The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

You have been shown the evidence repeatedly. But it appears you refuse to read it. Rather you google for creationist and ID responses. That is intellectually dishonest. As is selectively citing parts of papers.

A big non answer that says nothing. I simply ask:

Where's the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

Show me the evidence.

Do you think that genes are information?

a reply to: neoholographic

Since you refuse to engage in appropriate due diligence, let me reference the earlier evidence provided regarding Trim5-CypA

The gene, called TRIM5-CypA, well characterized elsewhere (AIDS, 2007; PNAS, 2008), is a hybrid of two existing cellular genes, TRIM5 and CypA. The combination produces a single protein capable of blocking infection by viruses closely related to HIV. Surprisingly, this is actually the second time researchers have identified a TRIM5-CypA gene in monkeys. The other hybrid gene, called TRIMCyp, was discovered in 2004 in South American owl monkeys.

www.eurekalert.org...

For the record, this mutation has occurred twice and independently of one another in Asian monkeys and S. American monkeys.

TRIM5-CypA was not found in monkeys closely related to the Asian macaques, and in fact, was not found in every macaque individual tested. Likewise, owl monkey TRIMCyp was not found in any other species of South American primate. Researchers interpret this to mean that the two genes arose independently, once in owl monkeys and once in macaques. More tellingly, even though the protein sequences specified by the two TRIM5-CypA genes are similar, at the DNA level it is obvious that the molecular events leading to formation of the two genes were different.

Evolutionary biologists refer to the acquisition of a similar adaptation in different species as "convergent evolution," an example being the independent appearance of flight in both birds and bats. The Harvard team's genetic evidence indicates that the two TRIM5-CypA genes constitute an unambiguous and particularly striking example of convergent evolution. Moreover, the kinds of molecular events required to construct the two TRIM5-CypA genes are thought to be rare.

originally posted by: Noinden

Mutations are the cause of evolution.

You too, with this nonsense? And you're supposed to be the educated one here.

Are you suggesting that mutations are the only cause of evolution? I surely hope not. What would your colleagues say?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: whereislogic

Youtube videos and bible verses don't prove anything. Give links to scientific research papers, not creationist propaganda sites.

What's the matter, you've got some kind of program looking for keywords that comes up with automatic responses and arguments to that keyword or keyphrase and it can't handle videos? The reference to research papers is well described in the 2nd video which allows you to easily find them. On top of that, there's the option of doing your own research into the matter and using inductive reasoning regarding established facts, being honest with yourself and others, stop waving your 'magic stick of truth' around and attempt to respond with something other than illogical standard lines of argumentation that have been promoted by philosophers over and over already. You'd make me so happy if you could say something in response to what I brought up that would give the impression to me:

'Hey, that makes sense, see, he is genuine in his thirst for knowledge and facts when he's asking questions or bringing up something. And he's thinking about the subject and not working of of a database of arguments someone handed to him or drilled into his brain by society or the "system of things".'

(not something trivial unrelated to the main points I've brought up so far in this thread, or ignoring most of what I said when making that point or the things I'm referring to as I'm making my point)

Your 'silent' request for so-called "peer reviewed" science is also heard loud and clear again, I refer back to my previous comment about that, since it doesn't seem that you are truly interested in getting the type of links you are asking for, it seems you want something else than what you're asking for, the type of links Krazysh0t put up which do not qualify under your terminology. Mythology and illogical speculation, published or otherwise, are not "scientific research papers". They qualify as "papers" though. Not sure about the word "research", but definitely not "scientific".

The main problem here of course is that you recognize and treat facts as propaganda, and propaganda of myths as facts, science, "scientific theory", "(scientific) hypotheses" or "scientific research papers". And I somewhat doubt the playlist I shared earlier was watched by you completely and even if you did watch it, the wall in your mind (revolving around how you apply logic and how you think about these subjects) prevents the logic and facts from getting through and getting their appropiate place in your mind (understood as being factual/true/absolute/certain/conclusive/definitive, adjective: correct, without error).

