Martin23233
Active member
silliness who ever said PaxB or any Pax gene can't evolve... stop trying to run from the question; how can evolution front-load any PAX gene milions of years before it is expressed?
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
- Thread starter Whatsisface
- Start date
Martin23233
Active member
here is the problem with the A/Mats... or evo-devos...they lack the education or reasoning to explain their faith. this long ... long thread is a testament to just how much they don't understand .... but how much they cling to their faith. they lack any evidence of the gaps in their fossil records... just faith.... they avoid anything to do with the explanation of pre-existing genes for eye , limb/wing structures that existed millions of years before any gene expression.... they just have deep deep faith - (which some here claim that they have no faith...but we all see through the lies.... and it is lies that expose them)
- Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Hebrews 11:1
And that's your choice if you want to believe that the genus Tritosecale was manufactured from laboratory chemicals, or by a banana waving a magic wand.
And do you still believe in fairies and Santa too?
Algor
Well-known member
That would be.....YOU. You said "...no amount of evolution can explain the coding in the earliest genes that coded for eyes long before they ever appeared"
So you are taking that back now? If not, please demonstrate that no amount of evolution can explain the coding in the earliest genes that coded for eyes. Show the math please .
And of course you can't. Nobody can. All you will do is move the goalposts. Like this:
You just moved the goalposts. Before you asked about Pax6. Then, when I pointed out that Pax6 had a likely precursor in PaxB, now you are saying any Pax gene. The principle is the same: the regulatory genes that are used in a descendant don't have to be used for the exact same function in the ancestor.
Meanwhile, you STILL haven't answered the basic question: All squids have the same basic eye structure, and all fish have a different one. Further: all mammalian eyes have the same basic structure as fish eyes. In fact, NO vertebrate eye has the same structure as a squid eye. Why is that, child? Do you need a hint? Or are you going to chant like an idiot that no one is answering your questions, or post the same irrelevant article and claim (again, like an iliterate rube) that it shows squid and fish have the same eye architecture and development?
Martin23233
Active member
Sadly I used Wiki and it's researchers to show that a lab was the manufacturer of Triticale maybe you can try to convince Wiki of your brilliance .... in the meantime maybe you can get a degree in something... maybe pick up on your failed philosophy degree you dropped out of.
Martin23233
Active member
Yep.. I was asking for you ... heck, or anyone smart enough... to explain how any PAX gene existed long before it's expression. Do you know? um... just asking for a friend...who is curious about just how evolution can create a gene long before it is used. I asked this days ago... long before any mention of PAXb... so your cries of moving goal posts just shows your inability to answer... don't worry... we have time.. and you can come up with something ...I'm sure .. maybe a few more dodges.... but it's not going away....you have to deal with it... and hopefully in honest fashion.
- For we live by faith, not by sight.
2 Corinthians 5:7
Algor
Well-known member
No, you said it COULD NOT have evolved. So show the math. I mean, put up or shut up, dude.
But have you ever actually bothered to read that Wiki article or asked your Sunday School teacher about how the genus [ITritosecale[/I] evolved from the genus Triticum and the genus Secale by cross pollination, and was not manufactured from laboratory chemicals as you falsely claim?
Either way, what's Santa going to bring you?
It is interesting you accuse "the Evo-Devo cabal now run from answering scientific questions" when I see you have yet to reply to me post here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/sup...-explain-the-gospels.4418/page-81#post-329103
I see you have made over twenty posts to this thread since my post. I trust you are not running away, and will be addressing it in due order.
Martin23233
Active member
LOL how made the sad evo-devo's get when they have to face facts... best most can do is just degrade...or they step up and show links to pretty artistic drawings of assumed... supposed... could be... might have ...things.... 'just so' stories.
So the math is easy to follow if you have 5 mins to read - it blows up the long believed ability of an eye to form in under 400K years.... but when true math is applied it is more like 80million years (for just one species with an optimal generation of 1 year).... it is just daunting that evos think that the hundreds of different times that the eye developed in disparate creatures must somehow ignore darwinian evolution and not inherit the morphology from a predecessor...they just 'presto it' themselves. Gotta ask which is it?
