Creation vs. Evolution

[coachpill]

So if I change a transporter the result is not a device that does something that was not possible before, i.e. there is nothing new there eh?

It is fun to watch how creationists, when faced with overwhelming evidence, have to resort to 'redefining' terms and context to save their contrived 'theories'.
A la Clinton, 'depends on how you define sex'. It sure is amusing.

Loss of functional specificity is not a genetic information increasing process. If a gene were changed into a completely different gene, that could possibly be novel, but would have come at the cost of the original gene.

No, playing around with already present genes does not get a prokaryote to evolve into the complete diversity we see today.

Besides, E. coli already have the ability to transport citrate across the membrane...just not when oxygen is present. They already have the ability to utilize citrate as well. So...loss of specifictiy or increased gene product production...something like that. Not the kind of evolution in debate here.

 

[sheck33]

Also: PADI and "peak performance buoyancy." I have to wonder, at which phase of a fin pivot is buoyancy peaked???

PADI has great contradictions. But we should not start PADI-bashing here, it might offend someone who is making a lot of money off "teaching" diving.

Or else beautiful Marvell will swoop in and start spanking everyone.

On a more serious note, it is easy to have a civil discussion of where the line is drawn between science and religion. It is just hard to stay one one side of that line.

A really good scientist would have no problem with that, as would a truly devout person of faith. It is the amateurs that have problems, in both camps, however.

ok, lets try and stay on topic

 

[coachpill]

You have no evidence that is the case. As for supposition, based on the evidence we have at hand, the actual answer is they may be more fit, depending on the environment.

The above was concerning my comment that if the mutants were placed back in natural environments they would get outcompeted.

https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/
click on: –publications-complete list-acrobat file (for #180, the PNAS paper)

First full paragraph on page 7904…

“This stable coexistence suggests that the Cit- cells are superior
to the Cit+ cells in competition for glucose, allowing the former
to persist as glucose specialists. Indeed, the Cit- cells have a
shorter lag phase and higher growth rate on glucose than do the
Cit+ cells (Fig. 2).”

 

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
Warthaug,
In the case of Jesus, you have to look at his purpose first.

The thing is, his purpose - as I was taught waaaaaay back in Catholic Sunday school is markedly different then the purpose you claim he was here for. Throughout his life he set down many rules about how we are to interact with other, and it was the way of life which he promoted that I was taught was his major lesson. It was through following those teachings that we would "save our souls" and all that.

Jesus did teach people how to live within the confines of the laws and rules of the day which is why he gave guidance to the Christian Slaves. The sermon on the mount is all about how to behave. However, when it came to going against the established authority, Jesus was consistent in telling his followers to obey authority because all authority was put there by God. The only establishment he challenged, was the religious establishment. He did that on a regular basis. The reason was simple: If he challenged Roman Authority, he would have immediately been put to death and the primary purpose he came for would not have been achieved.
As for his primary purpose, it wasn't to teach you how to live a good life. There are many people who live good lives as defined by men without the Bible or Christ. Moreover, it was to give his life for you. No matter how good you live your life according to the judgements of men, you are by nature an unholy creature in need of salvation. Christ put himself on the cross so the unholy could become holy and share heaven in the presents of God. The thief on the cross is an enigma to most Catholics. Because in the Catholic Church it is taught that works plus grace equals salvation. The thief on the cross simply believed. He did nothing in his life worthy even in the eyes of men.
The verse doesn't say For God so loved the sinless, perfect, christians, good, etc. It says he so loved the world. The part "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" is all-ecompassing. He didn't tell the drunk to give up the bottle and come to me. He said come to me and I'll show you a better way. So the drunk comes as a sinner and like the thief accepts the free gift of salvation. Eventually over time the bottle loses it luster and another changed life results.

 

[gary-ramey]

Originally Posted by Thalassamania
You and cd4jesus have constantly defamed biology, chemistry, physics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, genetics, evolution, empiricism, logic, rational thought, for that matter all of science and even common sense (and by extension my very core concepts of truth, justice, honesty, etc.), and you think we should just bend over, take it, an at the same time show respect to your infatuation with intolerant bronze age mythology? Talk about a double standard. I say have at it and let the best ideas win.You consistently show disrespect for views that you disagree with, even as you deny doing so.

I did all that by disagreeing with you? All the poster was asking for is civility and respect..not agreement with what he believes. I think you've confused the two.

 

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twistedarts
Has anyone bothered to think that god is just a fairy tale made up by man?
If there was any fact involved how could there be all this debate?
food for thought.

You bad bad bad blasphemer you tsk tsk tsk, the believers will burn you at the stake for this, you know that right!?

Of course it is a fairy tale made up by man, a fairy tail used to control other people, to delude oneself into believing we have control over stuff we really do not have control over and to escape reality.

You mean like finding a skull fragment with a human thigh bone and calling it sheckman the missing link? :?)

 

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
Let's start with humans. The fossil record has apes and has humans. Any theoretical missing link has serious question revolving around it.

Hardly. There is a long, and near-continuous sequence of fossils from the common ancestor between chimps and humans, and modern humans. Today, we have at least 15 transitional forms between the LCA and humans. Within most of those forms we have multiple skeletons, in some cases showing yet more intermediary forms.

As for "missing links", there are no longer any major ones. The LCA was identified a few years ago. Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced, allowing a genetic reconstruction of the latter portion of our evolution. In depth comparisons of the chimp and human genome have also helped clarify the fossils we've found - we now know that chimps and humans diverged and reunited a few times before speciation took hold, explaining a lot of the "issues" with timing that existed before.

name your best case. 2nd - Neanderthal is human. Chimps are chimps. I've seen the same charts. Many of your missing links are very sketchy based on a few pieces of bone. Complete skulls are non-existant. The ones that do exist are clearly ape, or clearly human.

 

[adurso]

Jesus did teach people how to live within the confines of the laws and rules of the day which is why he gave guidance to the Christian Slaves. *snip*.

Accepting a historical Jesus; there were no "Christians" until after his death, therefore he would not have been addressing "Christian Slaves" at any point during his lifetime.

 

[gary-ramey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ce4jesus
Jesus did teach people how to live within the confines of the laws and rules of the day which is why he gave guidance to the Christian Slaves. *snip*.

Accepting a historical Jesus; there were no "Christians" until after his death, therefore he would not have been addressing "Christian Slaves" at any point during his lifetime.

Would you have preferred the term "believers", followers of Christ or members of The Way? In hindsight, we know them as Christians.

 

[Thalassamania]

I did all that by disagreeing with you? All the poster was asking for is civility and respect..not agreement with what he believes. I think you've confused the two.

There you go again, thinking ... it's your attempts at that process mixing with your belief system that most of us have trouble with.

name your best case. 2nd - Neanderthal is human. Chimps are chimps. I've seen the same charts. Many of your missing links are very sketchy based on a few pieces of bone. Complete skulls are non-existant. The ones that do exist are clearly ape, or clearly human.

You have a skill at discernment, a wondrous perspicacity and a knowledge of primate fossil relationships that would leave Leakey and Johanson smitten with wondrous awe. Where did you get your training? How were you able to get as much time with the specimens as you must have had to reach such clear and sure conclusions?