jaybird18c

Why not cite the scientists from Answers in Genesis? They clearly demonstrate that there is not consensus on the subject. Gene Duplication

Evolution Refuted

I do understand the need to make it all work out, however, with the magical factor of millions of years. Too much is at stake. The entire framework for the prevailing atheistic/naturalistic worldview that has been fostered and "established" as fundamental to the understanding and study of biology must be protected at all costs. It has become the golden calf of the majority of the scientific community (since the "Enlightenment").

You're focusing on me instead of the topic of conversation.

Just to review what was said: Variability and natural selection were described in the statement above. It was then implied that more sophistication could develop over long periods of survivability. There was no mention of mutation. I responded with this: ***Reproduction occurs and genes are passed along to offspring. Some offspring receive traits which give them a survival advantage in a particular environment. Those genes keep getting passed along and the organism becomes more specialized for its environment. The other offspring, without the genetic advantages, tend to die off. The specialization leads to a net loss of genetic information. This is the exact opposite situation needed for an organism to increase in complexity. It is in fact de-evolution in the NDT evolution sense of the term. Variation occurs and gives a survival advantage to some. We can see that. However, that is not the kind of change you’re looking for in order for molecules-to-man “evolution” to take place. I’ll use one quote to describe what you’re trying to do with natural selection. “You can’t lose a little money on every sale and expect to make it up in volume.” Even modern evolutionists (New Darwinian Theory) don’t agree with what you said. They had to add random mutation combined with natural selection and billions of years in order to make it work. Natural selection is not a creative process. It conserves those traits of the “fittest” and discards those of the “weak” (e.g. loss of information). Those original traits cannot be recovered, even in part, unless you were able to cross-breed them back with some that didn’t die off. Even then, you’d still be working with a quantifiable amount of information that you began with. Nothing would exist by which you could build in complexity to “the next level.” Now, the mutation and millions of years is another argument but you’re going to need something else that what you’re describing with natural selection. Most mutations are destructive in nature. Some mutations, however, (e.g. bacterial resistance) may in fact give a survival advantage; however, that is also a net loss of meaningful information. Survivability and specialization does not equate to increase in complexity. Even with the bacterial example, the bacteria has mutated and “lost” the ability to respond to the antibiotic. It may prolong its line but it cannot do anything to make it “change” into something else altogether. Again, you’re back to where we started…simply variation and specialization within a kind. In the end, it’s still just a bacterium.

Reproduction occurs and genes are passed along to offspring. Some offspring receive traits which give them a survival advantage in a particular environment. Those genes keep getting passed along and the organism becomes more specialized for its environment. The other offspring, without the genetic advantages, tend to die off. The specialization leads to a net loss of genetic information. This is the exact opposite situation needed for an organism to increase in complexity. It is in fact de-evolution in the NDT evolution sense of the term. Variation occurs and gives a survival advantage to some. We can see that. However, that is not the kind of change you’re looking for in order for molecules-to-man “evolution” to take place. I’ll use one quote to describe what you’re trying to do with natural selection. “You can’t lose a little money on every sale and expect to make it up in volume.” Even modern evolutionists (New Darwinian Theory) don’t agree with what you said. They had to add random mutation combined with natural selection and billions of years in order to make it work. Natural selection is not a creative process. It conserves those traits of the “fittest” and discards those of the “weak” (e.g. loss of information). Those original traits cannot be recovered, even in part, unless you were able to cross-breed them back with some that didn’t die off. Even then, you’d still be working with a quantifiable amount of information that you began with. Nothing would exist by which you could build in complexity to “the next level.” Now, the mutation and millions of years is another argument but you’re going to need something else that what you’re describing with natural selection.

Wrong. Will post more in a while when I get back.

How often do I cut and paste or link something? I understand... Rationalization is the key.

The Force is weak with you.

You mean like the YouTube video posted by jclalor? What's the difference?

I watched the entire thing and no...NOVA's "unbiased documentary" did not make its case. For reasons mentioned in the above article. Similarity in building materials does not solve the problem. Entertaining drama in the video...but little substance.

And what blows their mind even more is that our God is personal. Every invisible friend is personal. Try again. Do you ever have anything of substance to add to the conversation. I admit, your grammer is superb but it still amounts to a whole lot of nothing. Kind of like having a bucket of sand at the beach. You know... ......so what?

Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution. ‘Irreducible complexity’ is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap—a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint, and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. [SA 84] Indeed, it does (see diagram below). Bacterial flagellum with rotary motor, with the following features: Self assembly and repair Water-cooled rotary engine Proton motive force drive system Forward and reverse gears Operating speeds of up to 100,000 rpm Direction reversing capability within 1/4 of a turn Hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory [from Bacterial Flagella: Paradigm for Design, video, ] He makes similar points about the blood’s clotting mechanism and other molecular systems. Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. [SA 84] Miller is hardly the epitome of reliability. Behe has also responded to critics such as Miller.7 In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. [SA 84] This actually comes from the National Center for Science Education’s misuses of the research of Dr Scott Minnich, a geneticist and associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho. He is a world-class expert on the flagellum who says that belief in design has given him many research insights. His research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C, and instead some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum, which Minnich says came first although it is more complex.8 The key is that the flagellum’s component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. [SA 84] Actually, what Behe says he means by irreducible complexity is that the flagellum could not work without about 40 protein components all organized in the right way. Scientific American’s argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. [SA 84] Minnich points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines, so is in itself irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity

And what blows their mind even more is that our God is personal.

Except for the 'irreducible complexity' of that intelligent mind, of course. Yeah, so very reasonable. As opposed to?... At least I have an unmoved mover. You're grasping at straws out of thin air. Reasonable?

Maybe you don't have the burden of proving God does not exist but you do have the burden to prove that the universe did in fact come into existence ex nihilo by some other naturalistic means (if that is your atheistic stance).....or that it has always been, on its own (which you cannot prove scientifically). If you could prove such a thing, you would prove what you said you didn't have to in the first place, though. Good luck! Seems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.

A term made up by creationist and used only by creationist. Same with 'historical science. You're funny. Ok then, how about testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable experimentation (operational) versus interpreting past events based on presupposed philosophical viewpoints (historical). Added: Lunchtime!

We're looking at the same evidence. I've got no problem with that which we can show to be true (operational science). You just also take speculative (historical science) investigation and assume a solid foundation from which to further your understanding built upon your atheistic assumptions. I see the exact same evidence and approach it from the other perspective. You can't adequately "prove" yours. I can't adequately "prove" mine...at least scientifically. The difference is, I admit my starting point and how it influences my interpretation. You do not admit yours. You take your unprovable position and establish it as absolute. Again, I do the same. We just disagree. I happen to think mine is more reasonable. I understand that you do the same.

There is no unified theory. You're treating quantum physics as such. The problem still exists. Thing is though, since you apparently can't be bothered to read even the anti science propaganda nonsense you link to, what makes you think your opinions about actual science will have any basis whatsoever? You have presuppositions just like I do (which you cannot prove scientifically). You see mine and think that I am anti-science which is untrue. I see yours and just better understand where you're coming from. I understand how your initial assumptions would then influence how you see everything else. It's your worldview. I happen to disagree with it. Added: Again, your assumption concerning what I've read is incorrect. I have a bookshelf full of this stuff...and not all by creationists. How can you be sure you're even reading this?

But you've got to say the same thing in reverse. Like I said before, it is your presupposition/assumption on which you build everything else. Nothing wrong with that...but it is what it is. Scientists did not always approach science in that way. It used to be that we explored our world/universe in an attempt to better understand the mind of God. Since the "Great Enlightenment", the trend has been to elliminate God from the equation and insert ourselves in His place (greatly increasing our arrogance). Belief does not negate science. How could it? God is at it's foundation.

There is no unified theory. You're treating quantum physics as such. The problem still exists.

The Bible is not meant to be a science book, however, where it touches on the scientific subjects, it is spot on. Incredibly spot on. It was penned by human beings moved by the Holy Spirit (e.g. It's the Word of God). The theological term is Plenary Inspiration. It means that God inspired the writers to write exactly as He directed without taking away from their individuality, personality, writing styles, personal input, etc. Since it is the Word of God primarily written by men, it is authoritative in what it claims and describes. The "scientific knowledge" of the men at the time is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure God is more "up on" physics than even Kallend or that Queen bandmember with a PhD.

That's ironic. Typing fast....sorry. I understand that you think any opposing view is a crock of shit steve. However, Professor Richard Lewontin would disagree with you...and he's not with AiG.

No doubt about that. We can test and show that to be true. That's not the point. It is an assumption that it has always been that way (with regard to origins). I admit, a good assumption, based on the evidence of what we see today, and coming from a materialistic point of view. The quote above, however, was really in reference to NDT Evolution (molecules-to-man). The Bronze Age comment is derrogatory, presumptive, and just plain ignorant. Really goes back to what I've talked about before with regard to our worldview, our assumptions based on that worldview, which in turn influences how we interpret the evidence. The quote that I posted above is very telling. It seems to be a great example of the bias in the scientific community. The same bias that was discussed in Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed." Then again, that Harvard Professor is probably not in the same category as Kallend. He's probably an idiot also. Probably in the same category as that Queen bandmember with a PhD....or anyone else who disagrees with the atheistic evolutionary worldview....who claims to be a scientist.

Interesting…