Martin23233
Active member
yeah...if you had the ability to comprehend what Wiki means by manufactured in a LAB ...you probably would be able to get it.....
here let's help you out again:
From Wiki- Triticale (/trɪtɪˈkeɪliː/; × Triticosecale) is a hybrid of wheat (Triticum) and rye (Secale) first bred in laboratories during the late 19th century in Scotland and Germany.
can you refute Wiki? or just make more silly claims that you are smart.
IOW the Wiki article describes how the the genus Tritosecale evolved from the genus Triticum and the genus Secale by cross fertilization. And that it does not say that Triticale was manufactured from laboratory chemicals as you falsely claim, nor that an intelligent banana waved a magic wand.
Algor
Well-known member
Swing and a miss, dude. Your link only critiques one particular model of evolution of the eye as a whole (and there are some pretty funny issues with the critique: for instance, the model critiqued is conservative in its timing because it assumes sequential genetic changes, but as we know from both theoretical population genetics and studies of natural selection in the wild, what happens in morphological change is that mutations get selected from large available pools in suites, and the pool of mutations is selected simultaneously, not sequentially, so the 80,000,000 generations is a fantastic farce, but whatever). In no way does it show that any particular gene COULD NOT evolve, as you stated, and please, show the math. Faking it won't help.
You really have no clue what you go on about, do you?
Last edited:
Martin23233
Active member
Then go find your mermaid/merman then.... (and for scientific correctness it's not a half fish... mermaids and mermen would have been mammalian...not from a fish. ) while your searching ... look for a half dandelion and half zebra..... half mushroom and half eagle too. you are really conflating some oddity (the mermaid) to prove 'evolution' and it is just not working.
Actually much of science is proven...and repeatable ..over and over and over.
Sure - going back to your subjective belief that dogs evolved from wolves. Dogs actually evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet (oddly since you are so adamant that everything is right where it needs to be in the sedimentary record).
Dogs.... show me the fossil record of a transition from wolf-like/dog to just a dog. (please don't use artistic renditions of a subjective mindful thinking of what might / supposed/ could be / possibly happened.
I just did.
I appreciate your ability to follow logic.... some here lack that and I thank you for bringing this up... i missed it in your rather lengthy response....so it was great you circled back on it. - thanks
But not in the sense that you are hopeful about... as Most Christians believe in God too... therefore placing God as the designer of all life. Heck even non-Christian religions believe a god created life.
Wrong, Humans would not do too well with fish eyes as I have stated several times.
Humans and chimps and apes and dolphins and kangaroos all share a great deal of commonness when it comes to the building blocks needed for biological life to exist.... just the way it is with the many different buildings you see out there and houses... some look very very different but all have common components of design....after all - there is only , what there is, to build from.
It is gene expression and other chromosomal components that makes us so vastly different.
Hopefully this answers your question(s) so if you are able to walk and chew gum at the same time , how about answering how evolution can create genes for eyes, wings, legs.... millions of years before any eyes , wings , legs...etc.. ever showed up?
Martin23233
Active member
Just for fun lets quote Wiki:
"
From Wiki- Triticale (/trɪtɪˈkeɪliː/; × Triticosecale) is a hybrid of wheat (Triticum) and rye (Secale) first bred in laboratories during the late 19th century in Scotland and Germany. "
LOL burned again eh?
can you refute Wiki? or just make more silly claims that you are smart.
Martin23233
Active member
you seem to lack any credibility now. Had you read the entire link...you would of been exposed to the addition of senior scientists piling on the attack of the original scientific study of how 'fast' an eye can develop ( ie. 360K years)... so many scientists and journals have since turned over that 28 year old farce it is just sad how science books still try to play the ploy. I guess the good thing is that only with the original study using intelligently directed assumptions could the eye have evolved as fast as 364K years.
And no that link does not , in any way show how any particular gene could not evolve.... but it does expose the clear failing of evolution.
And no evolution belief system has yet to even show how a protein could be created..... let alone any gene.
IOW the Wiki article describes how the the genus Tritosecale evolved from the genus Triticum and the genus Secale by cross fertilization. And that it does not say that Triticale was manufactured from laboratory chemicals as you falsely claim, nor that an intelligent banana waved a magic wand.
Algor
Well-known member
OMG
Yes, they critiqued a single model......wakey wakey marty....
TBF, the molecular evidence for evolution keeps getting more robust and precise Have you read any of the recent (ie less than 15 years old) work on cladogenisis? Clue for ya: it's pretty fast.......
blah blah blah You said that a gene could not possibly evolve. Try again: demonstrate why it COULD NOT happen. Show the math. The problem with your position is really, really obvious.
The issue, dear child, is that evolution seems to have happened, IN FACT though we do not know, and in fact may never know, exactly HOW it happened. Again, geological evidence of long periods of time, the fossil record of phylogenic succession, the twin-nested hierarchy of morphology and genetics, all help demonstrate evolution from common ancestors through long periods of time. People playing with themselves in the corner on obscure websites and taking little pot shots are meaningless: if you want to talk about science, do something creative, explanatory, and predictive. Your little chess-pigeon giggle hops are meaningless. Sooner or later you will figure this out.
Again, you fail to understand what falsification is.
The potential for a mermaid is what makes evolution falsifiable. The fact that none have ever been found what what then supports evolution as true.
Why do you bring up "repeatable"? Is that because you know you are wrong about "proven"?
Scientific Proof Is A Myth
We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.
www.forbes.com
Many theories - including evolution - are so well established that they are effectively proven, but technically none are ever actually proven.
If you want to talk about repeatable, then yes, experiments to support evolution are repeatable. You can go dig up fossils and you will see the same trends. You can compare the genetics of different species, and you will see the same trends. You can study inheritence, selection, mutation, etc. The experiments are repeatable.
Tell me how so-called creation science is repeatable.
Oh, wait. There is none. All creationism can say is "God did it". No science. No repeatability. Just faith.
More likely from wolves.
How Accurate Is the Theory of Dog Domestication in 'Alpha'?
The "boy and his dog" tale is a piece of prehistoric fiction, but scientists are uncovering the true origins of our incredible relationship with dogs
www.smithsonianmag.com
You should really read that paper, because it discusses a lot of the science that has been done in this area.
We could compare it to the work creationists have done to support their "dog/wolf like creature" hypothesis. What fossils did they look at? What genetic studies were performed? You brought up repeatable. How is the "science" for the "dog/wolf like creature" hypothesis repeatable?
Oh, wait. There is none. All creationism can say is "God did it". No science. No repeatability. Just faith.
Sorry no pictures, but an in depth discussion here:
3-D analysis of dog fossils sheds light on domestication debate | Cornell Chronicle
In an effort to settle the debate about the origin of dog domestication, a technique that uses 3-D scans of fossils is helping researchers determine the difference between dogs and wolves.
How Wolf Became Dog
Scientists are racing to solve the enduring mystery of how a large, dangerous carnivore evolved into our best friend
www.scientificamerican.com
The point here is that real science has been done and has determined a lot about the subject.
Shall we compare to what so-called creation scientists have done?
Oh, wait. There is none. All creationism can say is "God did it". No science. No repeatability. Just faith.
Because "creation science" is about hoodwinking the masses, not about science.
Most Christians believe in evolution; that is that all life had a common ancestor, as opposed to creationism that says God created separate "kinds" that are totally unrelated to each other. They may well believe God guided evolution, but they will agree with all I am saying on this thread.
And yet we have the same type of eyes as fish.
You creationist claim is thus refuted, and your hypothesis disproved.
The point here is that humans, like all land vertebrates, are stuck with the eyes evolution stumbled upon so many hundreds of millions of eyes ago. It has been tweaked for different niches, but the basic "design" is the same for all vertebrates, whether the design works best for that niche or not.
By the way there is a good paper on vertebrate eye evolution here:
Opsins: Evolution in Waiting
Complete vertebrate genome sequencing has revealed a remarkable stability and uniformity in the protein-coding gene set, which at first glance might suggest that gene duplication events are relatively rare. This may be a red herring, or at least a red cichlid, as the Lake Malawi cichlid fishes...
www.cell.com
But why are dolphins so much closer genetically to people than they are to fish? Surely if you were design a sea creature, and you already have all these wonderful fish designs - designs that can actually breath underwater - why scrap all that, and start from land creature for your next fish?
And why are chimps so much closer genetically to people than they are to gorillas? How does creationism explain that one?
Because they were used for other things, and got co-opted to the new function.