Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

The Pixie

Well-known member

How Close Are We To Chimps?​

Wow how badly you misrepresent science... and good science at that but really poor interpretation. so we are closely related to dolphins too much more than we are to cows , horses...pigs...ect... are you trying to correlate commonness means descent ?..cause you can't show anywhere in you darwinian coloring book where humans descended from dolphins.
If you think evolution says humans descended from dolphins, you really have a bad misunderstanding of it.

In fact dolphins are quite closely related to cows and pigs; they are all even-toed ungulates. They are not quite as closely related to horses, which are odd-toed ungulates, and even further related to us, who are mammals, but not ungulates.

Your article says:

However, scientists believe that at some point humans and dolphins came from the same branch of the evolutionary tree. This is shown by the fact that dolphins are mammals that breathe air just like us, so it is believed that initially they were living on land and moved back to the oceans at a later time.

That branch of the tree is Boreoeutheria.

Quite how someone who thinks evolution says humans descended from dolphins can accuse me of misrepresent science defies belief!

And I see no attempt to explain why chimp biochemistry is so very close to human biochemistry. Why is that? Because creationism is wrong!


Co-option​

Co-option is opposed to evolution sorry you pretend otherwise...maybe if you could re-read your own link on it. Take notes and then come on back and tell us how badly co-option butchers evolutionary theory... since it requires design up-front ... and it also posits massive and rapid development of species and body parts - (if one understands Evolutionary theory like you claim to .. you can see the fallacy in one one of those two thoughts).... but hey... both are just theories that can't co-exists.... and now you know (hopefully)
I have no idea what you are talking about.

At this point, I am pretty sure you do not either.

Darwin discussed co-option in chapter VI of The Origin of Species; I quoted him in an earlier post. To suppose it is not part of evolution shows how desperate your situation is.

Your statement "Take notes and then come on back and tell us" indicates you are so lost you are hoping I will do you work for you. Not going to happen. I read the paper and furthermore i understood. I know it fully supports evolution.

If you claim otherwise, it is up to you to find the quotes that make that clear. I hope you read it more carefully than you did the paper at dog evolution.


The Vitamin C Pseudogene​

Again for the good readers:
“Evolution and common descent have failed to explain how the original vitamin C genehow the original vitamin C gene could have arisen. In fact they fail to explain how any protein could have arisen. They have also failed to explain how all of biology could have arisen."
Who are you quoting? What is the context?

And why are you not addressing the topic? This is about the vitamin C pseudogene. Again and again you dodge. Why is that? Because creationism is wrong!

With regards to how the original vitamin C gene, I do not know. Maybe evolution cannot explain it. Can creationism offer us any insight? Do take us through the science that creationists have done to support their claim.

Oh, wait. There is none. Why is that? Because creationism is wrong!


Abundance of Evidence​

All of which was shot down as dead end species cant you point to just one thing that has not be shot down yet?
By shot down, you mean ignored, presumably.



Dogs are Descended From Wolves​

Again you falsely make claims you can't back up: ignoring the massively peer reviewed study by several top scientists:
“We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations”
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
I am claiming the paper you linked to says this:

As humans expanded out of Africa into Eurasia, they came into contact with gray wolves and, through a complex and poorly understood process, dogs emerged as the first human companion species and the only large carnivore to ever be domesticated.

Anyone can click the link and confirm that that is the case.

The paper you keep citing agrees with me that dogs evolved from wolves.


A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science​

Oh boy... you somehow now think that mathematics and science are separate....
No I do not. I have never said that.

What I dispute is your claim mathematical proofs used by/in science count as proving science in many cases.

A claim you repeatedly fail to substantiate, and repeatedly try to distance yourself from by tricks like this.

next silly thing you might say is that it was not science it was the microscope that showed XX.... too funny... one has to wonder sometimes about how someone can come to conclusions that are so disjointed from reality.
So now you are mocking something you are imagine I might say next? To be fair, that is little different to mocking things you are pretending I said.

What I dispute is your claim mathematical proofs used by/in science count as proving science in many cases.

Again and again you dodge my question: What single example of a mathematical proof used by/in science can you find that counts as proving science?

You clearly stated that 'science is not proven' or was it no science is proven.... care to admit that much?
As I said last time: Of course I said that, and I stand by it.



Biologists Accept Evolution​

Why do you keep misrepresenting ID Pixie? you failed to back up the false claim you made of 99%.
Wrong.

I have backed up that figure several times now. Each time you ignore it because you do not like it, and to be frank, it is increasingly making you look dishonest. But that does not make it false.

For example, see towards the end of this post.

I bet there were 99% that believed the world was flat too but better science came through .. I bet some touted that 99% believed the earth was the center of the universe....but better science came through ... and possibly 99% believe the sun was the center ...but better science came through... you seem to be touting 99% while many good scientist are bailing from it. .. good for better science!!!!
Why do you reject better science Pixie?
I love how you start by saying we should not blindly accept what the majority believe, but then end by saying I should just accept what these "good scientist" say. Are you not aware of the inherent contradiction there? I guess not.

Your claim that we should blindly follow what these few hundred dissenters from Darwinism say is nonsense because for every dissenter from Darwinism there are over a hundred biologists who accept evolution.

If we are going to just accept what the experts say, I will believe what tens of thousands of biologists say over what hundreds of scientists, some of whom are biologists, say.

Why do you reject mainstream science, Martin? Because of your religious beliefs, and not because of the science.


Loss of Eyes​

Why would evolution take away eyes of certain creatures? isn't evolution something progressive and beneficial to creatures... yet there are examples of evolution actually taking away functioning eyes...would that be beneficial in some way to actually develop eyes ...then ...un-develop them?
I am not sure where this comes from, given you seem to be responding to my comment about how biologists who accept evolution over number those who reject it a hundred fold. We have not discussed loss of function at all.

But okay, some cave-dwelling animals have lost their eyes, because they live in an environment where eyes are of no use. Article here.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

An abundance of Evidence (Again)​


unfortunately it exposes the weakness of evolution. ... "more specifically, gaps in the fossile record" clearly exposes evolution to begging for great faith that maybe someday they can find something to support their faith. Just admit it.. it takes a great deal of faith to be an evo-devo today with so little proofs. Faith is not a bad thing
Only if you ignore all the other evidence from genetics, biochemistry etc. And indeed the fossils that we do have, over a million of them.

Which is, of course, what creationism does. It may be appalling at science, but it is world-class at ignoring evidence.

Biologists Accept evolution (Again)​

Wrong once again .. your 10 vs my 1k is nowhere near your make-believe 99%...just too funny you cling to such comedy.
this is getting so so easy to point out how wrong you still are. you beg for co-opting which destroys darwinian evo..... you ignore that the eye showed up in so many different species in such a short time frame.... it really exposes those to come up with some alt reasoning ... and the best you have done so far is front-loading.... which destroys evolution...hmmm
My ten is authors of three peer reviewed papers I happened to cite. Show me the papers your 1k have published. Why are you not citing them? The one science paper you have cited was written by biologists who accept evolution. If we look at authors cited by either of us, turns ouyt the numbers are dozens who accept evolution to ZERO who reject it. You lose again Martin.

There are over a hundred thousand biologists who accept evolution, compared to your one thousand assorted scientists and engineers.


What is a "subjective opinion" anyway?​

LOL again you lack the understanding to even qualify anything as science when you try to talk out of both sides of your subjective opinion...
What on Earth are you talking about Martin?

