Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, change in allele frequency over time , these mechanisms/processes generate NO new genetic information, on the contrary selection and speciation thin genetic variation. They have NOTHING to do with the alleged origin of all life on earth being a single organism BILLIONS of years ago other than university teachers INTENTIONALLY omitting that they are NOT sufficient for alleged process. There is no source of bulk amounts of NEW genetic information. Neofunctionalization for the most part is delusional (look at someone with trisomy). CF, PKU, sickle cell anemia- ONE base substitutions. Teachers INTENTIONALLY omit that sickle cell trait- a 'beneficial' mutation- is a LOSS of function mutation. The beta globin protein gets WRECKED a little. IT IS THE GREATEST MYTH IN DOCUMENTED HISTORY (6,000 years). I wouldnt want to be a biology/genetics university teacher facing God when they die, my goodness, they will have HELL to pay.
We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.
—Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution
Highly recommend his book.
I actually agree with most of what you say as long as you understand that there is no evidence of god either...
Darn. You're uncovered our plot. We've been meeting secretly, underground, in the dark and have completely hoodwinked the ignorant masses for 150 years. But now you've exposed us. What am I going to do with my evil nature now? Kick cats?
I already got banned within 4 hours or so from one science forum today for writing the above and questioning religious dogma (atheism) please let me know if it is not tolerated here so i can ease up a bit and save myself another ban. Cat 'evidence' of God i will assume you mean the God of genesis. The god of supernatural 6 day literal biblical creation. The fact you asked me and i am typing this now proves creation happened (i would say). By adding up the timelines in the bible one arrives at a date of ~6,000 years since creation/fall of man ( i have added up the genealogies in Genesis 5 and got 1656 years from creation-->Noahs flood)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV
I am yet to do the other genealogies but have read Usshers timeline etc.
How far does written history go back?
It starts around the 4th millennium BC, with the invention of writing.
Its age of around 4844–4845 years[a] makes it the world's oldest known living non-clonal organism. The ancient tree is named after Methuselah, a Biblical figure having the longest mentioned lifespan in the Bible of 969 years.
Scientific predictions-Creation predicts a 7 day week, an orderly and logical universe,animals that bring forth after their kind (there is speciation within kinds- Darwins finches, all the great variety of dogs, tigers and lions are likely the same kind given that a 'liger' has been bred), and most notable, since the temptation by the snake in the garden of Eden and sin (this part has 'baggage' so to speak)-decay, death, disease, entropy, decline etc etc.
Noahs ark predicts- Speciation event (all the animals of the earth in one place at one time released, they head off in little groups, low population sizes, low predation etc etc) and dead things buried everywhere from organisms getting buried in mud/sediment quickly.
Tower of babel predicts- Language diversity and different ethnicity of mankind (People all gathered in one place at one time, head off, no gene flow between different little population groups etc).
PROOF of indoctrination.
Apparent teleology is a recurring issue in evolutionary biology, much to the consternation of some writers
Statements which imply that nature has goals, for example where a species is said to do something "in order to" achieve survival, appear teleological, and therefore invalid. Usually, it is possible to rewrite such sentences to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically. Nevertheless, biologists still frequently write in a way which can be read as implying teleology even if that is not the intention
Jinx25, I have no idea what you are talking about.
1. We exist.
2. Archeological evidence says that at some point we did not exist (on this planet).
3. Therefore, at some point we were created/came into existence.
The question is whether we were created deliberately by some entity (God) OR are we hear by accident of random events (through process of evolution).
I am all for the entity - BUT there is NO evidence. There will NEVER be proof (unless time travel is invented that is)...
You are a young earth Christian creationist yet you are advocating a Jewish old earth creationist book by Lee Spetner?
Lol, I was the user who added that quote to his wikipedia page a year ago. The book is outdated now and by the way Spetner now accepts that beneficial mutations do occur. Most mutations are neutral. Do the correct research. Not all mutations reduce genetic information.
There are millions of concepts of Gods, what about the Pagan, Hindu, Muslim or other Christian concepts of God/s?
The Bible has been personally interpreted, there is no agreed definition or interpetation. Christian progessive creationists, old earth creationists, gap creationists or theistic evolutionists would disagree with young earth creationist literal biblical creation yet all these groups still claim to be Christian.
Evolution is not random.
Forests Spetner is a YEC. Mutations are PILING up Haldane, Kandrashov ALL KNOW IT. Sanford modeled it. There is NO genetic mechanism for going from simple (prokaroyte)---->complex (brachiosaurus/trex/mankind).
For a good laugh i enjoy channels like this and MOCKING Darwins myths.
http://www.youtube.com/user/stevebee926 ... w=0&page=2
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/CSE/mem ... ture99.pdf
Please dont dismiss it before reading it.
Lee Spetner is a Jewish creationist, have you spoken to him over email? I thought not, he accepts the Big Bang and evidence for an old universe, as I said he is an old earth creationist.
Listen, the standard answer any modern day "neo-Darwinist" will give you will be this:
"Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment."
According to neo-Darwinists, natural selection is not random but genetic mechanisms such as genetic drift and mutations are.
As I have expressed in other posts, I am not a "neo-Darwinist". I am interested in non-Darwinian evolution. If we read books and papers such as those published by biologist James. A. Shapiro we can see the genetic evolutionary mechanisms are not random. According to the work of Shapiro and other scientists the main reason for biological novelty is not random mutations but genetic and genomic change by a variety of natural genetic engineering agents, competent to (re)regulate, alter and invent genomic sequences and formatting, all of them coordinated, not random.
I used to have an interest in creationism not becuase I endorsed creationism but becuase I wanted to see what arguments the creationists were using so I have read many of those books and communicated with many creationist and intelligent designers over email.
As I said Lee Spetner is a physicist, he does not have much background in biology, this is not to dismiss his arguments without looking at them but his book contains scientific mistakes and it is quite old now. I wanted to know what Spetner believed in so I emailed him a few years ago, as he told me and as he has told others he now accepts that not all mutations are harmful, but he still believes mutations are not driving evolution. He also accepts evidence for an old universe.
I created this section last year on wikipedia which will probably interest you:
As you can see both Christian and Hindu creationists are claiming devolution, ie mutations are all harmful and the result of a curse etc. Of course you can choose to believe in this if you want, but science does not support these claims.
Last edited by Forests on Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests