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

Martin23233

Active member
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.
Easy to answer. Just step up... it's your turn.. I spent two days answering your questions and you have dodged mine.

your turn:
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. (asked last Friday before answering your Qs for Fri/Sat/Sun and Monday)
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?
Question for you... how does a darwinian such as you explain the existence of vitamin C pseudogene or cytochrome-c ?
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?
<you tried to run from that question by a link that shows how pre-existing genes can be used for certain purposes other than what what the gene was originally thought to , but that answer nothing... it just begs the question as how the gene was directed..it was not the organism...how did the gene have the code for the change?> how? show how evo-devo works that in with blind mutations....
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
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)?
Question for you: . why do you keep dodging the question? Do you think that is being honest? <in reference to the sturgeon...you dodged it with some predator comment but that was shot down> Would be great if you just said you can't explain it....even your link could not. (I think we all know about the massive amount of eggs... nice dodge there)
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)?
Question for you Pixie... what is the cause of a co-opted gene not being used for millions of years?
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?

This is usually where you run away...or spin things saying you actually answered... but please just be up-front and honest and do as I did for you over the last couple days and addressed each one ..point by point. (I admit that one question you asked was not answered due to your vague question...and I'll certainly address it now that you took the time to be clear.
Thanks In Advance...
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

A Specific Pattern of Commonality Shows Descent​

Pixie believes that commonness equates to descent!!!!
Get it right. It is the specific pattern of commonality that shows descent.

It is not just that we and yeast use cytochrome-c, it is that the difference in the amino acid sequence between many species so well matches how closely related two species are.

Something I have repeatedly asked you to explain in a creationist scenario, pretty much every day for a week and a half, and you repeatedly fail to do so.

Why is that?

Because evolution is true and creationism is false.

She tries ...
It is "He" actually, but no biggie.

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.
There are various ways to measure DNA similarity, so I have avoided giving a specific number.

However, the fact is that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. Again, it is the specific pattern of commonality that shows descent.

Something I have repeatedly asked you to explain in a creationist scenario, pretty much every day for a week and a half, and you repeatedly fail to do so.

Why is that?

Because evolution is true and creationism is false.

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:
Wrong. All I said about the gaps is that a lack of fossil cannot disprove anything.

The fact is that the genetic evidence is overwhelming. As I just said chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.

The reason for that is that chimps and humans have a common ancestor just a few million years ago.

"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 "
There is a huge amount of similarity between us and, say, fruit flies. This is what common descent says, and, fair enough, common design explains that to.

However, it is the specific pattern of commonality that shows descent.

And this is something "ID The Future" does not address. Why now? Well, because creationism has no answer.

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?
Why do you think they are not evolving?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Who Understands The Theory of Evolution?​


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:
This is hilarious from the guy who thinks evolution says people evolved from dolphins

For anyone who missed this gem, from post #1835:

"And (again) for the record I don't believe humans descended from dolphins...but your theory of common descent does..."

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.
I have no idea where you get this from. I sometimes wonder if you are having a second debate with a fantasy Pixie in your head where you are saying clever things, and the fantasy Pixie is not. I presume this comes from there?

Certainly not from anything I said. It is telling that you do not quote me. It must be tricky copy-and-pasting from your imagination to your computer.

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:
Again, I have no idea what you are saying here.

We have plenty of examples of co-options where a protein (or whatever) originally had one function, so was useful to the organism - and the specific genes were therefore in place. The species evolves, and that protein gets used for something else, i.e., is co-opted.

I cited this article before, but it explains it well, it makes clear the idea goes all the way back to Darwin, and it provides several well-supported examples.


Co-option​

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.
The point about co-option is that the gene is used, but was originally used for a different purpose.

It is your front-loading theory that supposes a gene that is there in the organism that is unused, just waiting around ready to be used millions of years in the future. Admittedly you are probably not aware of what front-loading claims.

You really need to understand the difference.


Over a hundred thousand biologists accept evolution​

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).
I point out that over a hundred thousand biologists accept evolution to counter you claim over a little over a thousand assorted scientists and engineers leaving evolution.

The truth is that it is you who has been consistently trying to promote the idea that we should follow the majority view. From post #1698:

"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"

It is strange that it is a fallacy when I do it, but not when you do it!

But hey, double standards are the creationist stock-in-trade, right?


Abundance of Evidence​

Pretty much in your faith-filled mind. but ok it's 'huge' and is still not proof.
It is not proof because no science is every proven, but it is as close as it gets.

And yes, it is huge. I d not need faith, because I have reality on my side.

All those over a hundred thousand biologists who accept evolution are producing more and more evidence every day.

This is why at every turn I can tell you how evolution explains it, and point you to peer-reviewed science that confirms it.

In contrast, all creationism can do is pretend the evidence does not exist, just as you are doing here. Why the specific pattern of commonality seen in the genome of different species? Why the specific pattern of commonality seen in the amino acid sequences such as cytochrome-c?

Creationism just ignores this evidence because it simply cannot explain it. And so creationists erroneously thing there is not much evidence for evolution.


A Specific Pattern of Commonality in Cytochrome-c Differences​


It is actually a better example of design: Just for you-

You cited this personal web page of an electric engineer before. Do you honestly think it stands against the articles I found by actual scientists in peer-reviewed journals?

And as pointed out before, it is most based on a book by Denton, written before he changed his position, and accepteds that actually common descent is true. That is to say, it is based on a book that the author later realised was wrong!


Repeatable Science​

I earlier said:
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.
You need to do experiments that test the predictions of evolution to confirm and refute it, not random maths questions.

You do not really understand science, do you?

Can you show me any way in which creationism is repeatable?

Of course not! But double standards are the creationist stock-in-trade, right?

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 )
What thousands of species are you talking about? How quick are they appearing?

This question seems unrelated to anything we discussed previously. It is a follow on from the fantasy debate you are having in your head?


A Specific Pattern of Commonality​

I earlier said:
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....
You say you are not ignoring it, and yet still there is no explanation for that pattern!

Why is that? Because creation is wrong!


Falsifiable​

(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
I presume readers are sufficiently knowledgeable about science that they understand what falsifiable means, and so they, at least, will understand the point about the mermaids.


What Science Has ID Ever Used? Seriously?​

ID actually uses factual science to detect design and define it.
Give one example.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

The Fossil Record​

what evo-devos do is just pray to darwin for someone to fill all the missing gaps and links and math in their theory.=
And week-by-week those prays seem to get answered! More and more fossils are being found, slowly filling in those missing gaps.

Are you praying for creationism? It is not working.

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.
What did you say before?

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).

When I point out over a hundred thousand biologists agree with me you say it is a fallacy, but not when you point out just over a thousand assorted scientists and engineers reject it. Odd that.

But hey, double standards are the creationist stock-in-trade, right?

I earlier said:
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)
So you think that the fossil record disproves evolution because "you can't pass on any changes if you die off"...

Wow.

Did it not cross your mind that changes can be passed on before an animal dies and get fossilised?

I guess not.

