Algor
Well-known member
Yes, and you have never shown that DNA cannot evolve. You’ve asserted it, but assertion and metaphor are not demonstration. The reason you haven’t shown it is, despite all your blabber, you cannot. Be honest.
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
- Thread starter Whatsisface
- Start date
Martin23233
Active member
Are you trying to imply that we are just one universe of many?... multi-verse? that is a fun theory but pretty much unproven and even unsupported by many materialistic scientist. but a fun theory. we can only prove one universe.... we can certainly play games like your 'idiotish' mind does and make stuff up.
just for fun...you do know that if you support a multi-verse theory....then you support a universe where God exists exactly how God is proclaimed to exist ...and you can't determine if you are in that universe or not.
Martin23233
Active member
It is well known that we can't create life....no science ..not even our best has ever generated life...
it has however hypothesized that maybe if things were just so.... lol too funny
Martin23233
Active member
Good night son
- Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
1 John 5:5
Algor
Well-known member
No: objective testing of the fine tuning hypothesis demands one knows the space of possible universes. You really don’t think very carefully, do you?
Algor
Well-known member
Blah blah blah. Still no demonstration that DNA can’t evolve. Zip. Nada. None of your assertions, when you are held to them, come to anything. Handwaving, misrepresentation, giggling, running away, and religious platitudes.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
Exactly the point.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
No scientist worth his salt would come to that conclusion on that premise. They would have to demonstrate design, not just infer it. If this is what you're doing, you are no where near being thorough enough.
And how does it test whether it is intelligently designed or by natural means?
But the point is, snowflakes look designed, but we know the mechanism that produce them doesn't include design. That things look designed therefore they are is your premise that the snowflake example resonds to.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
Ah, the pointless resort to scripture.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
This is a baffling point that again shows you not being thorough enough to reach your conclusion. Just because we can't create life at this point in the history of science doesn't mean it's impossible to do so naturaly, or that it's mechanism is impossible to eventualy understand in the light of naturalism.
Your position here is classic God of the Gaps.
What does falsifiable mean?
Here is the exchange:
So yes, Martin, you pretty clearly did say that the First Law of Thermodynamics is falsifiable because "we can repeat...over and over full examples", and that is repeatability.
I appreciate this is just nonsense you are spouting at this point - you know it and I know it - but if you are going to pretend you never said, you really should understand that I will go back though your posts and point out the truth.
I earlier said:
You have no idea, do you? You clearly know that it is different to repeatable, but you just have no clue what falsifiable actually means.
Or you know perfectly well, and you also know that if you admit it, you will lose the argument, and you lack the integrity to admit it. I am not sure which is more damning, to be honest. Either way, you lost the argument.
None of which relates to my point about there being a shedload of evidence for evolution.
The Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-C
I will quote the note at the top of the paper:
Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution,
including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or
"Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events.
I think what has happened here is creationists have stumbled upon this paper, not understood it properly (or have understood it, but lie about it), and present it as supporting creationism. The authors, horrified that their work is linked to pseudo-science, added the above note.
You have then copy-and-paste the quotes - almost certainly from this web page - without bothering to actually check what the paper says.
Your creationist masters tell you to think, and you blindly believe them.
The truth is that this paper fully supports evolution. The figure 3 on page 5 is very much evolution. Figure 4 on page 9 is the same as in one of the articles I linked to (with colour added).
Once again the science paper you think supports you, actually supports me.
This will be a copy-and-paste from here.
This guy cites Michael Denton, a biologist and ID proponent. Denton's position took quite a shift in the nineties. From here:
Interestingly, it appears that Denton has finally rectified his misunderstanding about nested hierarchies and common descent, since in his latest book he unconditionally assumes the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the "tree of life" (Denton 1998, pp. 265-298). For example, in the chapter entitled The Tree of Life from Nature's Destiny, Denton discusses the phylogeny of several closely related species (the primates) and directly contradicts his previous misstatements presented by Camp above:
"In the case of primate DNA, for example, all the sequences in the hemoglobin gene cluster in man, chimp, gorilla, gibbon, etc., can be interconverted via single base change steps to form a perfect evolutionary tree relating the higher primates together in a system that looks as natural as could be imagined. There is not the slightest indication of any discontinuity." (Denton 1998, p. 277)
Of course, creationists always quote Denton's older books. Denton fundamental misunderstands evolution in the quote above, seeing it as a linear progression from earth worms to people. The fact is that modern earth worms, just like people, are the culminationof 4 billion years of evolution.