Remember that in the comment above I'm referring to other comments and quatations I've made about that, please don't ignore them, such as the comment with Newton's full quote and the entire Micheal Behe presentation that really doesn't tickle your ears, I know, but it's over before you know it. It's only 35 minutes or so if you skip the introduction and ignore the Q&A section at the end. Note that I misquoted Behe in my comment but for that I refer to my comment about words sometimes having broader or multiple meanings that dictionaries simply don't have the space for to emphasize. I was emphasizing another aspect of the word that you can add in front of what I quoted from Behe for further clarity and detail. Oh, and maybe the best idea is when you've already watched some of the videos I've suggested throughout this thread, to watch them again with a different mindset, a different attitude towards the facts that you perceive to be myths (and some of you bad metaphors and analogies in order not to have to deal with them in terms of the logical correct/factual conclusions that follow from these established facts, including those established by those who are referred to as "scientists" with no theistic motives and sometimes even adhering to philosophical naturalism, allthough I've tried to avoid using videos where there's a lot of promotion of 'nature did it', hidden or otherwise).

a reply to: PhotonEffect

DO you understand what evolution is? It is the change in DNA. Mutations, change DNA. QED.

It is not nonsense, it is by definition.

a reply to: neoholographic

You do get you ignoring evidence is ignorance, and blind willful ignorance at that. If you could talk to what has been posted, you would have.

QED You have capitulated, and are now trolling.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

DO you understand what evolution is? It is the change in DNA. Mutations, change DNA. QED.

If evolution is the change in DNA, then every viral infection is an evolution, every mitotic division is an evolution (telomeres are lost, thus changing DNA composition), and meiosis must then be evolution due to crossing over of the genetic coding. Surely, these are not examples of evolution, try again with the definition. Cut out your chauvinism and you might get closer.

It is not nonsense, it is by definition.

When a universal definition cannot be given to a particular process, it is probably wrong.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

You do get you ignoring evidence is ignorance, and blind willful ignorance at that. If you could talk to what has been posted, you would have.

QED You have capitulated, and are now trolling.

What?

This makes no sense and is barely legible.

You haven't presented a shred of evidence. This is what you said:

But try the following sunshine:

Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. March 1992 vol. 56 no. 1 229-264
Cell, 9 June 2000, vol 101, no 6, 581–584
nature Reviews Genetics, October 2012, 13, 745-753


As it thus appears you can not or will not read links provided (and instead google for creationist rebuttle, and not think for yourself) here are the cliff notes.

Mutations are the cause of evolution.
Evolution happens
Get over it.

Am I suppose to play go fish because you can't explain or understand how to present evidence? This makes no sense to present these things without any context or explanation as to how this pertains to the questions being asked.

Last time someone tried to answer questions by linking to 40 page PDF's they looked foolish because the PDF's answered nothing.

i'm not going through that again. I'm not going to your links searching for answers that are not there. I looked at one of your references and it answered nothing.

This is why you don't explain anything or try to actually debate, you just post a reference and say go fish. I went to one of your references and it said nothing as it pertains to this thread and I suspect this is why you didn't post the revelent portion of your link that pertains to the thread because there is none.

When you learn how to debate whether than just saying go fish, I'm here.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Am I suppose to play go fish because you can't explain or understand how to present evidence? This makes no sense to present these things without any context or explanation as to how this pertains to the questions being asked.

When you ask them for a card, or in this case an answer, that they don't have, they tell you to go fish. That's how the defending evolution game is played.

a reply to: cooperton

Evolution

Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

Is evolution really scientific?

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828. [whereislogic: see my repeated quotation of Professor Shapiro for an example]

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Source: Evolution - Reasoning

They will continue to deny the above and play games and trying to seperate abiogenesis from what they refer to as "biological evolution". Regardless of the things I've quoted from Haldane & Oparin and wikipedia. It's a useless debate game where again the propaganda technique of capitalizing on the ambiguity of language is used. Perhaps in response to the above even an attempt is made to conflate organic evolution with "biological evolution" or just deny that it is not the type of "evolution" that they're talking about when they say "evolution". Or more complicated games like that in order to distract away from the main issue. That the definition above is a myth/false story or using neoholographic's word, a "lie" (neoholographic at the start of the thread seems to be thinking about something regarding the 2nd part that is emphasized in that definition for the word "evolution", I wonder how he feels about that now, allthough I could have misunderstood some of his commentary about that, still might be something other people are thinking of when they think of the subject of "evolution").

a reply to: whereislogic

Funny that you used a religious site and not the dictionary.