I earlier said:
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. ...
Well, we can show you how evolution works, and I have pointed you to numerous peer-reviewed papers that do just that, so vyour first premise is wrong and your logic fails right from the start.

Furthermore, your logic does not even mention the gaps in the fossil record, so necessarily must fail to show how gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.

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.
And lo and behold, they are indeed being filled.

As Darwin hoped, and in some cases saw - such as archaeopteryx, a transitional between bird and reptile.

So you got the personal blog of some random guy. He was an authority on evolution because he was a theologian? Really?

I take it you could not find anything by a scientist? Odd, when you keep telling us about those hundreds of assorted scientists and engineers who are leaving evolution. Instead we get a guy with, as far as I can see, absolutely no qualifications in science.

The very best creationism has to offer.

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)
What is interesting here is that you clearly know there are numerous fossils of intermediates between dinosaurs and birds, and you are determined to pretend they are not evidence for evolution, so you carefully state "no assumed records or missing gaps".

That is what creationists demand from evolution because they know evolution has so much evidence. All creationism has is the gaps... the ever dwindling gaps.

Naturally creationism cannot offer anything like the detail evolution can. But double standards are the creationist stock-in-trade, so this is to be expected.

As for how birds evolved from dinosaurs, I see you ignored the four articles I provided, so I will link to them again, really just to illustrate how adept creationists are at ignore evidence.

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.


The Mechanism of Evolution​

Previously I said:

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.
You have snipped that from your reply. I wonder why?

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)
The fact is that I answered your question. You just chose to snip my answer from your reply.

This is a great example of creationism ignore what it does not like at its finest. Take your opponents post, snip the bits you do not like, then just reply to the rest. Do not like those links confirming birds evolved from dinosaurs? Just snip them, and petend they do not exist. Want to pretend evolution has no mechanism? No problem. Just snip it out. Then you can mock your opponent for not having a mechanism!

It is not like creationism is based on reality, so why expect a creationist's posts to be based on reality?


The Mechanism of Creation​

I earlier said:
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.
Easy to answer. Just step up... it's your turn.. I spent two days answering your questions and you have dodged mine.
Asserting it is easy to answer does not magically make it so.

Where is it?

How do you fit front-loading into creationism? Do you believe the would is 6000 years old or four billion or what?

So, no, Martin, it is not my turn. You have to actually answer this. Merely saying it is easy to answer is not going to cut.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
So here we have twelve questions that Martin wants to pretend I am dodging....

Unfortunately, reality does not back that up. Firstly, three of them appear on the list twice. The first is the same as the eleventh, the second is the same as the twelfth, the eighth is the same as the tenth. So really there are only nine questions.

Secondly, most have been answered. Perhaps Martin disagrees with the answer, but in most - and perhaps all - cases he has just snipped my answer from his later reply. Almost certainly because he has no come-back. Out of the remaining nine questions, five are questions I have already answered and he has no response to!

Of the remainder... One is not coherent. I have no idea what he is talking about.

And one... is Martin asking if I think dodging questions is honest! Oh, the irony... Perhaps he could say if pretending your opponent is dodging questions is honest?

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. (asked last Friday before answering your Qs for Fri/Sat/Sun and Monday)
Already answered:

The point about co-option is that the gene is used, but was originally used for a different purpose.

It is your front-loading theory that supposes a gene that is there in the organism that is unused, just waiting around ready to be used millions of years in the future. Admittedly you are probably not aware of what front-loading claims.

You really need to understand the difference.

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?
No idea what this relates to.

In fact, it is young earth creationism that requires "for thousands of species to appear in such a quick fashion", all the numerous species around today having supposedly evolved from the few thousand kinds on the ark in a few thousand years.

That is vastly faster than evolution. So you tell me Martin.

Question for you... how does a darwinian such as you explain the existence of vitamin C pseudogene or cytochrome-c
I showed you that paper from Nature that details the mutations that led to the gene for vitamin C breaking, so that is already done.

I am going to guess what you really want is the existence of the gene, not the pseudogene. Of course, evolution can tell you the basic principles of how genes are formed. But you are a creationist, and the only "evidence" creationism has is the gaps in evolution.

The "logic" appears to be:

Evolution cannot give a step-by-step description of something obscure that happened 500 million years ago
Therefore evolution is wrong
Therefore creationism is right

In reality, both conclusions are bad logic. Let us suppose evolution cannot say (I do not know if it can or not); what does that prove?

We are talking about genes that appeared many hundreds of millions of years ago. Would we expect to be able to work out the biochemistry of organisms from so long ago? No. If evolution is right, then we would expect this to be extremely difficult to determine.

And it is! Prediction confirmed.

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)?
Already answered:

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.

More specifically... what directs that gene expression...is it the species..or the gene coding/expression that dictates the new use?
<you tried to run from that question by a link that shows how pre-existing genes can be used for certain purposes other than what what the gene was originally thought to , but that answer nothing... it just begs the question as how the gene was directed..it was not the organism...how did the gene have the code for the change?> how? show how evo-devo works that in with blind mutations....
Already answered:

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.

I appreciate that you object to my reply, but the onus is now on you to make your question clearer.

Perhaps you could explain the creationist position on this...

Oh wait. There is none.

And I say this, not knowing what it is. It does not matter; creationism will have no position on it.

Question for you: . why do you keep dodging the question? Do you think that is being honest?
Do YOU think it is honest to repeatedly dodge a question?

Another example of creationism's double standards, I guess.

Sadly, that is what I have come to expect from you Martin.

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
Already answered:

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.

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)?
Already answered:

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.

Question for you: . why do you keep dodging the question? Do you think that is being honest? <in reference to the sturgeon...you dodged it with some predator comment but that was shot down> Would be great if you just said you can't explain it....even your link could not. (I think we all know about the massive amount of eggs... nice dodge there)
This is not even coherent.

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)?
Second time this appears on your list. Clearly you want to give the impression I have dodged a load of questions, and are wanting to bulk out your list as much as you can.

Question for you Pixie... what is the cause of a co-opted gene not being used for millions of years?
This is the second time this one is on your list.

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?
And again. That is three questions that appear twice on your list.

Do you have short-term memory problems Martin? Can you not remember what you were writing at the start of your post?

This is usually where you run away...or spin things saying you actually answered...
No spinning Martin. Many of them have already been addressed, and generally you have just ignored those responses. It is the usual case of creationists just ignoring reality if they do not like it.

but please just be up-front and honest and do as I did for you over the last couple days and addressed each one ..point by point. (I admit that one question you asked was not answered due to your vague question...and I'll certainly address it now that you took the time to be clear.
And yet you still have not explained

  • Why gaps in the fossil record refute evolution (hint: your logic has to mention gaps in the fossil record)
  • Why there is a specific pattern of commonality in DNA sequences (hint: merely noting thre is commonality does not explain the pattern)
  • Why there is a specific pattern of commonality in amino acids sequences such as cytochrome-c (hint: merely noting thre is commonality does not explain the pattern)
  • What you think front-loading means
  • What is the mechanism of creation
  • What you actually believe

I asked you over a week ago: Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science. You still have not done that. Why not? Because it is utter nonsense!
 

