 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Allow me to summarize my understanding of your narrative of the changing of life on this planet. Each gene pool was here from the beginning and changed over time. You believe in the natural variations of the gene pools. Once again, each gene pool was put here individually and except for some having gone extinct there has been no changing of those gene pools. Yes, there are natural variations of the what comes out of that gene pool; eye color, hair color, skin color, size and shape but that does not indicate that “Evolution” is taking place. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I see nothing different in your theory versus the more accepted theory of what evolution is except you say that change is the result of a natural moving force. Darwin OTOH, says change occurs in the gene pools because of changes in the environment. He does not say that the change in environment directly causes the change in the gene pool. He says instead, as you do, there are variants and some of these variants are better suited to the changes in environment so they survive in preference to the variants of their siblings. Here is what I don't get . . in your scheme what role does nature play in the change in the gene pool? Does the original designer come along and make adjustments? Again, the gene pools are not changing. Just because as you say; “some of these variants are better suited to the changes in environment so they survive in preference to the variants of their siblings”, that does not mean that then the “natural variations” of the siblings that don’t survive are removed from the gene pool, just that those variations may be “dormant” in the gene pool until needed at a later time. Nature does not change the gene pool. Nature may at one time according to need “dip” out certain qualities from the gene pool but that does not mean that Nature cannot at a future need “dip” out other qualities that have remained in the gene pool. As for “does the original designer come along and make adjustments”, he may in the future put as of now since the original placement he has not. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Thanks for your cooperation, MnM. I feel we are moving closer to an understanding. Thanx also for allowing me to express myself on this matter and I hope that you don’t think I’m trying to change your mind. I was taught as a youth that though discussion (debate) one can, if they listen, better understand, not just one side or both sides but the whole of a matter, to able to be able see where they want to stand on it. Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 MnM, you made an excellent statement of your position! Give me some time to ponder and gnaw on what you said and I will reply. Thank you.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 12:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ... MnM, you made an excellent statement of your position! Give me some time to ponder and gnaw on what you said and I will reply. Thank you. Take your time, like I said, I do this for fun and have other interests, probably like you do, so I won't be sitting at my computer, waiting for your answer but I am interested in what you will have to say.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 2:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ... MnM, you made an excellent statement of your position! Give me some time to ponder and gnaw on what you said and I will reply. Thank you. Take your time, like I said, I do this for fun and have other interests, probably like you do, so I won't be sitting at my computer, waiting for your answer but I am interested in what you will have to say. Okay, let's take a piece of your thesis for examination. You say that each gene pool in existence today is an original but "created" by Nature at a different time in Earth's history. You say that on occasion Nature will somehow adjust a change in a gene pool, so there are variants. Questions: 1. How does Nature accomplish the adjustments? 2. What evidence or observations can you provide for your assertion that each gene pool is original? 3. It follows that since each gene pool is an original the changes you confirm are too small to drift into forming the gene pool of a different creature. What mechanism limits the size of the gene pool changes to prevent speciation? What evidence do you have for the inability of a gene pool to morph into a new species? 4. Chimp and human gene pools are distinguished by only about 2% difference in genes. a) Does that small difference mean they share the same gene pool? b) Does that small difference mean they are the same creature? c) Isn't it possible that differences in morphological traits caused by the difference in genes makes for different creatures? In other words it is not the difference in genotype alone but also the changes in the resulting phenotypes that makes creatures different from one another? Or another way to think of this, isn't it possible that speciation results depending on WHICH genes have been adjusted? What are your thoughts, MnM?

