Creationism is nonsense

Temujin said:
As this is compatible with what I said, and you don't understand that, I would suggest that it is your learning that is inadequate here. Or maybe you are just dishonest. Let's look at the full paragraph from which you selected this quote:

" The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. Within finite populations, random genetic drift and natural selection affect the mutational variation. Natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, the fit between organism and environment, or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift."

Just for fun, I highlighted the sections you redacted. Guess what? They blow your position out of the water. What you have been caught red-handed doing here is selective quote mining, as close to outright lying as makes no difference. Not only does it highlight your dishonesty but it also reveals a significant fact regarding your position in general. The only way to get authoritative figures with a known pedigree in this field to agree with your position is to lie about what they actually say.

Gosh! Science makes new discovery about gene switches! That's what science is all about. Uncovering the real world, expanding knowledge and banishing lies.
Click to expand...
Bump for @Cisco Qid. Any response to this? Any defence of your blatantly dishonest quotemining? Or will you just keep running?
 
Temujin said:
As this is compatible with what I said, and you don't understand that, I would suggest that it is your learning that is inadequate here. Or maybe you are just dishonest. Let's look at the full paragraph from which you selected this quote:

" The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. Within finite populations, random genetic drift and natural selection affect the mutational variation. Natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, the fit between organism and environment, or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift."

Just for fun, I highlighted the sections you redacted. Guess what? They blow your position out of the water. What you have been caught red-handed doing here is selective quote mining, as close to outright lying as makes no difference. Not only does it highlight your dishonesty but it also reveals a significant fact regarding your position in general. The only way to get authoritative figures with a known pedigree in this field to agree with your position is to lie about what they actually say.
Click to expand...
The full context of the definition still states what I original stated and is not contradictory as want to claim. Mutations and genetic drift are dispersive forces contradictory to your statement that mutations are creative forces. When in fact all that they do is create variation in fully functional genes. The trouble with evolution is that it can only proceed from fully functional genes and create slight variations without any idea of how the fully functional genes got there in the first place which explains why you don't have a theory for the origin of life. This is also the reason why your group ostentatiously claims that evolution is dichotomized into two fields one for the origin of life and one for changes in life in its fully functional form. But in reality the second is dependent on the first. But on top of this you ignore the fact that woollier sheep were produced without mutations or new genes but rather from already pre-existing funcitonal genes in selective breeding which lends to the fact that the information was already in the genome.

Temujin said:
Gosh! Science makes new discovery about gene switches! That's what science is all about. Uncovering the real world, expanding knowledge and banishing lies.
Click to expand...
The lie or rather the false premise was that the human genome was composed of a vast sea of useless "junk DNA" which most Darwinists used as justification for the cliam that gene production was a mindless stochastic process and for which ID had already predicted beforehand undiscovered function. It is composed of at least 13% switches which you now want to assimilate as evidence for evolution.
 
J regia said:
But according to your biblical ID theory we all came from only one person, and we should therefore all be mirror images of each other.
So what blood group was that person, and was it AA or BB or AB or AO or BO or OO?
And did that person have blue eyes or brown eyes or green eyes?
And was that person a blonde or a brunette or a redhead?
Click to expand...
But according to you we came from a common ancestor, what's the difference?
 
Cisco Qid said:
Mutations and genetic drift are dispersive forces contradictory to your statement that mutations are creative forces. When in fact all that they do is create variation in fully functional genes.
Click to expand...
Do you not read this rubbish from your lying sources before you post it? You post that mutations are not "creative" and in the next sentence you say that mutations "create variation". Is it any wonder that your self-contradictory arguments get nowhere? Your sources are contradicting themselves, as well as being wrong.

Mutations do indeed "create variation in fully functional genes". They also create variation in partially functional genes, in non-functional pseudogenes and in completely non-functional DNA as well. All DNA is subject to mutations. Again your lying sources are telling you lies.

Apart from anything else, you need to look at the definitions of an exon and an intron in a gene. Learning stuff like that might help you avoid parroting the more obvious lies your sources tell you.
 
Cisco Qid said:
But according to you we came from a common ancestor, what's the difference?
Click to expand...
The difference is that we have an explanation for the fact that there are three types: A, B, O. You, on the other hand, have not provided any explanation at all.

Science likes to explain things. Failure to explain is counted as a scientific failure.
 