Martin23233

Active member

A Specific Pattern of Commonality Shows Descent​


Get it right. It is the specific pattern of commonality that shows descent.
Not really, as pointed out earlier - common design. The dolphin is very similar to humans but we did not descend from them:
It is not just that we and yeast use cytochrome-c, it is that the difference in the amino acid sequence between many species so well matches how closely related two species are.
as posted earlier -that would be fully expected with a design... a different species would need a slightly different expression.
Something I have repeatedly asked you to explain in a creationist scenario, pretty much every day for a week and a half, and you repeatedly fail to do so.

Why is that?

Because evolution is true and creationism is false.
Cleary your dream of 'truth' and 'evolution' can't be seriously considered in the same sentence .. as truth has nothing to do with materialist...as there is no concept of truth... things must be random.... Truth is something a/mats don't believe in so it's funny when you try to paint something unproven as 'true' agendas die hard eh?
I just spent several days peppering you with all the holes in evolutionary theory... as I have already responded to that very question so you seem to be once again misrepresenting things
Why is that ? why ignore an honest answer? Not good enough for you? (at least fess up that it was answered instead if painting it falsely like it was not)
Evolution just can't prove things... ID can. Evolution is not repeatable and has too many gaps to stand on it's own. lets see if your continue your repeated denial of an answer... starting to wonder why you ignore answers.... unable to address em? just missed em? hmmm
It is "He" actually, but no biggie.
Sorry , my bad... but why the Tag 'Pixie'... that pretty much would through most folks off, sorry sir... your a 'him/he' from now on.
There are various ways to measure DNA similarity, so I have avoided giving a specific number.
yeah you seem to be stuck on similarities (and ID focuses on that too) but ID also looks at differences. why would not not try to understand differences?
However, the fact is that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. Again, it is the specific pattern of commonality that shows descent.
LOL sure sure.. but under ID it is due to common design patterns...just like we see in humans / chimps / dolphins / kangaroos...can you put those 4 in order of the long slow random direct inheritance from fossil records? Nope... already looked but you might be able to spin up a nice 'just so ' story.
Wrong. All I said about the gaps is that a lack of fossil cannot disprove anything.
yet you feel that they prove something?... if the evidence isn't there... it's not there. I'll clearly admit that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. but hey it certainly look bad for Evos.... who can't get poofs in all the key areas they claim must exist.
The fact is that the genetic evidence is overwhelming. As I just said chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.
your Chimp DNA is no evidence of common descent just as dolphin DNA similarity in humans. So guinea pigs have a similar gene muttation as Humans... I.design has that ..and shows that is expected.... evo does not.
The reason for that is that chimps and humans have a common ancestor just a few million years ago.
Great.. just show us... and be done with it.. you do a great job telling stories and faith-filled just so possibilities .. but you can't really show us anything showing what you just claimed... funny how that goes with evos...
There is a huge amount of similarity between us and, say, fruit flies. This is what common descent says, and, fair enough, common design explains that to.

However, it is the specific pattern of commonality that shows descent.
so the exact matches in Dolphin genome and human genome must mean that we are from dolphins and not chimps?
And this is something "ID The Future" does not address. Why now? Well, because creationism has no answer.
Please be more clear...are you dodging a question by questioning things?
Why do you think they are not evolving?
Please be more clear here... are you dodging a direct question that evolution can't answer?
 

Martin23233

Active member
So here we have twelve questions that Martin wants to pretend I am dodging....
Finally you attempt to step up. thanks let's see how well your google skills are...probably par with other dejected Evos Lets see how well you do answering each one. (and not skipping over once you can't address for whatever reason you think)
Unfortunately, reality does not back that up. Firstly, three of them appear on the list twice. The first is the same as the eleventh, the second is the same as the twelfth, the eighth is the same as the tenth. So really there are only nine questions.
LOL "the first is the same as the eleventh". sadly public school math skills appear to be sub-par as there are only 10 questions..not 11 not 12.
There is no 'twelfth' so pretty sure you were not paying attention .. maybe its the same as the 'tenth' so just answer it once... or repeat yourself if you feel you must. :
or just state you answered it already... easy eh?
Secondly, most have been answered. Perhaps Martin disagrees with the answer, but in most - and perhaps all - cases he has just snipped my answer from his later reply. Almost certainly because he has no come-back. Out of the remaining nine questions, five are questions I have already answered and he has no response to!

Of the remainder... One is not coherent. I have no idea what he is talking about.

And one... is Martin asking if I think dodging questions is honest! Oh, the irony... Perhaps he could say if pretending your opponent is dodging questions is honest?
then stop dodging things ..and crying victim ..just be an honest individual and you'll do fine.
Already answered:

The point about co-option is that the gene is used, but was originally used for a different purpose.
you are on the right track finally...so far. But you just end the line of thinking there.. you failed to show how the gene got used for another purpose..*or not. you just assumed...that the random and blind theory of evolution is not capable of anything directed. psst(it does not know anything about it's genes capabilities..it relies on their designed coded direction)
It is your front-loading theory that supposes a gene that is there in the organism that is unused, just waiting around ready to be used millions of years in the future. Admittedly you are probably not aware of what front-loading claims.
you probably did not realize your mistake here... but that is what front-loading or as your link states "preadaptation" means.... it means the reliance on pre-loaded genes in the species to use....eventually ...or maybe not at all. easy concept to get... so i am happy to point this out once again.
You really need to understand the difference.
and i just pointed it out to you again... funny eh?
No idea what this relates to.
just explained it to you hopefully you now do
In fact, it is young earth creationism that requires "for thousands of species to appear in such a quick fashion", all the numerous species around today having supposedly evolved from the few thousand kinds on the ark in a few thousand years.
Again you you keep barking up the wrong tree.. I am not a YEC.... please recalibrate your silly claims to try your best to attack ID... my answers will likely be the same regardless but you should know the correct terms.
That is vastly faster than evolution. So you tell me Martin.
Due to design Pixie... Intelligence behind the creation of life... ID can survive the and explain the failings of evo-devo's failure to explain the fast and vast life forms.... evo can't. sorry you just dodge here like you did previously... best you can do is beg to question how ID can do it.
I showed you that paper from Nature that details the mutations that led to the gene for vitamin C breaking, so that is already done.
and I showed you how that did not work out too well for Evos
I am going to guess what you really want is the existence of the gene, not the pseudogene. Of course, evolution can tell you the basic principles of how genes are formed. But you are a creationist, and the only "evidence" creationism has is the gaps in evolution.
Amazing Pixie claims to think he knows that "evolution can tell the basic principles of how genes are formed" Please do entertain us Pixie I a certain some undergrad is begging for this to be shown. Yawn... but alas all Pixie can muster is some 'just so story'...unable to show any science of how a gene formed....only assumptions and storytime... such great faith that Pixie holds... AMEN.
The "logic" appears to be:

Evolution cannot give a step-by-step description of something obscure that happened 500 million years ago
Therefore evolution is wrong
Therefore creationism is right
really bad logic there Pix... must not have studied much in the field. So you mix two conclusions out of one premise.. not a horrible thing but not correct. let's help Pixie out:
Evolution can't show evidence of it's hypothesis (long slow blind/random development) ..no matter how long ago
Therefore evolution is not proven
(period). you can't inject that "an object is not round" therefore it is not square... you infer too much ... All I am saying it that since evolution can't be proven ..it can't be called true..and therefore requires faith. I hope you grasp that much. your logic is just not sound.
i

In reality, both conclusions are bad logic. Let us suppose evolution cannot say (I do not know if it can or not); what does that prove?