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/26/2017 5:22:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Okay, let's take a piece of your thesis for examination. You say that each gene pool in existence today is an original but "created" by Nature at a different time in Earth's history. A couple of things, one I don't believe nature to be the Creator, I think of nature more as the mechanism that the Creator set in motion in the beginning, like sunrise sunset winter spring summer fall. Also I may have mislead you a bit when I said the gene pools were not placed all at the same time, which I believe is true but I was just trying to indicate that they were placed in a logical order plants first animals next then man and over a long time but not over a Evolutionary long time of billions of years. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You say that on occasion Nature will somehow adjust a change in a gene pool, so there are variants. Questions: 1. How does Nature accomplish the adjustments? Nature does not adjust the gene pools, the gene pools already have all the variations that are needed for survival so that as circumstances change they can produce whatever is needed to survive and then change back if need be. quote: 2. What evidence or observations can you provide for your assertion that each gene pool is original? As one poster remarked, one observation is that there are no "dats or cogs" and the fossil record does not show them either. Also the fossil record does not show the gradual change of Darwin's survival of the fittest but a "punctuated equilibrium" that seems to me to be a better fit of a placement of a large number of gene pools rather than that of Evolution. quote: 3. It follows that since each gene pool is an original the changes you confirm are too small to drift into forming the gene pool of a different creature. What mechanism limits the size of the gene pool changes to prevent speciation? What evidence do you have for the inability of a gene pool to morph into a new species? As for evidence, the observable nature of hybrids seems to indicate that there is something that prevents crossbreeding a lasting result. Evolution theory, wants us to believe it happened and so, not a lot of study has been done to find out exactly what the mechanism is that seems to prevent Evolution from occurring. From my view point the number of chromosomes seems to be a factor. quote: 4. Chimp and human gene pools are distinguished by only about 2% difference in genes. a) Does that small difference mean they share the same gene pool? No, I don't believe so. quote: b) Does that small difference mean they are the same creature? No, I don't believe so. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, chimpanzee and the other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. quote: c) Isn't it possible that differences in morphological traits caused by the difference in genes makes for different creatures? In other words it is not the difference in genotype alone but also the changes in the resulting phenotypes that makes creatures different from one another? Or another way to think of this, isn't it possible that speciation results depending on WHICH genes have been adjusted? One of the reasoning points that Evolution uses is that DNA is in all living things and so that means all life must come from the same source. I believe the same thing but disagree on the source. So, yes, I believe that speciation results from which genes have been adjusted, I just think that adjustment was made once for all time and not on an ongoing basis. quote: What are your thoughts, MnM? Well there's my two cents worth. ;-)

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/27/2017 5:03:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Okay, let's take a piece of your thesis for examination. You say that each gene pool in existence today is an original but "created" by Nature at a different time in Earth's history. A couple of things, one I don't believe nature to be the Creator, I think of nature more as the mechanism that the Creator set in motion in the beginning, like sunrise sunset winter spring summer fall. Essentially you are a creationist, Miles. Also I may have mislead you a bit when I said the gene pools were not placed all at the same time, which I believe is true but I was just trying to indicate that they were placed in a logical order plants first animals next then man and over a long time but not over a Evolutionary long time of billions of years. That is human logic. The Creator might have a different logic, hey? quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You say that on occasion Nature will somehow adjust a change in a gene pool, so there are variants. Questions: 1. How does Nature accomplish the adjustments? Nature does not adjust the gene pools, the gene pools already have all the variations that are needed for survival so that as circumstances change they can produce whatever is needed to survive and then change back if need be. quote: 2. What evidence or observations can you provide for your assertion that each gene pool is original? As one poster remarked, one observation is that there are no "dats or cogs" and the fossil record does not show them either. That's a misinformed mischaracterization of Evolution Theory. No evolutionist ever suggested that cats and dogs are closely related in the proess. Also the fossil record does not show the gradual change of Darwin's survival of the fittest but a "punctuated equilibrium" that seems to me to be a better fit of a placement