I think it is apparent to any observer that my knowledge of science far exceeds your own. You are, let us remember, the guy who thinks evolutions says humans are descended from dolphoins ("you can't show anywhere in you darwinian coloring book where humans descended from dolphins").

Some of what I present is, of course, my opinion. I am not sure what you mean by "subjective opinion"; are you claiming your opinion is objective? Do you know what these words actually mean?

you believe evolution...yet you know you can't defend it so you conjure up theories that are counter to evolution that are actually quit well researched and pulling many scientist from the darwin view that you so dearly defend .... up until a few days ago when you started backing front-loading... just too predictable. either way you are still at a loss for how life exists....or any gene exists... etc.
The simple fact is that at every point I have found good science to back up my position.

I have consistently argued against front-loading.

This is in stark contrast to yourself who has repeated fail to:
  • Explain the distribution of eye types amongst different species
  • Explain the vitamin C pseudogene; why the same error in all primates
  • Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science
  • Give the mechanism ID proposed
  • Explain the pattern of differences in cytochrome-c
  • Explain why dolphins are genetically closer to people than to fish
  • Explain why chimps are genetically closer to people than to gorillas
  • State your own beliefs with regards to creation
  • Explain why you accused me of misrepresenting you when I said hundreds when you knew you had said that

What Does Front-Loading Mean?​

goodness.. why do you misstate and misrepresent so much? Is it purposeful or do you just not comprehend what is posted?... please back up your false accusation where i have ever stated that the eye was developed from the tree of life ( yet another false darwin concept scientists have proven) .. no way would i every sign on to such a falsehood/anti-truth than the 'tree of life' silliness. please post where I stated support for it... otherwise quite the falsehoods.
Here:

So if the information / coding for all body parts exist in DNA then how would there be a problem with ID and front-loading? We see vast differences in gene expression across multiple species. Maybe instead of falling for the 'it looks similar - it must be the same' path try looking at the vast difference of the entire genome across species.

That said, I am beginning to wonder if you know what front-loading actually is.

Are you aware that if front-loading is true, then people are related to ants? Earlier I wondered why you argued so passionately for special creation and for front-loading, despite them being incompatible with each other. Now I strongly suspect you are as clueless about front-loading as you are about evolution.

So given that, then yes, I think I may well have misrepresented you in this instance. I can assure you it was accidental, and I apologise for doing so. However, I do emphasise that I did so because you insist on advocating front-loading, when you clearly have no idea what that is.

Time Machines​

you have your time machine and yet you still can't find your missing links? wow..who would of expected that one... Oh right ID. deal with it.
Actually we do not have time machines. I did point this out in a previous post, but to be frank, it should be common knowledge.

Sturgeon​

Wow... the sturgeon has plenty of predators...mostly when younger..or the first 1/3 of it's life then fewer predators once it gets much larger.
That is a very naive view. Rabbits have plenty of predators, and yet are hugely successful, and have become a pest in Australia. There are ways of surviving as a species, even when there are a lot of predators. A female sturgeon lays up to three million eggs - though not all will be fertilised - so they survive even high predation rates.

You are correct... there is nothing in evolution .
You know you are taking what I said out of context. Do you consider that to be honest?

I know quote-mining is common in creationism - about the only form of research they do - so perhaps you do.

especially the point where a species has to keep evolving.... but one would argue that if evolutionary pressures got fish to form legs .... then wings ...then fins again one would think that why would not a 300 million year old species not evolve when it has all the genes needed to evolve?...why would evolution just turn off ? the sturgeon is rather remarkable... since it is a great example of why evolutionists can't answer real questions.
And yet I already answered it.


Outstanding Questions... So Many Of Them​


So Pixie.... 3rd time asking this ... care to step up? how does your evo view explain how life formed... or even how a simple gene formed...? lets see if you are up to answer it? I keep answering your Qs... maybe you can't answer mine so you hide.... guess we'll see. maybe it's time to just keep posting this question over and over and over till you come up with something - I'll accept that 'you don't know....your belief system does not know' ... that will suffice
How many times have I asked you to:
  • Explain the distribution of eye types amongst different species
  • Explain the vitamin C pseudogene; why the same error in all primates
  • Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science
  • Give the mechanism ID proposed
  • Explain the pattern of differences in cytochrome-c
  • Explain why dolphins are genetically closer to people than to fish
  • Explain why chimps are genetically closer to people than to gorillas
  • State your own beliefs with regards to creation
  • Explain why you accused me of misrepresenting you when I said hundreds when you knew you had said that
All were asked longer ago, and all have been asked more than three times. And please do not pretend you have answered them already. Several you have posted about, but none have actually been answered.

Do YOU care to step up? Of course not. You are so clueless about evolution you think it says humans evolved from dolphins. You are so clueless about your own beliefs you do not understand that front-loading contradicts special creation.
 

Martin23233

Active member

How Close Are We To Chimps?​


If you think evolution says humans descended from dolphins, you really have a bad misunderstanding of it.

Quite how someone who thinks evolution says humans descended from dolphins can accuse me of misrepresent science defies belief!

And I see no attempt to explain why chimp biochemistry is so very close to human biochemistry. Why is that? Because creationism is wrong!
Incorrect again on so many levels. humans did not descend from dolphins but you seem to believe commonness equates to descent. Proven wrong over and over and over.... because your precious evolution is wrong..as many scientists keep bailing from it

Co-option​


I have no idea what you are talking about.
As expected. But you first need to under stand Evolutionary Theory - and the try to square that with Co-option theory... they don't correlate.... as the latter is about fast/rapid changes from front-loaded design...the former is the opposite. you are welcome.
Darwin discussed co-option in chapter VI of The Origin of Species; I quoted him in an earlier post. To suppose it is not part of evolution shows how desperate your situation is.
Darwin was not a scientist..not even close and said many silly things that have long been proven false. Heck even darwin doubted his own theory due to the lack of evidence....and continued lacking of it does not help
The Vitamin C Pseudogene

Who are you quoting? What is the context?
I am quoting Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter B.S and M.S. in aerospace engineering, Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology
And why are you not addressing the topic? This is about the vitamin C pseudogene. Again and again you dodge. Why is that? Because creationism is wrong!

With regards to how the original vitamin C gene, I do not know. Maybe evolution cannot explain it. Can creationism offer us any insight? Do take us through the science that creationists have done to support their claim.

Oh, wait. There is none. Why is that? Because creationism is wrong!
the reason you flounder so badly when put to the test is because your precious theory is garbage.... and why more and more scientists keep bailing from it. Better science it kicking it to the curb.
Pixie is correct "maybe evolution cannot explain it" because it is garbage.
then begs if there is any science to back up an ID perspective: and there is, here is just one: molecular biologist Dr. Peter Borger
..." fifty percent of the mutations in the primate and guinea pig exon X sequence are identical. In addition, the guinea pig exon X region shows a mutation at position 97, the location in the primate genomes where a deletion took place. These shared features could not have resulted because guinea pigs and primates shared a common ancestor. Instead, they must reflect nonrandom, reproducible changes."

Abundance of Evidence​


By shot down, you mean ignored, presumably.
by shot down I mean every transitional fossil presented thus far has been shot down. leaving faith-filled darwinists to cling to other theories ..as their pews slowly empty.

Dogs are Descended From Wolves​


I am claiming the paper you linked to says this:

As humans expanded out of Africa into Eurasia, they came into contact with gray wolves and, through a complex and poorly understood process, dogs emerged as the first human companion species and the only large carnivore to ever be domesticated.

Anyone can click the link and confirm that that is the case.

