How DNA killed Evolution

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

This appears to be yet another example of adaptation.

Which is different from evolution in what way?

Evolution seeks to explain common ancestry. Adaptation accepts we can adapt to our environment. There is no evidence of incremental change from one species to the next.

It is the same as being told 80% truth and 20% lie. It's important to not believe the lie and teach it as truth or proof when no proof has been offered.

ev·o·lu·tion
[ èvvə lsh'n ]

theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.

developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material

gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form

Please explain to me how creation from nothing makes any sense:





This is being taught in schools. Please explain how you get something from nothing.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.

It seems to me this idea of creating something from nothing is not science, but a belief system and thus those who deny intelligent design and creation are presenting a belief system and calling it science.

If you go back to how DNA was created we might as well go back to how it all was created. The scientists want us to believe it was the BIG BANG!

They teach that all matter in the UNI VERSE (Single SPOKEN SENTENCE) was condensed into a very small dot no bigger than a period. That began to spin faster and faster until it exploded! Well, there is another principle of science states:



Basically this says that when things are spinning and let go they will fly off in the direction they were spinning. Logic would dictate that the things in our solar system should be spinning in that direction but we have examples that do not do that:







So, why do we have these anomalies? Might it be that the Big Bang is wrong?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Evolution seeks to explain common ancestry. Adaptation accepts we can adapt to our environment. There is no evidence of incremental change from one species to the next.

It is the same as being told 80% truth and 20% lie. It's important to not believe the lie and teach it as truth or proof when no proof has been offered.

ev·o·lu·tion
[ èvvə lsh'n ]

theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.

developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material

gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form

Thank you, you have proven my point precisely. It's almost funny, I wanted to see where you may have gotten your definition from since you didn't provide a source, so I typed that exact quote into Google (with quotes around it so I could be sure I'd find it) and, lo and behold, it's a definition that doesn't seem to have a source.

Maybe, and here is a novel thought for you, you should use the definition of evolution as provided by biologists. You know, people who actually know something about evolution.

From a biology course at a university:

Evolution can be defined as the change in allele frequencies in a population.

From Talk Origins:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

From UC Berkeley:

A change in gene frequency within a population over time.

See the pattern? Evolution doesn't seek to explain common ancestry. Common ancestry grew out of a better understanding of evolution. In clearer terms, common ancestry is predicted by evolution and the evidence substantiates that prediction.

So, again, how is adaptation as exemplified by a change in allele frequency between populations over time not evolution, specifically in the context of lactose tolerance or intolerance which is expressed two polymorphisms located in the MCM6 gene?

Sounds like a textbook definition of evolution to me, you just don't want to call it evolution because it offends your delicate sensibilities.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

They teach that all matter in the UNI VERSE (Single SPOKEN SENTENCE) was condensed into a very small dot no bigger than a period.

Ugh. And bad etymology, to boot! You're not the first person to try to apply this rationale to the word "universe" here on ATS, so congratulations... at least you weren't the first person to be wrong about it.

"Univese" comes from the Old French "univers", which in turn comes from the Latin "universum". "Universum" is the noun form of the adjective which means "all together", or "that which becomes one". This stems from "unus", which means "one", and "versus", which means "to turn into" or "to become".

But, please, show some kind of legitimate translation of the word "universe" that means "one verse", or "single sentence" or whatever nonsense you want to claim it means.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Vandettas

 

You said I said, "God did it" and I said intelligent design. So, you are putting words in my mouth. You see, it is very important for the evolution crowd to turn ID into a religious issue to stop it on the grounds of the government pushing a religion. That isn't going to happen here because intelligent design does not say who did it.

How is intelligent design not a religious issue? Isn't it the same thing as creation science which I believe does say God did it?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

You said I said, "God did it" and I said intelligent design.

A judge appointed by G. Dubya Bush even thinks that

the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

and that...

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] ...describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.

and that...

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

and that...

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

and that...

...ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

So, please, by all means... explain how you've managed to overcome the hurdles that all of the best buddies of the ICR's cdesign proponentsists couldn't in proving that ID isn't just creationism v2.0.

How is intelligent design not a religious issue? Isn't it the same thing as creation science which I believe does say God did it?

Religion is man made.

There are things on both sides that are valid and we need to quit hating on one another.

To deny the possibility of intelligent design would be a mistake by any reasonable person.

Young earth creationists are not the only proponents of intelligent design in case you weren't aware.

Originally posted by sdb93awd

How is intelligent design not a religious issue? Isn't it the same thing as creation science which I believe does say God did it?

Religion is man made.

There are things on both sides that are valid and we need to quit hating on one another.