We are talking about genes that appeared many hundreds of millions of years ago. Would we expect to be able to work out the biochemistry of organisms from so long ago? No. If evolution is right, then we would expect this to be extremely difficult to determine.
and that is just what you keep trying to do. with your Vit-C and Cyst gene and dysfunction. if you claim you don't know if it can or cannot say...
If ID is right we would expect what we see today...and reject the claims that evos still can't show.
And it is! Prediction confirmed.
imagination is a great thing there Pixie
Already answered:

I am not sure what you are asking. An organism can co-opt a protein for another purpose if the protein fits that purpose.
yes ..co-opt.. requires the pre-existence of said gene.... would you admit that much?
Question for you Pixie.... doesn't co-opt require that a specific genes pre-existence. the answer from a reasoned minded person is yes... there needs to be some prior gene. I think we can (and must) all agree with that as evolution has no mechanism to create genes...it must use them. So that begs the question how does evolution ever get a chance to even start? it can't create life...it can't form genes... it's only true expression of it's theory is through slow random blind mutations. (so filled with admitted gaps and unexplainable appearance of species in rapid sudden fashion) how can one believe in such a theory that is crumbling by the day.
Already answered:

I am not sure what you are asking. An organism can co-opt a protein for another purpose if the protein fits that purpose.
and yet that co-opt happens the protein and gene exists but is never ....ever used.... opps evo failure.
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.
need time to read this and research but thanks... high level this is well known design but i'll point it out if it lines up.
 

Martin23233

Active member
Already answered:

I appreciate that you object to my reply, but the onus is now on you to make your question clearer.

Perhaps you could explain the creationist position on this...

Oh wait. There is none.
Please re-phrase from an ID perspective.. you confuse creationists with ID... while it could be the same ... it might not be.
And I say this, not knowing what it is. It does not matter; creationism will have no position on it.


Do YOU think it is honest to repeatedly dodge a question?
It seems you would answer no.... due to your dodges
Another example of creationism's double standards, I guess.

Sadly, that is what I have come to expect from you Martin.
Maybe we can get a creationists in here to answer... but then again you might still be confused.
Already answered:

As I said before, the sturgeon survived because it is successful, so had no pressure to adapt.
Saying so ain't showin so.... but i appreciate your veiled "i don't know"... but if you did know you would like have show it. love your faith there AMEN
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.
False Dichotomy ... your evo theory relies on long slow/blind mutations for change in species.... and if it can't explain why it stopped ...too funny. So, why dodge the question with some obscured response ? IOW... if your theory explained the long slow random walking off of mountains ...then you best be able to explain why your theory can't explain why mountains don't walk off.. see what I did here? I used your own ill-thought logic to just reinforce my comment 101 stuff here Pixie... careful trying to play logical and all...it will get used against you.
pay attention... I asked you why did it stop happening? not for "a mechanism for something to not happen" big difference but maybe you knew you could not answer this... maybe you are actually that smart and wished to spin it away to something else?

hemm maybe but :
Question for you Pixie: how do Evo-Devos explain why evolution just stopped? why can't chimps evolve ...why can't we force fruit flies after tens of thousands of mutations to evolve? what happened? where did it go? dodge much?

Already answered:

We are related to the octopus, but distantly.
really ,, wow.. what branch is that from? got a good drawing to show us on the same branch? oh.. it must be so so distant that we both developed the complex eye miraculously separately wow...
The eye is a great example of convergent evolution - that we have discussed to death!
LOL 'convergent evolution'... the great last resort miracle of evos...conjour up co-opt...and convergence.... in a last ditch faith filled hail Mary for trying to save it's theroy. the magic of convergence.... goes against the long slow blind and random mutation growth... (lol it must of happened at the same time due to the same conditions and same pressures... and yet just nothing to show how that is possible from the blind and purely random evo theory)... magic. love it.
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.
by design... and it suits the theory better..unlike the slow blind randomness of evo (fossils show that wrong)
This is not even coherent.
what don't you understand...i'm willing to lift you up
Second time this appears on your list. Clearly you want to give the impression I have dodged a load of questions, and are wanting to bulk out your list as much as you can.


And yet you still have not explained

  • Why gaps in the fossil record refute evolution (hint: your logic has to mention gaps in the fossil record)
already explained several times. the theory of Evo requires slow, long blind and unguided progression... the fossil record fails you here.
  • Why there is a specific pattern of commonality in DNA sequences (hint: merely noting thre is commonality does not explain the pattern)
Once you understand Intelligent Design you will understand that design technique is based on common building blocks. the earth holds only so many items. Life holds common items , items like DNA / Genes .... and design shows how these and more are used to express differences in species
  • Why there is a specific pattern of commonality in amino acids sequences such as cytochrome-c (hint: merely noting thre is commonality does not explain the pattern)
there is commonness which actually is a design principle (stairs are common among boats, and houses and buildings and busses ..etc) there is some logic behind a good design of a gene and adjusting it ever so slightly for the structure - proven design mechanism. where as the math of it being a random Evo thing..... (hint.. it just is not really something that likely)
  • What you think front-loading means
Please read my response to that same question... I have to wonder if you are good at remembering things or comprehending what you have read.... let me know if you can't find my response.... I will be happy to help lift you up
  • What is the mechanism of creation
Please check back when we have a creationist in the room that will answer your Question... I'm ID. but i get your confusion... and frustration as you were probably never equipped to debate an ID-er... clearly.
  • What you actually believe
I actually believe you are floundering here... and grasping at google responses that you are barely able to comprehend to try to support a dying Darwinian theory that many brilliant scientists far more educated than you and i are able to see. I believe in salvation through Christ our Lord and in the concept of Truth through the H.S and God's grace.
I guess that pretty much exposes what you don't believe in...eh... but exposed none the less.
I asked you over a week ago: Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science. You still have not done that. Why not? Because it is utter nonsense!

by company policy
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

A Specific Pattern of Commonality Shows Descent​

I earlier said:
Get it right. It is the specific pattern of commonality that shows descent.
Not really, as pointed out earlier - common design. The dolphin is very similar to humans but we did not descend from them:
But yet again you are failing to explain the specific pattern of commonality.

It is not just the dolphins are genetically like people. It is why they are more like people than they are like fish.

Again and again I ask this. Again and again you dodge.

as posted earlier -that would be fully expected with a design... a different species would need a slightly different expression.
But yet again you are failing to explain the the specific pattern of commonality.