Which makes my point about the pattern of differences between species highly relevant. Your own posts have ended up supporting my position, and exposing fundamental flaws in your own ability to comprehend the science.
And of course, you still have not explained that pattern.
Ah, so here it is. You know you have lost, and you need an exit strategy.
Obviously you cannot admit you are wrong. Heaven forbid! But just as obviously you have no clue about what we are talking. Not a nice situation for you to be in, and to be honest, I am surprised you have not bailed earlier.
The Evolution of Eyes
Right. Rather they evolved from a common precursor, but then branched in several different and distinct directions that are fully consistent with the nested hierarchy and a process of variation and natural selection.
The Vitamin C Pseudogene
That was in a discussion with Nouveau, not me.
There is a paper here that goes into great detail. The simple fact is that the loss of function happened twice (and in fact more than that). The important point for evolution is that it happened differently. It was one mutation in the gene that caused the loss for primates, so they all exhibit one pattern of errors in the pseudogene, and it happened differently for guinea pigs, so we see a different set of errors in them.
The GLO gene of anthropoid primates has lost seven of the twelve exons found in functional vertebrate GLO genes, whereas the guinea pig has lost its first and fifth exon as well as part of its sixth exon (references [29, 30], Fig. 44).
How does creationism explain this?
Why would God give us the gene for making vitamin C, but with errors in it? Why would he put those same errors in other primates? But a different error in guinea pigs?
This is exactly the sort of pattern we expect from evolution, and it makes no sense at all for creationism
Abundance of Evidence
I need no faith because there is so much evidence.
Yes, there are gaps in the fossil record, but those gaps do not refute evolution. A lack of data cannot refute anything.
What fossils we do have - over a million of them - all support evolution. As does all the genetic data, the amino acids sequencing, etc. etc.
And yet there is a nested hierarchy!
We do not need any fossils to see it. Carl Linnaeus pointed it out before Darwin proposed his theory.
The nested hierarchy is a fact that has been confirmed over and over again by genetics. By sequencing of amino acids like cytochrome-c. By pseudo-genes. Etc. Etc.
And, as a boinus, all the fossils we do have fit neatly into it.
You are fixated on the fossil record having gaps.
Does it not worry you that those gaps are being filled every day? As time goes by, creationism has less and less credibility as those gaps slowly but inevitably disappear.
Falsifiability Again
Again you misunderstand falsifiability.
There is no mechanism that would allow that. That is why the existence of such a creature would falsify evolution.
Seriously, go read up on what falsification means.
You clearly have no clue.
Dogs are Descended From Wolves
Great quote-mine.
Read in context, it is clear they mean an extinct species of wolf.
A peer-reviewed study that says they are descended from wolves.
A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science
Right. Maths proofs do not prove science.
Another question dodged - exactly as predicted. Pride too great, it seems.I earlier said:
Hundreds and Thousands
Wow.
The bare-faced nature of your dishonesty leaves me aghast.
The truth, Martin, is that YOU said 100s, and I was repeating what you had said.
As you know there are literally 100s of other top scientists that are far far above you mental pay grade (and mine ) that don't believe in dariwnian mechs.... and I can show you a dozen top scientists that have bailed from it in the last few years too. hmmm
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
Still you seem to fail to understand falsifiable means. I explained it to you ... and yes evolution is not falsifiable (regardless of your part bird, part worm, part crab, part human thinking that not finding such a creature falsifies it)..... Relativity would be falsified if the orbit of...
forums.carm.org
your assertion was proven wrong. and now you wish to ignore the 100s of leading scientists that don't agree with you.... do you actually read much about counter views or opinions or are do you like making things up like 99% false agenda talking points
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
Here is the first comment in the comments section of the video on You Tube..... Regardless of his views on ID... he was added for his views on A God. but he was heard saying " Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue...
forums.carm.org
Far from misrepresenting you, I was spot on. Your accusation of misrepresention was false, and was, furthermore, easy to prove false.