1The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

You should probably stop quoting purposely misleading things from religious sites and start using actual facts.

ETA: Evolution is about life evolving, not forming. 2 completely different subjects.

Evolution deals with how life evolved. Abiogenesis (and others) deal with how life came to be. Please learn the difference before continuing your flawed argument.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

DO you understand what evolution is? It is the change in DNA. Mutations, change DNA. QED.

It is not nonsense, it is by definition.

I'm not sure what definition that is but it's not the one I'm aware of.

Once again you're supposed to be the expert here and you come forth with such a simpleton statement about evolution.

What about everything else?

a reply to: TerryDon79

see, doing exactly what I said, just denial, link to a dictionary that isn't even a link to the term "organic evolution" or "evolution" (or it's not working for me) and ignoring, distracting away from or talking past what I quoted from Haldane & Oparin. So predictable. And more false accusations.

The searchterm "evolution" appears 84 times for me on the wikipedia page for abiogenesis. I can tell you right away, that there's no dictionary in the world that's going to convince me that it's not OK to mention both aspects of so-called "chemical evolution" and so-called "biological evolution" under the definition of "evolution" or "organic evolution" (especially when the term "organic evolution" was also used to refer to "chemical evolution" followed by "biological evolution" which is also implied in the term "biochemical evolution" regardless of what any dictionary might have listed as a definition for that term. This usage was used more in the past, which you're of course going to conveniently deny by appealing to dictionaries that won't mention that, published by those adhering to philosophical naturalism or accomodating to the requests made by philosophical naturalists, something you're in complete denial of regarding their influence on what type of knowledge gets to the general public*, or pretend to not be aware of). * = but clearly demonstrated by the myths posted here from so-called "peer reviewed scientific" articles (or "research papers"). So how about people appealing to 'oh, so it's all a big conspiracy?' Even when I never used the word and the situation is a lot more complicated than just calling it a conspiracy (theory) to dismiss it and compare it with all of the other sensational so-called "conspiracy theories"?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TerryDon79

see, doing exactly what I said, just denial, link to a dictionary that isn't even a link to the term "organic evolution" (and even if that dictionary agrees with you it's just cherry-picking) and ignoring what I quoted from Haldane & Oparin. So predictable. And more false accusations.

The false accusation of what? Your source is a religious site. But you already know that. You also know your argument is flawed as evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life. It deals with the life evolving after life has begun.

ETA: Is this more to your liking?

organic evolution The process by which changes in the genetic composition of populations of organisms occur in response to environmental changes. See adaptation; evolution. Compare biochemical evolution.

www.encyclopedia.com...

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: neoholographic

So there's no proof of evolution? Everything that is was created as it is now?

Could you please explain why chickens have DNA for teeth, even though they don't have teeth at this current time?

Or why humans have DNA for tails and have tail bones?

Can you explain why there are different layers of archeology which find no humans on the same layer as dinosaurs? Or why there are no human remains inside dinosaurs?

ETA: Using machines or code as an analogy is flawed in one simple way. Machinery doesn't reproduce.

Here comes the good old microevolution/natural selection/variation allowed WITHN DNA vs. macroevolution debate. To answer the first two questions, genomes allow for a LOT of variation while keeping the same genetic code. Adapatation to needs and environments, and so on. A chicken is a chicken is a chicken, despite having DNA coding that might allow for some variation if trigerred or otherwise called for, and similarly for dogs, people, and various other creatures which show a wide variety and in some cases even modify phyically as needed. Check the DNA though, and it still is what it is; just has plenty of room for growthy built in.

Regarding the latter question, there are various possible explanations; one being the (admittedly) incomplete fossil record and related fields (which thankfully are always progressing), others involving admittedly debated interpretations of how/why/when layers were filtered & layed, and so on.