It is not just that there are differences in the amino acid sequence of proteins like cytochrome-c, it is that the number of differences correlates so well with how closely related species are.

Again and again I ask this. Again and again you dodge.


You Reject Evolution Because It Contradicts Your Faith​

Cleary your dream of 'truth' and 'evolution' can't be seriously considered in the same sentence .. as truth has nothing to do with materialist...as there is no concept of truth... things must be random.... Truth is something a/mats don't believe in so it's funny when you try to paint something unproven as 'true' agendas die hard eh?
Right, so you reject evolution because it is a materialist view, and is not connected to the evidence.

At last we uncover the truth - not that it is a surprise.

I just spent several days peppering you with all the holes in evolutionary theory...
But holes only indicate a lack of knowledge. By their nature, they cannot disprove anything.

Look at your own theory; it is one big hole! I have repeated asked you for the mechanism for creationism, and you repeatedly dodge the question. Because creationism has no mechanism at all!

I repeatedly ask you to state your beliefs. Do you think the universe is 6000 years old? Several billion? You cannot say. This is a far far bigger hole than any you have found in evolution. Why do you gaping hole that is creationism?

Because evolution contradicts your faith.

For you this is nothing to do with evidence. Creationism clearly has next to none - and plenty that argues against it. Creationism has merely a thousand or so assorted scientists and engineers. But you happy embrace it because of your faith.

Evolution has an abundance of evidence in genetics, biochemistry, palaeontology (and is supported by physics and geology). Evolution is accepted by hundreds of thousands of scientists just counting those who are biologists. But you reject it because of your faith.

It is worth pointing out that those hundreds of thousands of biologists who accept evolution are a wide mix of religions as well as no religion. A lot of them are Christians. People do not accept evolution because of their faith, they accept it because of the evidence.

It is, therefore, science and utterly unlike creationism.


Chimps Closer to Humans than to Gorillas

yeah you seem to be stuck on similarities (and ID focuses on that too) but ID also looks at differences. why would not not try to understand differences?
Why on earth are you talking about?

I have repeatedly pointed out that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. That means the differences as well as the similarities are important.

I will note again that you are still failing to explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. Why is that? This directly contradicts creationism, that holds that mankind was created special and set apart. You have yourself pointed out the huge differences between chimp and man. So why so close genetically?

Common design and common building blocks does not cut it because that does not explain why chimps are not as close to gorillas. Why did the designer choose to give all those common building blocks to chimps and humans, but not so many to gorillas?

Again and again you dodge this. Why? If creationism is right, why can creationists not answer this?

If you have God on your side, why has he not told you?

LOL sure sure.. but under ID it is due to common design patterns...just like we see in humans / chimps / dolphins / kangaroos...can you put those 4 in order of the long slow random direct inheritance from fossil records? Nope... already looked but you might be able to spin up a nice 'just so ' story.
So tell me why the design pattern for chimp is so similar to humans, and not so similar to gorillas.

You cannot. All you can do is trot out "common design patterns" as though that says something.

If you want to label evolutionary explanations as "just so" stories, so be it. But at least evolution has those explanations.

ID has nothing.

yet you feel that they prove something?...
No, because nothing is proved in science. However, the abundance of evidence makes evolution as close to proven as it gets.

if the evidence isn't there... it's not there. I'll clearly admit that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. but hey it certainly look bad for Evos.... who can't get poofs in all the key areas they claim must exist.
And yet there is a huge amount of evidence that points to evolution and away from creationism, such as the fact that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.

This is a fact, Martin. Chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. This is something evolution can explain, and something that refutes creationism.

And that is why you are so desperate to avoid facts.

your Chimp DNA is no evidence of common descent just as dolphin DNA similarity in humans. So guinea pigs have a similar gene muttation as Humans... I.design has that ..and shows that is expected.... evo does not.
It is not simply chimp DNA; it is comparing the DNA of other species.

It is a fact that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.

And that is evidence of common descent, and it is evidence against creationism.

I earlier said:
The reason for that is that chimps and humans have a common ancestor just a few million years ago.
Great.. just show us... and be done with it.. you do a great job telling stories and faith-filled just so possibilities .. but you can't really show us anything showing what you just claimed... funny how that goes with evos...
I do not have to show you. The fact that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA shows us.

Fair warning: I am carefully highlighting the gorilla part all through this to emphasise it so I can make a big deal about you ignoring it next time around by the way.


Dolphins Closer to Humans than to Fish​

I earlier said:
There is a huge amount of similarity between us and, say, fruit flies. This is what common descent says, and, fair enough, common design explains that to.
However, it is the specific pattern of commonality that shows descent.
so the exact matches in Dolphin genome and human genome must mean that we are from dolphins and not chimps?
Wow, you really are confused. Close matches indicate a close common ancestor, not that one species is descended from the other.

Dolphins are genetically similar to people because we have a common ancestor around 75 to 90 million years ago. They are less similar to fish, because their common ancestor with fish was over 300 million years ago.

This is the evolutionary explanation - or "just so" story as you like to label it, as though that makes if less likely. What is the creationist explanation? I keep asking you this, you keep dodging. Why?

Oh right. Creationism has no answer, because it is wrong!

With regards to chimps, we are genetically closer to chimps than dolphins as we only split off from them a few million years ago.

I earlier said:
And this is something "ID The Future" does not address. Why now? Well, because creationism has no answer.
Please be more clear...are you dodging a question by questioning things?
Firstly it was a rhetorical question. You might want to look that up.

Secondly, what question do you think I am dodging? I have looked back, and it looks to me like it was answered.

Is this you wanting to convince yourself evolution does not have the answers, so you are pretending I am dodging questions that do not exist?

I earlier said:
Why do you think they are not evolving?
Please be more clear here... are you dodging a direct question that evolution can't answer?
I am trying to understand what your question is, or rather what misunderstanding you are labouring under that caused you to ask it.

I note that you dodged my question.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Finally you attempt to step up.
I take it this is you trying to save face. Looks kind of pathetic to me, but perhaps it fools your fellow creationists.

The truth is that I have consistently answered your questions.

The truth is that you still have several that you are continuing to dodge, even after me asking you every day for a week and a half.

  • Why gaps in the fossil record refute evolution (hint: your logic has to mention gaps in the fossil record)
  • Why there is a specific pattern of commonality in DNA sequences (hint: merely noting thre is commonality does not explain the pattern)
  • Why there is a specific pattern of commonality in amino acids sequences such as cytochrome-c (hint: merely noting thre is commonality does not explain the pattern)
  • What you think front-loading means
  • What is the mechanism of creation
  • What you actually believe

LOL "the first is the same as the eleventh". sadly public school math skills appear to be sub-par as there are only 10 questions..not 11 not 12.
Although you only said "Question for you" ten times, there were actually twelve questions. The two extra ones, that apparently I could see, but you could not, despite writing them, were:

More specifically... what directs that gene expression...is it the species..or the gene coding/expression that dictates the new use?
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

There is no 'twelfth' so pretty sure you were not paying attention .. maybe its the same as the 'tenth' so just answer it once... or repeat yourself if you feel you must. :
Well one of us cannot count his own questions, that is for sure.