To deny the possibility of intelligent design would be a mistake by any reasonable person.

Young earth creationists are not the only proponents of intelligent design in case you weren't aware.

Based on the information I have seen, the theory that we all come from a common ancestor and through millions of years evolved is man made.

The big bang says it all came from nothing. Yet, there are problems with the big bang, namely you can't prove it or repeat it to test the theory. So, it is a belief system.

How did the male and female evolve at the same time? The idea of slow incremental evolution has a problem with this. It's the old "Chicken or Egg" sort of argument. How did simple cells create the first animal and create them male and female?

Why are skeletons found in coal that is millions of years old yet are normal human skeletons?

Hidden archeology should more be named suppressed archeology. If they find something that doesn't fit their theory they throw it out and hide it. If the scientist tries to present their findings they lose their job.

reply to post by iterationzero


I will not ignore evidence because it points to a creator. I don't have a problem with a creator. You present as if there being a creator that there is no science. Yet, I wonder why the findings of scientists who end up ostracized for their facts are just ignored.

Sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying, "It's not science" does not disprove the facts.

Now, I am not saying I like "religion" for it can be abused and used to control people. I believe there is truth and no matter what it points to only matters in that it is truth.

I note that most of those who disagree with me rarely take on the actual proofs I offer. They just make snide comments and accusations about religion. I have posted many recent posts dealing with ancient history, archeology, golden ratio, Fibonacci sequence, big bang problems, polystrate fossils and they don't really deal with them.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I note that most of those who disagree with me rarely take on the actual proofs I offer. They just make snide comments and accusations about religion. I have posted many recent posts dealing with ancient history, archeology, golden ratio, Fibonacci sequence, big bang problems, polystrate fossils and they don't really deal with them.

Just because you ignored the direct refutations to your "evidence" that people have provided doesn't mean they aren't there. Or, to put it your way, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "It's not science!" doesn't make your mythology true. Just in the last couple of pages of this thread you've shown that you don't really understand evolution (even though you're working ever so hard to argue against it), you don't really understand etymology, and you don't really understand how it's so obvious that "intelligent design" is just creationism rebranded that even a conservative federal judge can see it.

Do yourself a favor -- get out of the creationist echo chamber and read the actual research for yourself, not someone else's interpretation of the research.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by sdb93awd

How is intelligent design not a religious issue? Isn't it the same thing as creation science which I believe does say God did it?

Religion is man made.

There are things on both sides that are valid and we need to quit hating on one another.

To deny the possibility of intelligent design would be a mistake by any reasonable person.

Young earth creationists are not the only proponents of intelligent design in case you weren't aware.

Based on the information I have seen, the theory that we all come from a common ancestor and through millions of years evolved is man made.

The big bang says it all came from nothing. Yet, there are problems with the big bang, namely you can't prove it or repeat it to test the theory. So, it is a belief system.

You really need to stop straw manning scientific theory. Big bang does NOT say everything came from nothing. It says that everything was at one point condensed together and it expanded. Besides, being a creationist you should know that you believe god created everything from nothing, but oddly enough you don't hold your own beliefs with the same scrutiny as a field of science. Why couldn't god create the universe via big man? Some people just enjoy putting their head in the dirt when egotistical viewpoints on reality get challenged. Isn't the topic about DNA and evolution? Big bang has nothing to do with either of those.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity


I have posted many recent posts dealing with ancient history, archeology, golden ratio, Fibonacci sequence, big bang problems, polystrate fossils and they don't really deal with them.

You may be in danger of spreading you jam a little too thinly.

Why don`t you focus on one area - read around the subject ?

Flittering from one topic to another without understanding them will do you no good in the long run.

____________________

Even if you don`t agree with the scientific consensus regarding evolution - why don`t you study it i.e. honestly attempt to understand (even if you have to hold your nose) ..... before you attempt to take it apart ?

____________________

Evolutionary biology is a tremendously robust field of study - but you would get a lot further in your critique if you at least had a grasp of the basic concepts.

____________________

To quote Mark Twain:

“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

reply to post by UmbraSumus


Don't worry about my capacity to multi-task. I think these subjects dovetail together. I have seen little intellectual curiosity or open mindedness regarding the facts I have presented. Rather, I have gotten the mantra of ridicule, and declarations of "It's proven" with nothing but adaptations as examples of the intermediate species changes which they are not.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by sdb93awd

How is intelligent design not a religious issue? Isn't it the same thing as creation science which I believe does say God did it?

Religion is man made.

There are things on both sides that are valid and we need to quit hating on one another.

To deny the possibility of intelligent design would be a mistake by any reasonable person.

Young earth creationists are not the only proponents of intelligent design in case you weren't aware.