Over to you Martin. Can you admit your mistake? Or pride too big again?
Questions Creationism Cannot Answer
- I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
- I asked how creationism explains the pattern of differences in a protein; you dodged it
- I asked why dolphins are genetically closer to people than to fish; you dodged it
- I asked why chimps are genetically closer to people than to gorillas; you dodged it
- I asked what your belief is with regards to creation; you even dodged that!
Your response:
When will you wake up and realise the reason creationism has no answer to these question is because it is wrong.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
I'm sorry, but you can't say the universe is exactly fine tuned for life. For example, if a star were to go nova within 50 to 100 light years of Earth, we could be wiped out. In this vast universe, it's perfectly possible that planets have lost their life due to a nova. This is but one example of why the universe isn't perfectly fine tuned for life. It seems God got tired after tuning the constants, and forgot about the rest of it.
Tell that to the dinosaurs.
Not Even Cytochrome-c
Also worth noting that this article you claim refutes my argument about cytochrome-c, not only does it state very clearly that the authors fully support evolution, is not even about cytochrome-c!
It is about Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, which, judging by the name is part of a complex enzyme that oxidises cytochrome-c. There was a more recent paper in Nature in 2016 that looks at new findings. Want to take a look and see if it supports evolution or creationism?
Spoiler alert: It supports evolution
First sentence of the abstract:
DNA barcodes are widely used for identification and discovery of species. While such use draws on information at the DNA level, the current amassment of ca. 4.7 million COI barcodes also offers a unique resource for exploring functional constraints on DNA evolution.
Wow, 4.7 millions data, and it all fits into the nested hierarchy - just take a look at figure 5. See, Martin, this is what I mean about overwhelming evidence. This is just a tiny fraction of the evidence that supports evolution. Who needs a complete fossil record when we have all this?
What does creationism have? Duh, it kind of looks like it is design, so, duh, I guess it must be designed, right?
From the conclusion:
Taken together, COI DNA barcodes can provide insights into molecular evolution and protein function in animals at different taxonomic scales. Our findings illustrate how patterns at the level of DNA variation should explicitly be related to what this DNA does – i.e. encodes protein structure. Yet, these two levels of information are frequently disconnected in analyses targeting one or the other. As a particularly promising avenue for further exploitation of the sequence data generated by the global DNA barcoding initiative, we encourage combinations of phylogenetic and biochemical research on the COX enzyme. Several commercial kits for measuring COX activity in animal tissue samples are readily available. Such measurements could be used to directly test if the amino acid changes we observed close to the active site of the enzyme in the Metazoa-wide sample and in Coleoptera truly have consequences for metabolism. We anticipate that the dredging of the unique data base on COI sequences amassed by the global biologist community will yield interesting insights into evolution. By taking the first step in this paper, we hope to have stimulated such a development.
So right there we have details of how the experiments can be repeated. Evolution science is repeatable, even if evolution itself is not.
Martin23233
Active member
Incorrect. one only needs to understand the mechanisms in what it takes to form life.... it does not need to compare the only known and detected universe with any hypothetical 'other-verse'
Algor
Well-known member
Pay attention: if the probability space of life is large enough such that almost any configuration of possible universe is capable of supporting life, then this universe is not fine-tuned: ANY "tuning" would do. If there were only a very small range of possible configurations, then that would support the hypothesis of fine tuning. Without knowing which scenario we have, there isn't "fine tuning": all you can say is that life is possible. The idea is garbage, but predictably you fell for it. Also, I suggest you apply YOUR ideas of falsifiability to it. How would you falsify the hypothesis of fine tuning: create a universe?
Last edited:
Martin23233
Active member
Too funny there not running from anything - I always enjoy your childish comments and always willing to help lift you up.
Firstly, you comment about 'still no demonstration that DNA can't evolve' Is odd since nobody is stating DNA can't evolve... DNA certainly modifies itself for gene expression ...or non-expression and that certainly plays a big part in morphology.