The paper you keep citing agrees with me that dogs evolved from wolves.
only in your mind... your agenda seems unable to grapple with the conclusion of the study that they suspect a dog/wolf ancestor but the have no evidence of one... can you prove your premise? show me the ancestor then.

A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science​


No I do not. I have never said that.
where Pixie states: "And again, no science is "proved". ".... so that seems that you don't believe math is part of science...since science can't be proven. hmmm
What I dispute is your claim mathematical proofs used by/in science count as proving science in many cases.
sad you think that science is not mathematically bound in most of it's constructs. We use mathematical proofs to confirm or deny many axioms and theories.
What I dispute is your claim mathematical proofs used by/in science count as proving science in many cases.
then again you need to read up on the Higgs boson... confirmed to exist by scientific experimentations (particle collision) and hypothesized through decades of mathematical proven equations predicting it. The math behind particle acceleration and subsequent construction of predicted accelerator proved the particle existed.
Again and again you dodge my question: What single example of a mathematical proof used by/in science can you find that counts as proving science?
it might be worth your time to understand the math (at a very high level of course) the equations required to define a particle that fit the standard model to a 'T' but in all of science was never detected..only hypothesized.
Biologists Accept Evolution

Wrong.

I have backed up that figure several times now. Each time you ignore it because you do not like it, and to be frank, it is increasingly making you look dishonest. But that does not make it false.
not even close... I openly admit that there are thousands of scientists that still cling to evolution.... but what you lack is the ability to admit that there are well over a thousand that don't.. .and those bailing from evolution keep growing... due to better science.
I love how you start by saying we should not blindly accept what the majority believe, but then end by saying I should just accept what these "good scientist" say. Are you not aware of the inherent contradiction there? I guess not.
Too funny.. I only point out the facts to you ..and you run from them.. you misrepresent things often...like here - I have never asked you to accept what the many scientists that bailed from evolution say... just to at least admit there are many scientists baling from evolution. - should of been an easy thing to grasp. please stop misrepresenting things.
Your claim that we should blindly follow what these few hundred dissenters from Darwinism say is nonsense because for every dissenter from Darwinism there are over a hundred biologists who accept evolution.
again with your misrepresentations... there are openly over a thousand dissenters... and growing. ..better science my friend ..

Why do you reject mainstream science, Martin? Because of your religious beliefs, and not because of the science.
I openly accept mainstream science why do you accept unproven theories? Got Faith? Amen sister.

Loss of Eyes​


I am not sure where this comes from, given you seem to be responding to my comment about how biologists who accept evolution over number those who reject it a hundred fold. We have not discussed loss of function at all.

But okay, some cave-dwelling animals have lost their eyes, because they live in an environment where eyes are of no use. Article here.
LOL.... good try and sure that might explain some cases, but:
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
Incorrect again on so many levels. humans did not descend from dolphins but you seem to believe commonness equates to descent. Proven wrong over and over and over.... because your precious evolution is wrong..as many scientists keep bailing from it
So have you now realised you were wrong when you wrote that evolution says humans and descended from dolphins ("cause you can't show anywhere in you darwinian coloring book where humans descended from dolphins."). I guess that is some progress.

I believe the evidence, which includes "commonness", points to descent.

You assert this has been "Proven wrong over and over and over" but you repeatedly fail to offer any such proof, or to explain how creationism explains the specific pattern of "commonness".

I keep asking you to explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. That is a specific pattern of "commonness" that evolution readily explains, but creationism cannot.

I keep asking you to explain why dolphin DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to fish DNA. That is a specific pattern of "commonness" that evolution readily explains, but creationism cannot.

I keep asking you to explain why the pattern observed when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome-c between different species. That is a specific pattern of "commonness" that evolution readily explains, but your creationism can offer is that it "shows just how different humans are from fish".

You keep saying "many scientists keep bailing from it" but are ignoring the fact that for every one assorted scientist that bails, there are over one hundred that do not. Why would trust what a fringe minority say over the vast majority?


Co-option and Front-Loading​

As expected.
If you expected me to not understand you, I would have thought the onus was on YOU to explain better.

Unless you did not want me to understand. Was that it?

But you first need to under stand Evolutionary Theory - and the try to square that with Co-option theory... they don't correlate.... as the latter is about fast/rapid changes from front-loaded design...the former is the opposite. you are welcome.
Given you recently thought evolution says we are descended from dolphins, and you apparently think front-loading is compatible with front-loading, you are hardly an authority here.

First off, front-loading does not use co-option. Front-loading means the information is there already for that purpose, ready to be used in the future. Co-option is about using something for a different purpose. The two are contradictory.

I am wondering, however, what you mean by "fast/rapid changes". Where does that come from? Is this just more of your misunderstanding of what front-loading actually is?

Darwin was a Great Scientist​

Darwin was not a scientist..not even close and said many silly things that have long been proven false. Heck even darwin doubted his own theory due to the lack of evidence....and continued lacking of it does not help
Actually Darwin is regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time, having made a huge contribution to science that is still just as important today as it ever was.

There may be minor details he got wrong - he was writing before science had any understanding at all of genes or genetics - but that is true of all scientists. And yes, back then there was a lack of evidence. But it was not long before that evidence was coming in. The discovery of a fossilised archaeopteryx, a transitional between bird and reptile, is a great example of a prediction made by Darwin, and was made before the sixth edition of Darwin's book was published.

The Vitamin C Pseudogene​

the reason you flounder so badly when put to the test is because your precious theory is garbage.... and why more and more scientists keep bailing from it. Better science it kicking it to the curb.
What better science?

How come your supposedly better science fails to explain:
  • why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA
  • why dolphin DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to fish DNA
  • why the pattern observed when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome-c between different species
Evolution can explain these with ease. Creationism time and time again ignores them. In what sense is creationism "better science"?

You have exactly two arguments, Martin.

1. There are gaps in the fossil record. Fair enough, there are gaps, but gaps only suggest we do not know, they cannot prove something wrong. Plus, you are obliged to ignore all the other evidence - over a million fossils we do have, genetics, biochemistry, etc., etc.

2. Scientists are leaving evolution. Sure, but for each one assorted scientist who leaves evolution, there are over a hundred biologists who accept it. Creationism is very much a fringe.

That is it. That is all creationism has to offer.

Pixie is correct "maybe evolution cannot explain it" because it is garbage.
Again you stoop to quote-mining. Disappointing, Martin. You make so many false accusations of misrepresenting, but clearly you have no problem doing that yourself. Did Jesus not say something about hypocrites? Do you just ignore that too?

Anyway, the fact is that evolution explains far more than creationism does.

Creationism cannot explain.
  • why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA
  • why dolphin DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to fish DNA
  • why the pattern observed when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome-c between different species
Evolution can. But it has the advantage that it is true.

then begs if there is any science to back up an ID perspective: and there is, here is just one: molecular biologist Dr. Peter Borger
..." fifty percent of the mutations in the primate and guinea pig exon X sequence are identical. In addition, the guinea pig exon X region shows a mutation at position 97, the location in the primate genomes where a deletion took place. These shared features could not have resulted because guinea pigs and primates shared a common ancestor. Instead, they must reflect nonrandom, reproducible changes."
At last a half-way attempt to say something of substance.

Actually that is an interesting paper, and warrants a larger discussion, so I have started another thread on that.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

The Fossil Record​

by shot down I mean every transitional fossil presented thus far has been shot down. leaving faith-filled darwinists to cling to other theories ..as their pews slowly empty.
Again, I do not think you know what evolution actually says. This is common with creationists, as this article in Scientific American tells us.