Got to say that at this point I kid of feel sorry for you. You seem intent on handing me a stick to beat you with.

you are on the right track finally...so far.
Wow, you really like to twist this. I am the one who has consistently answered questions. You are the one who has consistently dodged.

Oh, well, may be you are fooling your creationist friends with this nonsense.

But you just end the line of thinking there.. you failed to show how the gene got used for another purpose..*or not. you just assumed...that the random and blind theory of evolution is not capable of anything directed. psst(it does not know anything about it's genes capabilities..it relies on their designed coded direction)
It is not assumed, it is based on genetics. In one species it is used for one purpose, in another species the same protein is used for another purpose.

Did you read the article I linked to? I guess not.

you probably did not realize your mistake here... but that is what front-loading or as your link states "preadaptation" means.... it means the reliance on pre-loaded genes in the species to use....eventually ...or maybe not at all. easy concept to get... so i am happy to point this out once again.
This from the guy who clearly has no clue what front loading is!

I answered your question Martin. The only issue here is your ignorance. If you can tell me what front-loading means, we can discuss this further, and I am happy to do so. But seriously, if you are so confused on what front-loading is, there is no point.

and i just pointed it out to you again... funny eh?
No, you merely established your own confusion.

just explained it to you hopefully you now do
Not until you explain what you think front-loading is.

Again you you keep barking up the wrong tree.. I am not a YEC....
I have repeatedly asked you what your position is and this is the first hint you have given.

I am assuming it is so utterly ridiculous you dare not state it.

please recalibrate your silly claims to try your best to attack ID... my answers will likely be the same regardless but you should know the correct terms.
You tell me your beliefs, and I will. Unfortunately you seem to be too embarrassed to reveal them.

and I showed you how that did not work out too well for Evos
Based on the personal blog of an electrical engineer who got his claims from a book by a biologist who later realised he was wrong.

Try again.

Amazing Pixie claims to think he knows that "evolution can tell the basic principles of how genes are formed" Please do entertain us Pixie I a certain some undergrad is begging for this to be shown. Yawn... but alas all Pixie can muster is some 'just so story'...unable to show any science of how a gene formed....only assumptions and storytime... such great faith that Pixie holds... AMEN.
Sure. Variation, inheritance and selection. Those are the basic principles.

really bad logic there Pix... must not have studied much in the field. So you mix two conclusions out of one premise.. not a horrible thing but not correct. let's help Pixie out:
Evolution can't show evidence of it's hypothesis (long slow blind/random development) ..no matter how long ago
Therefore evolution is not proven
(period). you can't inject that "an object is not round" therefore it is not square... you infer too much ... All I am saying it that since evolution can't be proven ..it can't be called true..and therefore requires faith. I hope you grasp that much. your logic is just not sound.
I have said right from the start evolution is not proven.

and that is just what you keep trying to do. with your Vit-C and Cyst gene and dysfunction. if you claim you don't know if it can or cannot say...
If we are talking about the vitamin C pseudogene, then biologists have a pretty good idea of the mutations that caused it to fail, and can show that it is the same set of mutations in all primates and a different set in guinea pigs. This is all very good evidence that all primates are relatively closely related.

This is something creationism cannot explain, and is something you have fails to address for about a week now.

If ID is right we would expect what we see today...and reject the claims that evos still can't show.
Right. The prediction from ID: we would expect what we see today

This is why ID is not falsifiable. It just predicts what we see, whatever that is. Is that a mermaid? If you can see it, ID predicts it.

yes ..co-opt.. requires the pre-existence of said gene.... would you admit that much?
Of course it does. I assume you read none of the peer-reviewed papers I linked to.

Question for you Pixie.... doesn't co-opt require that a specific genes pre-existence.
That is what we just said.

the answer from a reasoned minded person is yes... there needs to be some prior gene. I think we can (and must) all agree with that as evolution has no mechanism to create genes...it must use them.
There are mechanisms by which genes are created.

Article in Nature from 2019

Article in Nature from 2008

See also here, from a text book, published 2002

So that begs the question how does evolution ever get a chance to even start? it can't create life...it can't form genes... it's only true expression of it's theory is through slow random blind mutations. (so filled with admitted gaps and unexplainable appearance of species in rapid sudden fashion) how can one believe in such a theory that is crumbling by the day.
Given your premise that evolution cannot produce genes is wrong, your argument fails.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Please re-phrase from an ID perspective..
Sure:

Edit per mod Grossly verbally assaultive.

I do hope that was helpful.

you confuse creationists with ID... while it could be the same ... it might not be.
That is a great summation of ID. It could be the same ... it might not be.

Sarcasm removed by Mod

I earlier said:
These comments are removed as they are improperly quoted by both parties. Learn how to use the quote system correctly.








 
Last edited by a moderator:

Martin23233

Active member

A Specific Pattern of Commonality Shows Descent​



But yet again you are failing to explain the specific pattern of commonality.

It is not just the dolphins are genetically like people. It is why they are more like people than they are like fish.

Again and again I ask this. Again and again you dodge.
the chromosomal blocks that match with humans ..which in most cases don't match with 'most fish' I think the lungfish has genome comparisons that put them in the same net.
Evo-devos suppose that this commonness has to do with both dolphins and humans were air breathing mammals... someday they'll find the evidence for it. ID identifies common design for common purposes. the old basic building blocks designers all use in different areas.
Again I answer again you deny and shift the question... too funny how you keep misrepresenting
But yet again you are failing to explain the the specific pattern of commonality.

It is not just that there are differences in the amino acid sequence of proteins like cytochrome-c, it is that the number of differences correlates so well with how closely related species are.

Again and again I ask this. Again and again you dodge.
You are lost once again... if you identify the differences then your comment actually makes sense. It is about the differences -which confounds you clearly. "differences"
Again I answer again you deny and shift the question... too funny how you keep misrepresenting

You Reject Evolution Because It Contradicts Your Faith​


Right, so you reject evolution because it is a materialist view, and is not connected to the evidence.

At last we uncover the truth - not that it is a surprise.

But holes only indicate a lack of knowledge. By their nature, they cannot disprove anything.
Pretty much explained that one to you...you are slowly catching on.. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but the condescension runs deep in the evo-devo faithful..... and they imagine the evidence and beg for others to as well no wonder so many scientists keep bailing from it.
Look at your own theory; it is one big hole! I have repeated asked you for the mechanism for creationism, and you repeatedly dodge the question. Because creationism has no mechanism at all!
Again you appear to be ignorant of ID as you keep conflating with Creationism... Please read up on ID or rephrase your rambling in a coherent question.
I repeatedly ask you to state your beliefs. Do you think the universe is 6000 years old? Several billion? You cannot say. This is a far far bigger hole than any you have found in evolution. Why do you gaping hole that is creationism?
Already answered and you responded... one has to wonder why the Pixie likes to 'misrepresent' things. If you pay better attention I stated that the universe appears to be just over 13.5 byo - why does the Pixie default to immature misrepresentations? ID is not creationism, close but not the same.
Because evolution contradicts your faith.