of a large number of gene pools rather than that of Evolution. Gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium is simply an (important) in house dispute. Neither side denies evolution; neither side champions creationism. quote: 3. It follows that since each gene pool is an original the changes you confirm are too small to drift into forming the gene pool of a different creature. What mechanism limits the size of the gene pool changes to prevent speciation? What evidence do you have for the inability of a gene pool to morph into a new species? As for evidence, the observable nature of hybrids seems to indicate that there is something that prevents crossbreeding a lasting result. You are selecting for convenience, Miles. But, since you selected non-fertile hybrids you will see here that you are wrong. This is a list of genetic hybrids which is limited to well documented cases of animals of differing species able to create hybrid offspring which may or may not be infertile. and you were not aware that some progeny can carry on the line . . . Evolution theory, wants us to believe it happened and so, not a lot of study has been done to find out exactly what the mechanism is that seems to prevent Evolution from occurring. From my view point the number of chromosomes seems to be a factor. Evolutionary theory doesn't want for anything. Creationism "scientists" have no original research to support their claims. They are almost entirely focused on criticism of evolution. quote: 4. Chimp and human gene pools are distinguished by only about 2% difference in genes. a) Does that small difference mean they share the same gene pool? No, I don't believe so. quote: b) Does that small difference mean they are the same creature? No, I don't believe so. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, chimpanzee and the other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. quote: The number of chromosomes are only one barrier to inter-species breeding: predator/prey relationships; different hormones; different sex organ sizes, different habitat, etc c) Isn't it possible that differences in morphological traits caused by the difference in genes makes for different creatures? In other words it is not the difference in genotype alone but also the changes in the resulting phenotypes that makes creatures different from one another? Or another way to think of this, isn't it possible that speciation results depending on WHICH genes have been adjusted? One of the reasoning points that Evolution uses is that DNA is in all living things and so that means all life must come from the same source. Well, you skipped past my question about which genes have "adjusted." We have TONS of examples of gene changes that effect the gains or loss of specific functions and specific morphology. Google "mutations" Miles.And DNA is in all living things. True dat! And the organic base differences have different sequences to form their genetic code. I believe the same thing but disagree on the source. Yes, I understand you are a creationist. So, yes, I believe that speciation results from which genes have been adjusted, I just think that adjustment was made once for all time and not on an ongoing basis. [:D] When next we have a major geological catastrophe I will point out the new species to you' You seem to have a major contradiction here Miles. You agree there are genetic variations but they are not so important if speciation has been arrested. An interesting side note: if speciation has been frozen and we have lost species with each of the five great catastrophes, sooner or later all life will go extinct on earth, Eh? quote: What are your thoughts, MnM? Well there's my two cents worth. ;-) Thanks for the discussion, Miles. It was a pleasure.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/28/2017 12:10:20 AM)
Essentially you are a creationist, Miles. I would say that depends on what you consider a creationist to be. Yes, I believe there was a Creator but the term creationist has come to mean certain beliefs that I do not hold such as the Earth only being a few thousand years old and that creation was accomplished in 144 hours. That is human logic. The Creator might have a different logic, hey? Perhaps. That's a misinformed mischaracterization of Evolution Theory. No evolutionist ever suggested that cats and dogs are closely related in the proess. And that is a misinformed mischaracterization of what I was saying, there are no intermediary species to be seen now and the fossil record is strangely missing them as well. Also the fossil record does not show the gradual change of Darwin's survival of the fittest but a "punctuated equilibrium" that seems to me to be a better fit of a placement of a large number of gene pools rather than that of Evolution. Gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium is simply an (important) in house dispute. Neither side denies evolution; neither side champions creationism. I wasn't pointing out the disagreements that Evolution has in house, although they have plenty, I was pointing out that the fossil record points to what Evolutionists have called punctuated equilibrium and that seems to point to the placement of a large number of gene pools rather than that of Evolution. You are selecting for convenience, Miles. But, since you selected non-fertile hybrids you will see here that you are wrong. This is a list of genetic hybrids which is limited to well documented cases of animals of differing species able to create hybrid offspring which may or may not be infertile. and you were not aware that