Cisco Qid said:
The full context of the definition still states what I original stated and is not contradictory as want to claim. Mutations and genetic drift are dispersive forces contradictory to your statement that mutations are creative forces. When in fact all that they do is create variation in fully functional genes. The trouble with evolution is that it can only proceed from fully functional genes and create slight variations without any idea of how the fully functional genes got there in the first place which explains why you don't have a theory for the origin of life. This is also the reason why your group ostentatiously claims that evolution is dichotomized into two fields one for the origin of life and one for changes in life in its fully functional form. But in reality the second is dependent on the first. But on top of this you ignore the fact that woollier sheep were produced without mutations or new genes but rather from already pre-existing funcitonal genes in selective breeding which lends to the fact that the information was already in the genome.


The lie or rather the false premise was that the human genome was composed of a vast sea of useless "junk DNA" which most Darwinists used as justification for the cliam that gene production was a mindless stochastic process and for which ID had already predicted beforehand undiscovered function. It is composed of at least 13% switches which you now want to assimilate as evidence for evolution.
Click to expand...
As @rossum has pointed out, this reply is internally self-contradictory. You also seem incapable of grasping that science assimilates new information and moves on, unlike creationism which smothers new information and perpetuates failed arguments against scientific ideas prevalent decades ago.

What you have not addressed or acknowledged is your selective quote-mining. What is your explanation for redacting from your quoted source this section, which contradicts your stated position and supports what we have been telling you all along?

" The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. "

Can you confirm that the reason that you use sources that actually contradict your position, then dishonestly distort what they say, is that the authoritative sources that actually do support your position don't exist?
 
Temujin said:
Can you confirm that the reason that you use sources that actually contradict your position, then dishonestly distort what they say, is that the authoritative sources that actually do support your position don't exist?
Click to expand...
Knowing the very common creationist use of quote mines, it is possible that Cisco has not seen the actual source, just a pre-mined quote in a list of creationist quote mines on the web.

As the Bible says: "There is no God."
 
rossum said:
Knowing the very common creationist use of quote mines, it is possible that Cisco has not seen the actual source, just a pre-mined quote in a list of creationist quote mines on the web.

As the Bible says: "There is no God."
Click to expand...
That is an all too generous interpretation. Still, it is as unlikely that Cisco will admit that his sources are lying that he is himself.
 
Temujin said:
As @rossum has pointed out, this reply is internally self-contradictory. You also seem incapable of grasping that science assimilates new information and moves on, unlike creationism which smothers new information and perpetuates failed arguments against scientific ideas prevalent decades ago.

What you have not addressed or acknowledged is your selective quote-mining. What is your explanation for redacting from your quoted source this section, which contradicts your stated position and supports what we have been telling you all along?

" The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. "

Can you confirm that the reason that you use sources that actually contradict your position, then dishonestly distort what they say, is that the authoritative sources that actually do support your position don't exist?
Click to expand...
Let's compare the two stated quotes:

"natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, ..., or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift"

" The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. Within finite populations, random genetic drift and natural selection affect the mutational variation. Natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, the fit between organism and environment, or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift."

You feel that that the extended version justifies your claim that natural selection selects from thing that have already been created. This is not the case since mutations are only a source of variation. This is because even the extended version states that mutations are the ultimate source of variation not a source of creation. Both versions say the same thing. Your creative force is not the dispersive force of mutations which are random and falls within the realm of the improbable for creating the simplest genes and exceeds the probabilistic resources of the universe. Your only saving hope is for natural selection to be able to pick out any beneficial random mutations and piece them together. This makes natural selection your only creative force. But this hits a break wall when you attempt to explain large sequences of base pairs, none of which are necessarily beneficial, to band together and create a trait or function where your only sources are mutations and genetic drift without the benefit of natural selection. This is possibly why you keep avoiding the woollier sheep problem.

You fail to grasp the full argument of ID against materialistic evolution. The claim is not against natural selection and mutations or anything else that can be measured but rather the ability of evolution to create differing species from simple single cell organisms or even from one species to another for that matter. You also fail to see the difference between creating variation and creating full functionality which is why you claim my use of the phrase "mutations creating varation" is a contradiction. But this is a general problem in evolution because it only proceeds from a functional system followed by variation with no explanation of how the functionality arrived. This starts with the origin of life and proceeds up the latter to functionality.
 
Last edited:
Cisco Qid said:
The claim is not against natural selection and mutations or anything else that can be measured but rather the ability of evolution to create differing species from simple single cell organisms or even from one species to another for that matter.
Click to expand...
Thank you for admitting defeat. If ID is not something "that can be measured" then all your claimed design detectors are wrong, since design cannot be measured. Without measurement then you are in the realms of philosophy or theology, not science.

Since we have DNA and observational evidence of speciation then your claim that it cannot happen is very obviously false. Your sources are lying to you yet again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top