Evolution actually requires great faith with all the missing and assume evidences much of which keeps vanishing year by year and better science.

For you this is nothing to do with evidence. Creationism clearly has next to none - and plenty that argues against it. Creationism has merely a thousand or so assorted scientists and engineers. But you happy embrace it because of your faith.
ID is deeply rooted in scientific evidences and blows holes through evolutionary theory. the hundreds of biologists and thousands of other scientists with their studies and books all but shut down the evo-devo dead end.
Evolution has an abundance of evidence in genetics, biochemistry, palaeontology (and is supported by physics and geology). Evolution is accepted by hundreds of thousands of scientists just counting those who are biologists. But you reject it because of your faith.
ID has an abundance of evidence in genetics, bio-chem physics..and is accepted by more and more scientists yearly...while evolution is losing ground. "Yea for better science!" (those flat-earthers hated seeing those T-shirts with that logo in the lab)
It is worth pointing out that those hundreds of thousands of biologists who accept evolution are a wide mix of religions as well as no religion. A lot of them are Christians. People do not accept evolution because of their faith, they accept it because of the evidence.

It is, therefore, science and utterly unlike creationism.
Ahem... ID... please try better to drop your indoctrinated script...it may take time but I'll be here for you.
 

Martin23233

Active member

Chimps Closer to Humans than to Gorillas


Why on earth are you talking about?

I have repeatedly pointed out that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. That means the differences as well as the similarities are important.
Wrong again... you fail to consider the whole genome... and stick to your school indoctrinated 98% like (that is not the entire genome). So when one scientifically studies the D-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-c-e-s. one grasps why your chimps are not humans... just too funny there.
I will note again that you are still failing to explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. Why is that? This directly contradicts creationism, that holds that mankind was created special and set apart. You have yourself pointed out the huge differences between chimp and man. So why so close genetically?
your evo theory posits that the chimp came about far later in the mystical tree of life and compiled more changes than older apes. And humans being showing up even later than the chimp would therefore contain similar gene changes. that's how your evo-devo theory goes.
ID states that humans got the best of design with the capability to reason, and hold communications in complex fashion, abstraction, the mind and the soul are all things your precious evo-devo theory dead-ends on.
Common design and common building blocks does not cut it because that does not explain why chimps are not as close to gorillas. Why did the designer choose to give all those common building blocks to chimps and humans, but not so many to gorillas?
Explained to you above. and many times before when you have to ask a higher Intelligence why? you have lost your argument.
Again and again you dodge this. Why? If creationism is right, why can creationists not answer this?

If you have God on your side, why has he not told you?
Ahem... ID.. please rephrase your question in a coherent way - unless of course you want me to answer for a creationist.
So tell me why the design pattern for chimp is so similar to humans, and not so similar to gorillas.

You cannot. All you can do is trot out "common design patterns" as though that says something.
Already explained to you above... if you understand ID you understand things like code re-use. Physical creatures of the earth have only so much material to be created with but common among all of them is DNA and the coding in that DNA is nothing evolution can ever explain. Evo can't even account for the creation of DNA or any gene - your link on how genes/proteins are used and expressed was rather 101 but nothing that evolution could create.
No, because nothing is proved in science. However, the abundance of evidence makes evolution as close to proven as it gets.
LOL and it keeps losing chunks of evidence as better science steps on it. (seems close as it gets is getting further)
And yet there is a huge amount of evidence that points to evolution and away from creationism, such as the fact that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.

This is a fact, Martin. Chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. This is something evolution can explain, and something that refutes creationism.
Ahem... ID is not creationism and ID shows why DNA and some chromosomes and other genome matches are needed - common use needs common ingredients (heck i dare say creationism as well thinks that)
It is not simply chimp DNA; it is comparing the DNA of other species.

It is a fact that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.
I have explained to you many times that human DNA at a high level is closer to chimps than apes- ID shows this that has never been doubted but your still hung up on high level design and ignoring the details of the differences gnomically.
Fair warning: I am carefully highlighting the gorilla part all through this to emphasise it so I can make a big deal about you ignoring it next time around by the way.
LMAO.... Ohhh really scary there... maybe I should just go and highlight all the times you ignore where I state that humans and chimps are alike (not as much as you were taught but hey). I wonder why you misrepresent things so badly? do you not read responses...or just not comprehend the response?

The Pixie:
Dolphins are closer to Humans than Fish

Wow, you really are confused. Close matches indicate a close common ancestor, not that one species is descended from the other.


Or if ID is correct - common design components
The Pixie:
Dolphins are genetically similar to people because we have a common ancestor around 75 to 90 million years ago. They are less similar to fish, because their common ancestor with fish was over 300 million years ago.

Ohh.. nice story bro... please send the pics of that... or keep telling yourself 'just so' stories.....cause we all know you don't got the evidence.

The Pixie:
This is the evolutionary explanation - or "just so" story as you like to label it, as though that makes if less likely. What is the creationist explanation? I keep asking you this, you keep dodging. Why?

ahemm.... ID

The Pixie:
Oh right. Creationism has no answer, because it is wrong!

With regards to chimps, we are genetically closer to chimps than dolphins as we only split off from them a few million years ago.
Ahem... ID


The Pix:
Is this you wanting to convince yourself evolution does not have the answers, so you are pretending I am dodging questions that do not exist?

Why do you keep dodging the questions Pixie by shifting your question once it was answered? maybe formulate better questions?
why ignore answers given to you? No worries you'll be asked again ..and again and again as you keep avoiding them
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
o

Again you appear to be ignorant of ID as you keep conflating with Creationism... Please read up on ID or rephrase your rambling in a coherent question.
Your inflamatory language is in direct contrast to the calmer tone of your interlocutor's. You're coming across as desperate.
Evolution actually requires great faith with all the missing and assume evidences much of which keeps vanishing year by year and better science.
So you say.
ID is rooted in scientific evidences and blows holes through evolutionary theory. the hundreds of biologists and thousands of other scientists with their studies and books all but shut down the evo-devo dead end.
Earth to Martin, come in Martin. Hello?
ID has an abundance of evidence in genetics, bio-chem physics..and is accepted by more and more scientists yearly...while evolution is losing ground. "Yea for better science!"
No it doesn't.
 

Algor

Well-known member
ID is deeply rooted in scientific evidences and blows holes through evolutionary theory. the hundreds of biologists and thousands of other scientists with their studies and books all but shut down the evo-devo dead end.


All but shut down!
ID has an abundance of evidence in genetics, bio-chem physics..and is accepted by more and more scientists yearly...while evolution is losing ground. "Yea for better science!" (those flat-earthers hated seeing those T-shirts with that logo in the lab)
Quoted phrase not found: "Specified Complexity"

without posting more links:
Quoted phrase not found: "Genetic Front Loading"

It's actually even funnier if you use "Irreducible Complexity". I'll let you figure out why. "Yea for better science!"
Ahem... ID... please try better to drop your indoctrinated script...it may take time but I'll be here for you.
LOL
 
Last edited:

Martin23233

Active member
I take it this is you trying to save face. Looks kind of pathetic to me, but perhaps it fools your fellow creationists.

The truth is that I have consistently answered your questions.
Your theory is not based on truth and you veered so far from truth it is obvious to all with your immature "duh" responses. Please step up and keep the childish and ignorant comment out - it really exposes your lack of ability to support evo-devo failings.
The truth is that you still have several that you are continuing to dodge, even after me asking you every day for a week and a half.

  • Why gaps in the fossil record refute evolution (hint: your logic has to mention gaps in the fossil record)
Already answered... you must have Evo faith to believe that the gaps exist..while more evidence arrives that show they likely will never be found.
  • Why there is a specific pattern of commonality in DNA sequences (hint: merely noting thre is commonality does not explain the pattern)
Already answered above "Once you understand Intelligent Design you will understand that design technique is based on common building blocks. the earth holds only so many items. Life holds common items , items like DNA / Genes .... and design shows how these and more are used to express differences in species" take a breath and read up on ID. it will help you in understanding things.
  • Why there is a specific pattern of commonality in amino acids sequences such as cytochrome-c (hint: merely noting thre is commonality does not explain the pattern)
LOL already exposed you on this one...
Dr. Denton’s Figure 12.1, “The Cytochromes Percent Sequence Difference Matrix” 3, is an abridged version of the 1972 Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function Matrix of nearly 1089 entries showing the percent difference between 33 species. Denton’s abridged matrix shows that molecular biologists can easily recognize which cytochrome C sample came from a fish and which came from a mammal.
“However, the most striking feature of the matrix is that every identifiable subclass is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. No sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups. All the sequences of each subclass are equally isolated from the members of another group. Transitional or intermediate classes are completely absent from the matrix. 4”
  • What you think front-loading means
you were exposed over and over again on this one ... please re-read my previous answers of the answer to that question.
  • What is the mechanism of creation
LOL Ahem... ID bro.... please get it right but if you are curious I am certain if you start a new thread there are plenty of creationists that will help you out.
Although you only said "Question for you" ten times, there were actually twelve questions. The two extra ones, that apparently I could see, but you could not, despite writing them, were:
Too funny.. you openly admit that I asked 10 questions and a few were dupes... you now try to claim that one of the 10 questions I asked you is the same as the 12th.... did you make it through public school?..you see the problem with imagining that there are 12 questions whey there are just 10 and you now admit it ...and still try to squirm your way out of being exposed to your own counting difficulties? Hey... I sympathize with your problem there .... i have mistaken things too and own up to them... hope you can too...shows an adult attitude when we do this.
More specifically... what directs that gene expression...is it the species..or the gene coding/expression that dictates the new use?
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


Well one of us cannot count his own questions, that is for sure.

Got to say that at this point I kid of feel sorry for you. You seem intent on handing me a stick to beat you with.
I 'kid' of feel hopeful for you that you can grasp concepts (and count better)
Wow, you really like to twist this. I am the one who has consistently answered questions. You are the one who has consistently dodged.

Oh, well, may be you are fooling your creationist friends with this nonsense.
LOL ahem ID... bud.. learn the differences..and you can't come off as more astute instead of.....
Did you read the article I linked to?
yeah read it... 101 level stuff that most grasp..... already commented on it but thanks for noticing (misrepresent much?)
I answered your question Martin. The only issue here is your ignorance. If you can tell me what front-loading
Already answered your front-loading question and exposed you for not knowing that pre-existing genes/gnome is required for it. your "preadaptation" attempt fell on it's face.,,and you can't even comprehend why...hmmm
I have repeatedly asked you what your position is
then run with it ..first comprehend it fully. is it because evolution is a lie you can't defend?
You tell me your beliefs, and I will. Unfortunately you seem to be too embarrassed to reveal them.
Too funny, please take a deep Evo-devo breath and read my response to you what I stated my beliefs are....

Based on the personal blog of an electrical engineer who got his claims from a book by a biologist who later realised he was wrong.
I love it when someone has to resort to attacking a site...or someone's degree but can't attack the data... that is very telling about their capabilities.. Lesson to be learned from the readers here - never let the ignorant off the hook from addressing the data.... they will run and dodge and spin ...but are unable to address the factual data..... easy to spot when support for a dying /lying belief system is not able to be supported.
Sure. Variation, inheritance and selection.
Agreed... now just show it ... show how it actually worked out... instead of 'just so' stories and crayon drawings... bring the evidence... and less of the stories.
I have said right from the start evolution is not proven.
and yet you beg for readers to believe this is as close to proven as one gets..... LMAO.
If we are talking about the vitamin C pseudogene,

This is something creationism cannot explain, and is something you have fails to address for about a week now.
LOL Ahem.. ID bro... get your theories straight...
". This also reflects a very similar loss in this region in primates. That’s quite a few key similarities that were clearly not the result of common ancestry for the GULO region. This seems to be very good evidence that many if not all of the mutations of the GULO region are indeed the result of similar genetic instabilities and that are prone to similar mutations – especially in similar animals."
Right. The prediction from ID: we would expect what we see today

This is why ID is not falsifiable. It just predicts what we see, whatever that is. Is that a mermaid? If you can see it, ID predicts it.
ID is constantly falsifiable .. you need to read more.
Article in Nature from 2019

Article in Nature from 2008

See also here, from a text book, published 2002


Given your premise that evolution cannot produce genes is wrong, your argument fails.

Evolution can't show any mechanism where any gene is created.... there has been thousands of scientific experiments to try to create life and none have succeeded. sad what the Pixie holds faith in is crumbling .

The Pixie: Can you answer how life, the code in DNA was ever formed?
The Pixie: Why did chimps or apes or fish-o-pods stop evolving? IOW, What is the mechanism that turned off the evo-devo theory in creatures ?
The Pixie: Why are humans so different than any other creature on earth? IOW, like the Soul , Mind, Morals, abstraction…ect.?

Oh... that's three questions (3) 1-2-3 , not 12 not 8 but three - I was going to insert a 4th that is the same as the 1st to throw a bone but that would be cruel.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Your theory is not based on truth and you veered so far from truth it is obvious to all with your immature "duh" responses. Please step up and keep the childish and ignorant comment out - it really exposes your lack of ability to support evo-devo failings.
You're embarassing yourself with endless rhetoric and no science.
 

Algor

Well-known member
Your immature nature shows you are incapable of carrying on an adult convo -
He's right, tho, no matter how you criticise him: you don't post science. You just giggle and claim refutation. It's not the same thing.

Pixie is wiping the floor with you, and it is almost (almost) painful to watch.
 

Martin23233

Active member


All but shut down!

Quoted phrase not found: "Specified Complexity"

without posting more links:
Quoted phrase not found: "Genetic Front Loading"

It's actually even funnier if you use "Irreducible Complexity". I'll let you figure out why. "Yea for better science!"

LOL
So you don't understand Irreducible Complexity...that is fine... once one does it exposes their evolutionary mindset to just another reason the theory is dying (basically dead)

Some explanation behind the science of ID:
 
Top