some progeny can carry on the line . . . Perhaps I am “selecting for convenience” but you seem to be forgetting your definition of species which is why I asked to begin with. You more than likely consider wolves and dogs to be different “species” and so interbreeding between a wolf and a dog to you is a viable hybrid but I don’t consider them to be different “species” and thus their pups are not a hybrid. Whereas horses and mules appear to be different “species” and seem to indicate that there is something that prevents crossbreeding a lasting result. Evolutionary theory doesn't want for anything. Semantics? Please. [8\|] Creationism "scientists" have no original research to support their claims. They are almost entirely focused on criticism of evolution. Kinda of like Evolutionary "scientists" keep trying to remove God from everyone's life. The number of chromosomes are only one barrier to inter-species breeding: predator/prey relationships; different hormones; different sex organ sizes, different habitat, etc True, thanks for helping make my point. Well, you skipped past my question about which genes have "adjusted." We have TONS of examples of gene changes that effect the gains or loss of specific functions and specific morphology. Google "mutations" Miles. And DNA is in all living things. True dat! And the organic base differences have different sequences to form their genetic code. Skip past? You want me to point out the specific genes that make one species different from another? Geneticists haven’t even recorded the genomes of all living things yet so even they couldn’t tell you that yet. Yes, I understand you are a creationist. As I pointed out, yes, I tend to believe that we got here by creation but as I said “Creationists” tend to believe things like the “young Earth” and I do not. [:D] When next we have a major geological catastrophe I will point out the new species to you' You seem to have a major contradiction here Miles. You agree there are genetic variations but they are not so important if speciation has been arrested. No contradiction at all, as I have already said eye color, hair color, skin color, height and size are all genetic variations. If someone has blue eyes and another brown or if someone is very tall like a Watusi and another very short like a Pygmy does that somehow make them different “species”? No, they are just are just natural genetic variations of the gene pool of mankind. An interesting side note: if speciation has been frozen and we have lost species with each of the five great catastrophes, sooner or later all life will go extinct on earth, Eh? Nope, God will step in and stop mankind from destroying everything; oh wait, you’re an evolutionist, well good luck with that extinction thing. Thanks for the discussion, Miles. It was a pleasure. It was my pleasure as well. ;-)

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/28/2017 11:12:58 AM)
quote: Creationism "scientists" have no original research to support their claims. They are almost entirely focused on criticism of evolution. Kinda of like Evolutionary "scientists" keep trying to remove God from everyone's life. Your answer is interesting and revealing, Miles. It shows that you have no reply to my point that creationists lack any original research (expanded here) or observations of their own but rest their entire system of belief on criticisms of the evidence for evolution. Particularly, you seem to want us to present every "missing link" and if we were able to do that (never mind that soft tissue is rarely fossilized) you still would not be satisfied, but would move the goal posts further back. So, instead of answering my comment directly you deflect into a totally unrelated accusation. Let's examine the accusation that we lack any record of evolutionary relationships: Probably along with the transition to flight the transition from water dwelling to land dwelling is another major sequence of events. What would be needed? Evidence of the emergence of "appendages" for locomotion on land and the emergence of an air breathing organ. In the 1930s a fish long thought to exist only in the fossil record was caught off the coast of Africa. The Coelacanth has lobed fins fore and aft and caudal. These fleshy fins, precursors to terrestrial appendages, are found in other evolutionary lines of fish and in salamanders. Examination of the coelacanth's genome ruled it out as a direct ancestor to the salamander, even though it has a single vestigial lung. There are a number of species of lung fish both fossil and living, that demonstrate various combinations of terrestrial appendages and functional lungs, who spend most of their lives in water. There are a number of species of salamanders that vary in gills/lungs and fins/appendages, and in their habitats, but spend much of their lives on "wet" land. It seems pretty clear that the transition from sea dwelling to land dwelling has been well demonstrated in the organs of these lung fish and salamanders. Now you may wish to say they all exhibit the same genome. You probably could find the answer to that question in some scientific publication. I doubt you could find the answer in the publications of some creationist cults. If you do, please give me a nudge as I would be most interested in seeing the creationist's DNA evidence. Can you offer a rebuttal to the evidence for the transition of life from sea to land as I have displayed it? It would be most satisfying coming from the work of a creationist scholar of course. Regards, Miles

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625