Creation vs. Evolution

[Warthaug]

I'd like to add that they used an exampe of where coloration became an advantage. Coloration is a very simple adaptation. Find me a moth with 3 wings or 2 legs that found them advantageous.

You’re joking, right? What the hell would a moth do with 3 wings, or 2 legs.

But once again, you’ve shown a complete lack of a working knowledge of how evolution works. Its lots of small steps, not a few big ones. Those small mutations you so readily dismiss can build up into a lot of change. The kind of rapid, large-scale mutations you envision are a statistical impossibility; observing changes like that over the period of a human lifetime would be disproof of evolution, not proof of it.

Don’t forget – it is the creationists such as yourself who propose spontaneous change and formation; evolution is all about slow change.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Let's get this right..science isn't anti-creationism but creationsim is anti-science?

Science isn’t anti-anything. Science is simply understanding the way the universe works through observation and experimentation. If the results of those experiments and observations conflict with religion, that isn’t planned. Its just nature telling us how it worked. Its not our fault that nature doesn’t agree with your book.

This is the kind of arrogance that litters science.

Its arrogance to publish and speak about our findings? I'd argue arrogance lies at the feet of those who lie, twist facts, and remain deliberately ignorant, simply so they can believe in a sheppards tale from a couple of millenia ago...


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

What does this prove?

That this statement is false

Given the known mutation and selection rates, there is not enough time for just two members of a "kind" to make the species we see today; even assuming a 100,000 year old earth.
Its well established that just two members of the same species cannot produce a viable population, as inbreeding will remove genetic variability far faster than mutation can create it

How exactly did that disprove my statement? My statement was pretty clear – mutation rates are insufficient to make all of the life we see today from the “kinds” you describe and the time period you’ve chosen (100,000 years, apparently). The article you quoted supports that directly, by correctly pointing out that most mutations have no effect on phenotype. Meaning, quite obviously, that you need a lot of time to build up lots of mutations.


So once again, how is my above statement disproven?

Bryan

 

[Sordello]

 

[H2Andy]

2 Peter 1: But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

I can't see how you cannot believe in God. Please explain this to me.

there's a very similar verse in the Koran.

Do they envy man for what Allah has given of His grace? And of them are some who believe therein, and of them are some who turn from it, but Hell is flaming enough for them.

Koran, Sura 4:57-58

please explain to me how can you not believe in Allah?

 

[Warthaug]

I also added the word significant. Because its true. You can't point to single significant mutation in nature that isn't fatal. All I need is one.

Still ignoreing all of those citations we provided earlier? Here's a few more:

1 mutation, your resistant to HIV:

Lancet. 1998 Jan 3;351(9095):14-8. HIV-1-resistance phenotype conferred by combination of two separate inherited
mutations of CCR5 gene. Quillent C, Oberlin E, Braun J, Rousset D, Gonzalez-Canali G, Métais P,
Montagnier L, Virelizier JL, Arenzana-Seisdedos F, Beretta A.
And, to make things better, the same mutation protects you from heart attack, provides some resistance to TB, pneumonia, plauge, asthma, and possibly many other autoimmune disorders:

Genes Immun. 2001 Jun;2(4):191-5.Genetic variation at the chemokine receptors CCR5/CCR2 in myocardial infarction.
González P, Alvarez R, Batalla A, Reguero JR, Alvarez V, Astudillo A, Cubero GI,
Cortina A, Coto E.

J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007 Jun;119(6):1545-7. CCR5 Delta 32 mutation, Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection, and asthma.
Ungvári I, Tölgyesi G, Semsei AF, Nagy A, Radosits K, Keszei M, Kozma GT, Falus
A, Szalai C.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Dec 9;100(25):15276-9. Evaluating plague and smallpox as historical selective pressures for the
CCR5-Delta 32 HIV-resistance allele. Galvani AP, Slatkin M.

So there's one. Now, lets see, a few more:
Heredity. 2008 May;100(5):446-52. The spread of a beneficial mutation in experimental bacterial populations: the
influence of the environment and genotype on the fixation of rpoS mutations.
Ferenci T.
Papadopoulos, D., Schneider, D., Meier-Eiss, J., Arber, W., Lenski, R. E., Blot, M. (1999). Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation
experiment with bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96: 3807-3812

Brown CJ, Todd KM, Rosenzweig RF (1998) Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998 Aug;15(8):931-42 Nature 387, 708 - 713

Hall BG, Zuzel T. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Jun 77:6 3529-33

Hall BG Biochemistry 1981 Jul 7 20:14 4042-9

And here's a good one: 12% of random mutations enhanced fitness in E. coli.
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli -- Remold and Lenski 98 (20): 11388 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Bryan

PS: I don't actually expect ce to read those; wouldn't want to challenge ones beliefs, would we? I'm sure he'll rationalize them away by saying something like "the e. coli didn't grow three arms, one wing, and being speaking, therefore it isn't a "real" mutation"...

 

[Warthaug]

Because there are enough chemists, geologists, archeologists, biologists, physicists and other experts who disagree with them.

Name 10. Only condition I put on the list are the following:

1) Must have published in a scientific journal in the past 10 years (i.e. actually a working, or recently working scientist)

2) Disagree with something in their subject areas; i.e. physicists commenting on radiodating, or biologists on mutations; not archeologists commenting on GR...

Furthermore, they offer viable alternative evidences that are routinely dismissed by the inner circle of scientific philosophers.

Strange, that you've yet to provide a link or citation to any of this "alternative evidence" throughout all of your posts here, while the rest of us have managed exactly that in at least 1/3rd of all posts...

So you changed religion for scientific philosophy. Enjoy the hedonistic liberties that affords while you can.

Why would you assume that giving up faith = hedonism? If anything, it means the opposite, as determined by multiple studies. One example:

Religousness & violence

Religion = more violence, more teenage pregnancy, more crime, more STD's, more teenage abortions, etc, etc, etc.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

How can there be magnetic poles (the ends of an axis) if the world is flat and covered with dome? Don't you believe the bible?

I thought it was turtles, all the way down

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Edited to add:
Listing all of these people born in a time when non-christians were subject persecution reminds me of something someone once said of Isaac Newton.

"Calling Newton a creationist is sort of like calling anyone who doesn’t dissent in China a Maoist."

While the point is a good one, the choice of newton is a poor one. Newton was a religious kook, one who both caught negative attention from his church at the time, and one who would be shunned by most biblical literalists today. He actually thought he was a prophet of sorts, and spent much of his life looking for hidden messages in the bible. Among many "hidden messengers" he "found" was that the world will end around 2060...

Wikipedia has a good article on this.


Bryan

 

[H2Andy]

yeah, Newton was very disappointed no one took his religious writings seriously ... he believed that would be his greatest contribution -- apparently he wrote a mammoth interpretation of Revelations

isn't that funny?

(by the way, over half of his written work was on religion)

During the Enlighetment, many great minds (of which Newton was one) were trying to understand God through the facts of science. They never changed or denied the facts to suit their understanding of God. rather, they changed their understanding of God according to the facts.

today's creationists seem bent on denying the facts of science in order to cling to a pre-conceived understanding of God