We have a lot of fossils that are transitionals between other species. They may not be direct, but they still support the general theory.

Tiklaalik may not be the ancestor of all tetrapods, but is a transitional between fish and amphibian that is predicted by evolution. Archaeopteryx is a transitional between bird and reptile, even if modern birds are not descended from it.

The fossil record is broken, as you keep saying, so we have a perfectly good reason why we do not have certain fossils. But evolution predicts there will be species with features of both the previous species and the later one. Tiklaalik has features of the earlier fish spies and the later amphibian species. Archaeopteryx has features of the earlier reptile species and the later bird.


Dogs are Descended From Wolves​

only in your mind... your agenda seems unable to grapple with the conclusion of the study that they suspect a dog/wolf ancestor but the have no evidence of one... can you prove your premise? show me the ancestor then.
And yet the article clearly says:

As humans expanded out of Africa into Eurasia, they came into contact with gray wolves and, through a complex and poorly understood process, dogs emerged as the first human companion species and the only large carnivore to ever be domesticated.

If nothing else, this is a great illustration of how creationists ignore evidence they do not like.


A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science​

where Pixie states: "And again, no science is "proved". ".... so that seems that you don't believe math is part of science...since science can't be proven. hmmm
I do keep confirming my position that science is not proved. However, it does not follow that maths cannot be used as a tool in science.

sad you think that science is not mathematically bound in most of it's constructs. We use mathematical proofs to confirm or deny many axioms and theories.
Love that you say "we" as though this is something you have any clue about.

Well, come on then Martin. Give me one example of a mathematical proof that has been used to confirm any axiom or theory.

I asked this a week ago: Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science.

I have asked more-or-less the same question every day since, and each and every day you dodge the question. Why not admit that you cannot?

then again you need to read up on the Higgs boson... confirmed to exist by scientific experimentations (particle collision) and hypothesized through decades of mathematical proven equations predicting it. The math behind particle acceleration and subsequent construction of predicted accelerator proved the particle existed.
No, Martin. The experiment showed it existed, not the maths.

Think about what you are saying here. The maths existed decades earlier, but until the experiment was done, it was merely conjecture.

it might be worth your time to understand the math (at a very high level of course) the equations required to define a particle that fit the standard model to a 'T' but in all of science was never detected..only hypothesized.
It might be worth your while thinking though what you post.

Again, what you say here supports my position. The maths was pure conjecture... until the particle was detected.

Therefore, this is not an example of a mathematical proof that has been used to confirm any axiom or theory.

Biologists Accept evolution​

not even close... I openly admit that there are thousands of scientists that still cling to evolution....
Get it right, Martin

Over one hundred thousand biologists.

but what you lack is the ability to admit that there are well over a thousand that don't.. .and those bailing from evolution keep growing... due to better science.
So you are back-pedaling from when you said thousands?

Remember that? When you threw a hissy because I said you said hundreds, and you pretended you had only said thousands. Of course, the truth was you had said hundreds twice earlier. And the claim of thousands was not actually true. It is somewhat over a thousand assorted scientists and engineers.

Compared to over one hundred thousand biologists.

Too funny.. I only point out the facts to you ..and you run from them.. you misrepresent things often...like here - I have never asked you to accept what the many scientists that bailed from evolution say... just to at least admit there are many scientists baling from evolution. - should of been an easy thing to grasp. please stop misrepresenting things.
Will you admit over one hundred thousand biologists accept evolution?

again with your misrepresentations... there are openly over a thousand dissenters... and growing. ..better science my friend ..
And over one hundred thousand biologists who accept evolution. Because it is real science.


Evolution of Eyes​

LOL.... good try and sure that might explain some cases, but:
Can you summarise why they think this is a problem for evolution. I am not getting it.

As far as I can see, hagfishes not only fit well, but are giving great insights into eye evolution.

Here is a paper from 2008.

In our view, hagfish provide important clues to the evolution of the vertebrate eye. Hagfish (Fig. 2a) are a group of primitive, jawless, eel-shaped, marine chordates, characterized by the copious amounts of gelatinous slime that their skin exudes when they are threatened (hence their alternate name of slime eels). They are widespread throughout the world’s oceans, though most are restricted to great depths (200–1000 m), where they feed on carcasses of dead animals that have fallen to the seabed. Of extant craniates (animals with skulls), hagfish have the most basal body plan; they possess neither jaws nor vertebrae, and they are usually regarded not as vertebrates but rather as a sister group.

And one from earlier this year.

For years, hagfish eyes were thought to be different from those of vertebrates—so the researchers were surprised to discover hagfish eyes contain many of the same features. These include neurons that connect light-sensitive photoreceptors to ganglion cells, continued growth of the eye late into adulthood, and a hidden layer of support cells that are prominent in other vertebrates and are key to photoreceptor function.
"This is important because it broadens the picture of early vertebrate eye evolution," explained Dong. "The fossil record can only provide us limited information, because soft tissues like eyes do not preserve well. And so we look to living members of these early lineages, such as the hagfish."
 

Martin23233

Active member

An abundance of Evidence (Again)​

This appears to be your opinion of ignorance of your own Theory. AGAIN, i get to help you out and expose you for your lack of knowledge. (as addressed previously) your theory of evolution requires long slow random mutations (not guided..not quick) but step by step randomly inherited traits over long spans where each trait can then lead to other traits.
The only evidence that Darwinists such as yourself can claim evidence is either through the fossil records... or through reproducible experiments. Now since there are no successful experiments that generate a new species... their weight must rely on fossil records... and the so called 'abundance of evidence'. And as shown before any transitional fossil ever presented here was of a dead-end species...or suspected different species. If I recall there was even an attempt to post a transitional 'bird' (or potential bird)...it's easy to see the fossil picture and think that is a transitional fossil...but then the science and theory break apart as there was no predecessor, and no ancestor to that species... it showed up and died off as a dead end. In fact I am unaware of any evidence of one bird evolving from another bird... one would surely be able show it since ...well .. er... it's so abundant.

Biologists Accept evolution (Again)​

Why do you fear the constant bailing out by scientists in many fields? Better science is leading to better outcomes and as I posted about the 100's (could be 500 or 900 or just 200) biologists that don't support.
Over a week ago a added on to my '100's of biologists post and pointed to over a thousand scientists.:

What is a "subjective opinion" anyway?​


I think it is apparent to any observer that my knowledge of science far exceeds your own. You are, let us remember, the guy who thinks evolutions says humans are descended from dolphoins ("you can't show anywhere in you darwinian coloring book where humans descended from dolphins").
Sorry but I have to LOL at that one... too funny. Your ability to google is good but your comprehension is lacking as I exposed about you over and over. And (again) for the record I don't believe humans descended from dolphins...but your theory of common descent does... you see by believing that just because we are so similar to dolphins DNA we must have been related in some mythical (unproven and unprovable ) 'tree o life'.
I keep asking you for the darwinian mechanism that you feel must 'subjectively' be present in so many of your 'claimed' evidences for common descent... you keep dodging... you don't know .. and the reason you don't know is because your theory has no objective provable mechanism.... evolution relies on "subjective reasoning" since it can't be repeated..it must conjure up opinion to fit the gaps.
you have no mechanism that explains the creation of even one gene let alone vitamin C pseudogene or cytochrome-c...
Question for you... how does a darwinian such as you explain the existence of vitamin C pseudogene or cytochrome-c ?
I have consistently argued against front-loading.
Saying that you have argued against front-loading but yet you argue for "Co-option" and "preadaptation". This means the use of pre-existing genes. Slowing it down for you just a bit ..... a pre-existing gene needs to be in place before it can be co-opted.... that is front-loading.
So either you have no clue about what you are arguing for or against or you just like to argue about things you know little about.
Question for you.... how can an organism co-opt an existing gene..and use it for an entirely different function(or heck slightly different one)? More specifically... what directs that gene expression...is it the species..or the gene coding/expression that dictates the new use?
This is in stark contrast to yourself who has repeated fail to:
what is in stark contrast is you continued begging for answers when you avoid questions asked of you.... hope that changes.

What Does Front-Loading Mean?​

(ahem...I repeat for clarity incase you missed it above)
Saying that you have argued against front-loading but yet you argue for "Co-option" and "preadaptation". This means the use of pre-existing genes. Slowing it down for you just a bit ..... a pre-existing gene needs to be in place before it can be co-opted.... that is front-loading (the need of a gene long before it is ever used...it gets front loaded and later used...sometimes not).
So either you have no clue about what you are arguing for or against or you just like to argue about things you know little about.
Question for you.... how can an organism co-opt an existing gene..and use it for an entirely different function(or heck slightly different one)? More specifically... what directs that gene expression...is it the species..or the gene coding/expression that dictates the new use?

Time Machines​


Actually we do not have time machines. I did point this out in a previous post, but to be frank, it should be common knowledge.
Correct... you keep trying to use some time machine that does not exist .. not sure why.

Sturgeon​

Question... why
Question for you: . why do you keep dodging the question? Do you think that is being honest? Maybe you don't understand the question so let's restate it.
What is the mechanism that stopped functioning in the sturgeon 200+ million years ago that prevented it from evolving to anything but a sturgeon? It has all the genes needed for legs... lungs... etc.. but it never budged. Do you think that no type of sturgeon ever went extinct? why would evolution allow that when it clearly could of sprouted legs?
 

Martin23233

Active member
Outstanding Questions... So Many Of Them


How many times have I asked you to:
  • Explain the distribution of eye types amongst different species
there are many theories that try to scientifically do this but they mostly fail.. the best theory is ID and the front-loading of what a species needs. After all science is having a tough time of getting you an explanation....

  • Explain the vitamin C pseudogene; why the same error in all primates
We have many mutation genes shared across many different species... the vit-C mutation is no different, it can't show common descent just as the 1000s of gene differences can't prove uncommon descent... Guinea pigs share that mutation too and we did not evolve from them either.

  • Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science
the Higgs boson particle was proven to actually exist through several scientific experiments. The math for the existence of such particle was only on paper...but through physics and actual experimentation the particle was proven to exist.
While 'proofs' technically do not exist in the sense of a proven theory... proofs of how a theory can be true or false take place all the time (except of course with evolution...)

  • Give the mechanism ID proposed
Mech for what? please be clear on what you are asking as you seem to assume much and I don't want to assume here.

  • Explain the pattern of differences in cytochrome-c
It looks like this is just another example of where design is actually the better choice for the slight differences:

  • Explain why dolphins are genetically closer to people than to fish
this was explained before:

  • Explain why chimps are genetically closer to people than to gorillas
nobody is refuting that they are so different genetically at a high level. What matters is the differnces. But when you look at the differences as in gene expression/chromosomes...you see why we can fly planes and chimps can excel at hunter biden artwork. Design posits commonness and even shows it.
here is a great quote:
"You can knock out a gene that encodes a protein for an inner ear bone in say a mouse. This has been done. And then you can take a protein that is similar to it but from a fruit fly. And fruit flies aren’t vertebrates and they certainly are not mammals., so they don’t have inner ear bones. And you can plug that gene in and guess what happens? The offspring of the mouse will have a perfectly normal inner ear bone. So you can swap out all these files. I mentioning this to you because when you hear about we are 99% similar (to chimps) it is almost all referring to those protein coding regions. When you start looking, and you start comparing different mammals. Dolphins, aardvarks, elephants, manatees, humans, chimpanzees,, it doesn’t really matter. What you find is that the protein coding sequences are very well conserved, and there is also a lot of the DNA that is not protein coding that is also highly conserved. But when you look at the chromosomes and those banding patterns, those bar codes, (mentioned at the beginning of the talk), its akin to going into the grocery store. You see a bunch of black and white lines right? You’ve seen one bar code you’ve seen them all. But those bar codes are not the same.,, Here’s an example, aardvark and human chromosomes. They look very similar at the DNA level when you take small snippets of them. (Yet) When you look at how they are arranged in a linear pattern along the chromosome they turn out to be very distinct " (from one another).https://idthefuture.com/799/

  • State your own beliefs with regards to creation
We have ample science that proves the coding behind DNA and the genome expressions. there are just too many failures (some of which were pointed out above) in your evo-devo faith system.

Question for you- we share some really key genome similarities with the octopus... complex brains, and the camera eye.... but evolutionist (you) state that we are not related to the octopus... how do you explain it? is it just a miracle that such complex organs came about twice on their own?(and then many other times in other species all on their own)?

  • Explain why you accused me of misrepresenting you when I said hundreds when you knew you had said that
Over a week ago I stated 100's in reference to biologists however, I also posted a link that day: https://thenewamerican.com/over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory/
for you to seemingly and purposely try to misrepresent this, is concerning. When one corrects the record...one should accept that corrected record from the 17th.

Do YOU care to step up? Of course not. You are so clueless about evolution you think it says humans evolved from dolphins. You are so clueless about your own beliefs you do not understand that front-loading contradicts special creation.
Now you have several questions and problems you need to address..do YOU care to step up? (I won't inject immaturity as you do).
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

The Abundance of Evidence​

This appears to be your opinion of ignorance of your own Theory.
It is my opinion that you are deeply ignorant of the theory of evolution, given you believe it says people are descended from dolphins.

It is not my theory, by the way. Over a hundred thousand biologists accept it.

AGAIN, i get to help you out and expose you for your lack of knowledge. (as addressed previously) your theory of evolution requires long slow random mutations (not guided..not quick) but step by step randomly inherited traits over long spans where each trait can then lead to other traits.
We all know that. Even you it appears.

The only evidence that Darwinists such as yourself can claim evidence is either through the fossil records... or through reproducible experiments.
You say "only" but the fact is that this covers a huge amount of evidence.

The pattern of variation between amino acids - cytochrome-c is just one example - is a great example of reproducible experiments that provide evidence of evolution.

Comparison of DNA and morphology are other great example of reproducible experiments that provide evidence of evolution.

And there are plenty of others. So when you say "The only evidence" you are ignoring he fact that there is a huge body of evidence for evolution through reproducible experiments besides the million or so fossils.

Now since there are no successful experiments that generate a new species... their weight must rely on fossil records... and the so called 'abundance of evidence'.
Not so.

The pattern of variation between amino acids, comparison of DNA and morphology, etc., etc. This is the 'abundance of evidence'. Why are you so determined to ignore all this evidence?

Because that is what creationism has to do. It cannot possibly hope to compete. It has next to no evidence of its own, so it does the only thing it can and pretends the evidence for evolution does not exist.

There really is an 'abundance of evidence' for evolution, and the fact that you are obliged to pretend none of it exists shows just how bad the situation is for creationism.


The Fossil Record​

And as shown before any transitional fossil ever presented here was of a dead-end species...or suspected different species.
And that disproves evolution how?

You go on and on about the gaps in the fossil record. Tell me how they disprove evolution. Walk me through the logic here.

Or are you just parroting what you have been told to say?


Birds evolved from Dinosaurs​

If I recall there was even an attempt to post a transitional 'bird' (or potential bird)...it's easy to see the fossil picture and think that is a transitional fossil...but then the science and theory break apart as there was no predecessor, and no ancestor to that species... it showed up and died off as a dead end. In fact I am unaware of any evidence of one bird evolving from another bird... one would surely be able show it since ...well .. er... it's so abundant.
I find it telling that you can only find blogs to support your position while I am posting peer-reviewed science papers. If all those scientists are leaving evolution so fast, where are all the papers they have published? At least one creationist organisation has its own journal; can you find nothing there?

Of course not.

As to the evolution of birds, we have plenty of evidence that they did indeed evolve from dinosaurs, and that dinosaurs we have know for some time had feathers.

Web page at a prestigious US university

Web page at a prestigious UK museum

An article in Scientific American, a journal I would hope even you have heard of.

Here is a considerably more technical article that looks into how feathers evolved a the molecular level.

How does that compare to a page on a personal blog? As you will be realising I have a huge advantage over you in this debate, in that I have all these papers just a quick Google away. I have that advantage because evolution is true.


Over a hundred thousand biologists accept evolution​

Over a week ago a added on to my '100's of biologists post and pointed to over a thousand scientists.:
Good for you. Over a thousand assorted scientists and engineers agree with you.

Mean while, over a hundred thousand biologists agree with me.

If you look at all the scientific papers I have cited - plus the ones you have cited, which also support evolution - and add up all the authors of those papers, we are probably over a hundred biologists who accept evolution just there. If we keep going we will have exceeded all the assorted scientists and engineers in your list! And of course we are just scratching the surface.

That is one reason why it is so easy for me to find peer-reviewed science papers that support my position - there are just so many biologists actively doing research in this area.

Creationism has what? Diddly squat, as far as I can tell, given you are reduced to posting blogs to support your ill-informed opinions.

The Mechanism of Evolution​

I keep asking you for the darwinian mechanism that you feel must 'subjectively' be present in so many of your 'claimed' evidences for common descent... you keep dodging... you don't know .. and the reason you don't know is because your theory has no objective provable mechanism.... evolution relies on "subjective reasoning" since it can't be repeated..it must conjure up opinion to fit the gaps.
This is very confused; I am not sure what you are trying to say. You seem to want to put across the idea that it just my opinion, and that seems to be damaging your ability to use English!

Remember, over a hundred thousand biologists accept evolution, so it is not just my opinion.

And those over a hundred thousand biologists who accept evolution have done a huge amount of work of the mechanism. Part of the mechanism is the transmission of information from parent to child, but I guess we all agree that that is well established.

More specific to evolution, is how mutations occur and how they get incorporated into the species. It is a complicated question because it is a complicated process, but that merely means there is a big opportunity for research.

With regards to how mutations occur, this is very well established. Any number of agents in the environment can cause changes to DNA; basically anything that is carcinogenic. Cancers occur when an agent has caused a mutation is the DNA of one cell, and sadly that is going on all the time. Occasionally, the mutation happens in germ cells, and is then passed on to the offspring, and these are the mutations evolution works with. All of this is very well established.

The other side of it is how mutations give rise to changes in species. Despite your claim that this has not been addressed, several of the papers I have already cited have gone into this. The papers on the vitamin C pseudogene looked closely at exactly what mutations caused the loss in function. Earlier I posted some papers on the genetic differences between man and chimp, and they looked at the mutations that caused them.

So it turns out that there is a huge amount of work that has been done on this.

Obviously creationism ignores it all.


The Mechanism of Creation​

In a strange coincidence, I keep asking for the ID mechanism.

Post #1678: Can you point me to the mechanism ID proposes. I have never seen it, and I do not believe one has ever been proposed.
Post #1693: Can you point me to the mechanism ID proposes.
Post #1703: I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
Post #1711: I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
Post #1737: I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
Post #1809: I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it

So far, you have made zero attempt to answer this. Why is that?

It has none.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Martin Believes Evolution Says People Are Descended From Dolphins?!?​

This needs a post of its own.

Sorry but I have to LOL at that one... too funny. Your ability to google is good but your comprehension is lacking as I exposed about you over and over. And (again) for the record I don't believe humans descended from dolphins...but your theory of common descent does...
I never said you believe it. I said you believe evolution says it, as you have just confirmed.

This is such an incredible misunderstanding of evolution I am at a loss where you could possibly have got it from. I am sure no creationist organisation says anything so ridiculous.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Co-option​

Saying that you have argued against front-loading but yet you argue for "Co-option" and "preadaptation". This means the use of pre-existing genes. Slowing it down for you just a bit ..... a pre-existing gene needs to be in place before it can be co-opted.... that is front-loading.
Co-option is when the gene pre-exists, but is used a different purpose.

Front-loading is when a designer put the gene in there before hand, anticipating the same purpose.

Do you see the difference?

Co-option is perfectly compatible with evolution. You asserting otherwise really does not change that.

Question for you.... how can an organism co-opt an existing gene..and use it for an entirely different function(or heck slightly different one)? More specifically... what directs that gene expression...is it the species..or the gene coding/expression that dictates the new use?
I am not sure what you are asking. An organism can co-opt a protein for another purpose if the protein fits that purpose.

There is an article here about how genes direct the production of proteins, which may answer your question, but to be frank, I am not sure quite what it is.


What Does Front-Loading Mean?​

I earlier said:
What Does Front-Loading Mean?
(ahem...I repeat for clarity incase you missed it above)
Saying that you have argued against front-loading but yet you argue for "Co-option" and "preadaptation". This means the use of pre-existing genes. Slowing it down for you just a bit ..... a pre-existing gene needs to be in place before it can be co-opted.... that is front-loading (the need of a gene long before it is ever used...it gets front loaded and later used...sometimes not).
So either you have no clue about what you are arguing for or against or you just like to argue about things you know little about.
Question for you.... how can an organism co-opt an existing gene..and use it for an entirely different function(or heck slightly different one)? More specifically... what directs that gene expression...is it the species..or the gene coding/expression that dictates the new use?
The question was: What Does Front-Loading Mean?

Why have you not answered that? You are the one who advocates front-loadings. Do you not actually know what you are arguing for?

I guess not.


Time Machine​

Correct... you keep trying to use some time machine that does not exist .. not sure why.
That is simply not true.

If some pretends I said something I did not, that only makes him look like a liar.


Sturgeon​

Question for you: . why do you keep dodging the question? Do you think that is being honest?
Says the guy who is pretending I am trying to use a time machine. Do you think that is honest?

The fact is that I did answer your question - but you snipped my answer from your reply. Do you think that is honest?

I do not.

Maybe you don't understand the question so let's restate it.
What is the mechanism that stopped functioning in the sturgeon 200+ million years ago that prevented it from evolving to anything but a sturgeon? It has all the genes needed for legs... lungs... etc.. but it never budged. Do you think that no type of sturgeon ever went extinct? why would evolution allow that when it clearly could of sprouted legs?
As I said before, the sturgeon survived because it is successful, so had no pressure to adapt.

I am not sure why you think there should be a mechanism for something to not happen. Do you think a mechanism is required to stop mountains walking off? I somehow doubt it.



Eye Evolution​

there are many theories that try to scientifically do this but they mostly fail.. the best theory is ID and the front-loading of what a species needs. After all science is having a tough time of getting you an explanation....
You say front-loading is the best explanation, then link to the web site of Answers in Genesis, who believe God created each "kind" 6000 years ago; a very different scenario to front-loading.