Long story short, it's a fun topic to look into but the debate will go on until we either: a) entirely settle the gradualistic vs. catastropic (and whatever other versions) of geology (and by exention our understanding of archeology and related fields; b) can somehow directly witness and/or reproduce evolution beyond what is already allowed for in the expression of genetic code already presemt in the species, or: c) otherwise substantiate highly-specific and complex information (that can properly be definted as a language) such as DNA arising from non-intelligent sources.

Time will tell, but thus far I'm unable to overcome the mental hurdles I must to consider a purely naturalistic and unintelligent source the either the beginning or reality of life (as we know it).

Cheers. And apologies in advance if I've lost the plot here somehow as I'm fairly ill today and this is taking a lot of effort to keep track of.

a reply to: Praetorius

They are some very valid points your being up.

Ultimately neither the science side or he religion side have an answer for the beginning of life (Genesis/abiogenesis and others). That's what this thread is boiling down to, the beginning of life.

Science isn't sure. There's plenty of hypothesis and a couple of theories, but not a single answer and science admits that.

Religion says "Goddidit". Again, they don't know if God, aliens, spaghetti monster, turtles or pure luck did it, but they stand fast on "Goddidit".

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: neoholographic
This whole theory falls apart when faced with one simple fact: intelligent life had to start somewhere.

So, if we were created by aliens, who created them? And if another race created OUR creators, who created THEM?

Somewhere along the line, there had to be a beginning.

Another good point before I take off - you are absolutely correct.

And we know there WAS a beginning (that presently doesn't make a great deal of sense with our presently accepted laws of reality. "everything" came from "nothing" and despite the hurdles of somehow developing into highly organized systems eventually somehow leading to the spontaneous-ish origin of non-intelligently-directed blueprints and mechanical language that were then implimented to result in what we have around us.

Now, to make possibly a touch of sense of that; effectively impossible (barring some incredibly esoteric lines of thought that can be both fascinating and terrifying at the same time) events occuring in spite of the limitations of the system in question seem to indicate that something *outside* this system and not bound by its constraints (or in fact having applied said constraints directly) is the root cause. Some may call it god. Some may call it merely one (or more) beings operating at a much "higher" level of reality we don't yet have the tools or even concepts to begin to perceive directly, barring its own intervention.

So yes, same hurdles WITHIN the system - we can only keep pushing it further and further back to the root origin. The question then becomes, what is that root origin, is it aware, and can we interact or otherwise determines its expected outcomes.

Then we can dip into the really fun areas like the simulation hypothesis and who knows what all else. When distance becomes a non-issue and our observation of something in the present can change its behavior in the past, you might as well pick up the salsa cause I'm grabbing the chips.

This has probably been posted here before, but I love it every time:


Grace & peace.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

DO you understand what evolution is? It is the change in DNA. Mutations, change DNA. QED.

It is not nonsense, it is by definition.

I'm not sure what definition that is but it's not the one I'm aware of.

Once again you're supposed to be the expert here and you come forth with such a simpleton statement about evolution.

What about everything else?

It's called (see bolded, the rest are more clues):

...information overload...inundated by countless messages from every quarter...absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.
...short-circuit rational thought...capitalizing on the ambiguity of language...bending rules of logic.
...vagueness...propaganda can paralyze thought, prevent clear thinking and discernment, and condition individuals...distort and twist facts...
...
A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage.

Sources: The Manipulation of Information
Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!

a reply to: whereislogic

Again from a religious site.

How about this. You start quoting from somewhere that doesn't involve being in a cult and we will start taking you seriously.

a reply to: TerryDon79
Well said, but I'll admit I hate the "spiritualization" (the woo factor) or our own imposed limitations on the possible realities of beings, intelligences, or entities otherwise that might merely exist in a realm of reality that we have no direct way (yet) to detect or validate otherwise. I'm very much a fan of the "inter-/multi-dimensional" line of thought.

A good "shower thought" I saw online sometime back summed it up well. Given what we know of our own senses and perceptions of reality and how outrageously damage or alterations to the former can result in misconception if not outright ignorance of (at least aspects) of the latter - what if we merely lack or haven't developed the sensory "organs" or abilities needed to see the wonder of what reality actually is outside the tiny bubble beyond our personal senses?

Thanks for your input.