With regards to the hagfish, I addressed that at the end of post #1834. I see you just ignored all that, presumably because it destroys your argument.

If you want to discuss the hagfish eye, go back and respond to that.


The Vitamin C Pseudogene​

We have many mutation genes shared across many different species... the vit-C mutation is no different, it can't show common descent just as the 1000s of gene differences can't prove uncommon descent... Guinea pigs share that mutation too and we did not evolve from them either.
You need to learn more about this before you start spouting off about it.

What is important about the vitamin C pseudogene is that exactly the same set of mutations are seen in primates and monkeys, which is quite different to the mutations seen in the guinea pig.

Look at the figure I linked to from the article in Nature.


A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science​

the Higgs boson particle was proven to actually exist through several scientific experiments.
So it was NOT proven from the maths.

Thanks for pointing out that this is definitely not an example of a proof in maths proving something in science.

The math for the existence of such particle was only on paper...but through physics and actual experimentation the particle was proven to exist.
So it was NOT proven from the maths.

Thanks for pointing out that this is definitely not an example of a proof in maths proving something in science.

While 'proofs' technically do not exist in the sense of a proven theory... proofs of how a theory can be true or false take place all the time (except of course with evolution...)
But it is never the case that a proof in maths proves something in science, which was your original claim.

I asked this eight days ago: Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science.

The best you have to offer is the Higgs boson, which you keep assuring me is not that.


The Mechanism for ID​

Mech for what? please be clear on what you are asking as you seem to assume much and I don't want to assume here.
The mechanism for how species appeared.

Admittedly, I am assuming you know what you are talking about, at least with regards to ID, as you are advocating it.


The Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-c Across Species​

It looks like this is just another example of where design is actually the better choice for the slight differences:
I take it you do not understand the linked web page, so cannot even find a relevant quote.

Worth noting that this is the personal web page of an electrical engineer without a Ph.D., which stands against all the peer-reviewed science papers I link to by real scientists who are experts in biology. But that is the best creationism has, it seems.

The web page is based very much on the writing of Michael Denton - and Denton is a real biologist with a Ph.D. Unfortunately for you and Do-While, Denton later realised he was wrong.

Creationists like Do-While all quote Denton's 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, but ignore his later book, Nature's Destiny from 1998, where he advocates a form of directed evolution, and acknowledges that Darwin's tree-of-life is true, and hence agrees with evolutionary biologists about the pattern of differences in cytochrome-c across species.

What this means is the Do-While's argument is based on text that the original author later realised is wrong. Therefore Do-While's argument falls apart.

If you want to go into more detail, feel free to quote the bits from D-While's web page you want to discuss.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Why is Dolphin DNA Closer to Human DNA than to Fish DNA?​

]this was explained before:
No, Martin, it was dodged before. Big difference.

The article you link to merely confirms human and dolphin DNA are very similar. It does not explain why.

As far as I can see, it is not even a creationist web site, so why would it help you? Perhaps you would have more credibility if you actually read the articles you link to.

This is like the dog-wolf nonsense, where the article you linked to turned out to show I was right, and we had to go though so many iterations before you finally read the article and quietly dropped the issue. Heaven forbid you could admit you were wrong...


Why is Chimp DNA Closer to Human DNA than to Gorilla DNA?​

nobody is refuting that they are so different genetically at a high level. What matters is the differnces. But when you look at the differences as in gene expression/chromosomes...you see why we can fly planes and chimps can excel at hunter biden artwork. Design posits commonness and even shows it.
But that does not address the question: Why is Chimp DNA Closer to Human DNA than to Gorilla DNA?

here is a great quote:
"You can knock out a gene that encodes a protein for an inner ear bone in say a mouse. This has been done. And then you can take a protein that is similar to it but from a fruit fly. And fruit flies aren’t vertebrates and they certainly are not mammals., so they don’t have inner ear bones. And you can plug that gene in and guess what happens? The offspring of the mouse will have a perfectly normal inner ear bone. So you can swap out all these files. I mentioning this to you because when you hear about we are 99% similar (to chimps) it is almost all referring to those protein coding regions. When you start looking, and you start comparing different mammals. Dolphins, aardvarks, elephants, manatees, humans, chimpanzees,, it doesn’t really matter. What you find is that the protein coding sequences are very well conserved, and there is also a lot of the DNA that is not protein coding that is also highly conserved. But when you look at the chromosomes and those banding patterns, those bar codes, (mentioned at the beginning of the talk), its akin to going into the grocery store. You see a bunch of black and white lines right? You’ve seen one bar code you’ve seen them all. But those bar codes are not the same.,, Here’s an example, aardvark and human chromosomes. They look very similar at the DNA level when you take small snippets of them. (Yet) When you look at how they are arranged in a linear pattern along the chromosome they turn out to be very distinct " (from one another).https://idthefuture.com/799/
But, again, that does not address the question: Why is Chimp DNA Closer to Human DNA than to Gorilla DNA?

Come on, Martin. Stop dodging the question. Or admit creationism has no answer.


State your own beliefs with regards to creation​

We have ample science that proves the coding behind DNA and the genome expressions. there are just too many failures (some of which were pointed out above) in your evo-devo faith system.
Seriously, this has to be the simplest question I could ask you. I just what to know if, for example, you believe God created the world in six days 6000 years ago, or perhaps you think God created each "kind", but over 4 billions years.

When you are not even able to tell me your own opinion, I have to wonder why.


The Octopus​

Question for you- we share some really key genome similarities with the octopus... complex brains, and the camera eye.... but evolutionist (you) state that we are not related to the octopus... how do you explain it? is it just a miracle that such complex organs came about twice on their own?(and then many other times in other species all on their own)?
We are related to the octopus, but distantly.

The eye is a great example of convergent evolution - that we have discussed to death!

Yes, at a casual glance, we share the same sort of eye. But look closer and there are fundamental difference. Differences that I pointed out to you at the start of our discussion. The vertebrate eye has reverse wired cells in the retina, with nerves wired through the blind spot, the cephalopod eye is not. The vertebrate eye focuses by changing the shape of the lens, the cephalopod eye by changing the distance.


Over a hundred thousand biologists accept evolution​

Over a week ago I stated 100's in reference to biologists however, I also posted a link that day: https://thenewamerican.com/over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory/
for you to seemingly and purposely try to misrepresent this, is concerning. When one corrects the record...one should accept that corrected record from the 17th.
Over a thousand is still hundreds. And it is not thousands, as you claimed.

When I said hundreds you accused me of misrepresenting you. The truth, however, is that I as repeating what you said earlier, and I was still right despite that link.

Your accusation of misrepresentation was FALSE. You made an accusation that was not true, and even now you are refusing to acknowledge that.

Sadly this behaviour seems to characterise creationist. I am not sure why.




Now you have several questions and problems you need to address..do YOU care to step up? (I won't inject immaturity as you do).
I stand by what I said. You have confirmed that you believe evolution says people are descended from dolphins. Thus, the evidence shows you really are clueless about evolution.
 

Martin23233

Active member

Martin Believes Evolution Says People Are Descended From Dolphins?!?​

This needs a post of its own.


I never said you believe it. I said you believe evolution says it, as you have just confirmed.

This is such an incredible misunderstanding of evolution I am at a loss where you could possibly have got it from. I am sure no creationist organisation says anything so ridiculous.
Pixie believes that commonness equates to descent!!!! She tries the typical old and tired ploy that humans and chimp DNA is 94% similar (she still thinks its closer to 99%... proven wrong of course). What Pixie misses is the clear concept of DNA similarity...and shooting down her precious theory but showing we are not dolphins.. over the head it seems that common DNA segments do not equate to common descent.
So now Pixie thinks that because we can't find the gaps..missing records or other genetic evidences ..we must be just evolved chimps... <insert chimp noises here> What Pixie continues to hide from are the hard questions and avoidance of the differences that make it more clear...why humans are not chimps... here is a good read - and listen that kicks her precious evo-devo theory to the curb:
"You can knock out a gene that encodes a protein for an inner ear bone in say a mouse. This has been done. And then you can take a protein that is similar to it but from a fruit fly. And fruit flies aren’t vertebrates and they certainly are not mammals., so they don’t have inner ear bones. And you can plug that gene in and guess what happens? The offspring of the mouse will have a perfectly normal inner ear bone. So you can swap out all these files. I mentioning this to you because when you hear about we are 99% similar (to chimps) it is almost all referring to those protein coding regions. When you start looking, and you start comparing different mammals. Dolphins, aardvarks, elephants, manatees, humans, chimpanzees,, it doesn’t really matter. What you find is that the protein coding sequences are very well conserved, and there is also a lot of the DNA that is not protein coding that is also highly conserved. But when you look at the chromosomes and those banding patterns, those bar codes, (mentioned at the beginning of the talk), its akin to going into the grocery store. You see a bunch of black and white lines right? You’ve seen one bar code you’ve seen them all. But those bar codes are not the same.,, Here’s an example, aardvark and human chromosomes. They look very similar at the DNA level when you take small snippets of them. (Yet) When you look at how they are arranged in a linear pattern along the chromosome they turn out to be very distinct "
Question for you Pixie...why can't a chimp ever evolve? if you believe it happened once...why is it that it hasn't happened since? what mechanism is now blocking chimps from evolving?
 

Martin23233

Active member

The Abundance of Evidence​


It is my opinion that you are deeply ignorant of the theory of evolution, given you believe it says people are descended from dolphins.
as proven in several posts ... it is clear that you have little understanding of Darwinian theory... you are open with your confusion... on two main points that you can't seem to grasp:
1- inheritance of traits...you seem to break with your faith-filled theory with the conjuring up that inherited traits don't have to be inherited. LMAO at your excuses ( and in typical evo-devo fashion they can't explain how traits just showed up in sudden fashion in non-inherited ways.
2 - the magic of co-option... ... co-option actually required specific genes to be in place long before any adaptation takes place.. and even worse for the evo-devo church goers is the fact that even after 'said' co-option... and the existence of co-opted gene... it might be expessed millions of years later... or not at all. ..all magically unexplainable by Pixie:
Question for you Pixie... what is the cause of a co-opted gene not being used for millions of years? does your faith explain that one to you? Nope.. but please try to explain it to the readers of this board.
It is not my theory, by the way. Over a hundred thousand biologists accept it.
Wow.. Pixie falls down the hole of more bad science equates to fact... too funny. Pixie would be a prime candidate for Flat Earthers... as they had the majority view (until better science showed up and the believers bailed)....Pixie would be a prime candidate for Earth-centric science followers... (until better science showed up and shut them up)... Pixie would be a prime candidate for Sun-centric followers because she feels that the majority is correct... too funny ( and better science shows up and kicks them to the curb).
You say "only" but the fact is that this covers a huge amount of evidence.
Pretty much in your faith-filled mind. but ok it's 'huge' and is still not proof.
The pattern of variation between amino acids - cytochrome-c is just one example - is a great example of reproducible experiments that provide evidence of evolution.
It is actually a better example of design: Just for you-

Comparison of DNA and morphology are other great example of reproducible experiments that provide evidence of evolution.
Too funny you seem further confused. you can't reproduce evolution but Pixie now proclaims that reproducing past experiments proves it in an evidential way. Yes Pixie.. 2+2 does = 4 and it will tomorrow too but it in no way is evidence for evolution any more than a tired old experiment with gaps does... no matter how many times you wish to repeat it.
And there are plenty of others. So when you say "The only evidence" you are ignoring he fact that there is a huge body of evidence for evolution through reproducible experiments besides the million or so fossils.
wow... why be so ignorant of the missing data? Your millions of fossils just prove the gaps and missing links and the massive problem that Evo-Devos have with the incredible appearance of new species in a blink of an evolutionary eye.
Question for you Pixie: how is it possible for thousands of species to appear in such a quick fashion? it defies your faith-based theory of long slow random inheritance? Psst.. (this is usually where folks like you run away or spin away from darwinian theory..like using co-opted )
.


The pattern of variation between amino acids, comparison of DNA and morphology, etc., etc. This is the 'abundance of evidence'. Why are you so determined to ignore all this evidence?
Not ignoring it at all ..just exposing it for all it's missing links and all it's differences.... (find your mermaid yet? LOL).. if readers recall Pixie believes that because she can't find a mermaid .(or a dog/cat/fish/mushroom/man) it proves evolution... very entertaining though
Because that is what creationism has to do. It cannot possibly hope to compete. It has next to no evidence of its own, so it does the only thing it can and pretends the evidence for evolution does not exist.
ID actually uses factual science to detect design and define it. what evo-devos do is just pray to darwin for someone to fill all the missing gaps and links and math in their theory.= no wonder so many scientists are actually factually bailing from it.
The Fossil Record

And that disproves evolution how?
you can't pass on any changes if you die off. basic evo-devo concept.. if your species dies.. no propagation. should be easy to grasp. (should be..but)
You go on and on about the gaps in the fossil record. Tell me how they disprove evolution. Walk me through the logic here.
If you can't show exactly how evolution works besides pointing to the textbook definition of long, slow random inherited traits that eventually propagate outward in some mystical tree-o-life poster... then pointing out that you have no propagation kinda/sorta/clearly points out the failing of evolution there. But if you have deep deep faith in your theory that maybe you will live to see the gaps filled in one by one (like darwin feared..and never saw)... then you can cling to your empty evidences.
Birds evolved from Dinosaurs
wow.. maybe you can show us all (and I hope you can share your newfound science with real scientists).. show us step by evo-devo step any bird that evolved from a dino. this will be great... (please..no assumed records or missing gaps.... yawn)

Over a hundred thousand biologists accept evolution​

Yeah for Pixie... she falls down the hole of the fallacy of the majority... that makes her a Flat-earther... Earth-centric believer and Sun-centric supporter just because she want's to feel like the more the merrier... Heck she probably still believes in the universe steady-state too...as most scientists did... until better science crept in and changed the prayers of the older mindsets..... bravo for you Pixie.. you seem to be in great company... and cozy in your faith
The Mechanism of Evolution
Sorry, if you are unable to google the mechanism for evolution... it was a test and it seemed to confuse you as expected... I was just hoping you could show the thread here how you can explain evolution without begging for 'front-loading' concepts like co-option ...or theories that go against evolution's slow blind random growth like co-option....... but you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth and can't decide where to put your faith in... guided and rapid like you posted a link in support of? or Darwinian evolution like you said you believed in?.. still want both? then explain it. (no wonder scientists are bailing from it)
So it turns out that there is a huge amount of work that has been done on this.
you clearly ignore what ID is fully about. you are not equipped to deal with ID so you keep defaulting to 'creationism' since that was what you were probably injected with.. you know little about ID and you keep ignoring that. If the best you can do is ....welp there is a huge amount of work that has to be done on this... then you have great great faith in your crumbling theory
 
Top