Based on the information I have seen, the theory that we all come from a common ancestor and through millions of years evolved is man made.

The big bang says it all came from nothing. Yet, there are problems with the big bang, namely you can't prove it or repeat it to test the theory. So, it is a belief system.

You really need to stop straw manning scientific theory. Big bang does NOT say everything came from nothing. It says that everything was at one point condensed together and it expanded. Besides, being a creationist you should know that you believe god created everything from nothing, but oddly enough you don't hold your own beliefs with the same scrutiny as a field of science. Why couldn't god create the universe via big man? Some people just enjoy putting their head in the dirt when egotistical viewpoints on reality get challenged. Isn't the topic about DNA and evolution? Big bang has nothing to do with either of those.

Oh geez. I typed that so quick I didn't even realize I put big man instead of big bang. That sounded a little bit awkward. I mean if your position is that god created the universe, why does it seem so unthinkable that it would start with a giant expansion of matter? Big bang actually points more toward god, than away from him, IMO... but creationists still blindly attack it.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by UmbraSumus

 

Don't worry about my capacity to multi-task. I think these subjects dovetail together. I have seen little intellectual curiosity or open mindedness regarding the facts I have presented. Rather, I have gotten the mantra of ridicule, and declarations of "It's proven" with nothing but adaptations as examples of the intermediate species changes which they are not.

Your using classic creo argumentation. All you have is your conclusions and look for anything you can shoehorn in as "evidence". Ignoreing everything else that does not support your assertion and then cry about being ridiculed to everyone who disputes your unsupported claims.

You know darn well that you have been given more than unsupported declarations, more than just examples of adaptations.
The fact that your still misinterpreting adaptations as speciation, is proof your ignorant about the subject your trying to refute.

Common descent occurs through speciation, natural selection producing adaptations is just ONE of the mechanisms that can contribute to the process of evolution that leads to speciation. Adaptation occurred through mutation followed by selection is evolution.

The genetic evidence for small mutations giving rise to reproductive isolation is clear. Where is your evidence that such mutations can't contribute to speciation?

reply to post by flyingfish


Your attitude about this shows that you seem to know a lot......

Evolutionists claim that all life came from the sea. In order for any single one of these organisms to survive on land it would need lungs correct?

Were there really fish swimming around for millions and millions and millions and millions of years with half integrated lungs? The circuitry and operational features designed themselves without being tested as to their viability?

One day they were just born with operational lungs? The final mutation made these lungs function perfectly?

Why would a lump of a lung that was non-functional be beneficial and perpetuate in a sea creature?

The circuitry and organ itself co-evolved without knowing what it was doing and the creatures who had these silly mutations in their bodies werent at a biological disadvantage(weight, bloodflow, etc) ?

Also, it created land capable appendages around the same time?


Thats a lot of mutating to be passed on before any benefit.....in fact it seems to me that these mutations would hinder said organisms


I'm quite sure the language behind a functioning lung and its corresponding circuitry and integration into the creature is extremely precise and tediously detailed. I just don't see this fitting into the whole "survival of the fittest" concept as this creature would be burdened by carrying around useless weight until it finally hit the genetic jackpot per se.

If the language was even slightly awry, even with the lung fully in place and such, that creature would be burdened and shouldnt have great reproductive success.


I'm asking this because I really don't know. Help me understand.

reply to post by sdb93awd

Your attitude about this shows that you seem to know a lot......

I am not an expert in this stuff by any means.

Evolutionists claim that all life came from the sea. In order for any single one of these organisms to survive on land it would need lungs correct? Were there really fish swimming around for millions and millions and millions and millions of years with half integrated lungs? The circuitry and operational features designed themselves without being tested as to their viability? One day they were just born with operational lungs? The final mutation made these lungs function perfectly?

Not necessarily...
New research suggest that early vertebrates did not have a lung, but did evolve a rhythm generator. A carbon-dioxide-sensitive rhythm generator would allow early primitive vertebrae to eventually evolve a primitive lung closely resembling air breathing in amphibians.

Why would a lump of a lung that was non-functional be beneficial and perpetuate in a sea creature? The circuitry and organ itself co-evolved without knowing what it was doing and the creatures who had these silly mutations in their bodies werent at a biological disadvantage(weight, bloodflow, etc) ?

Probably because it was the neural circuitry that mutated well before the lung and did something other than air breathing, this was an advantage that allowed the animal to eventually exploit a more oxygen rich environment and evolve a lung.

Also, it created land capable appendages around the same time?

Early appendages were less capable on land and more like swimming in mud to get to the good stuff on the shore line.

Thats a lot of mutating to be passed on before any benefit.....in fact it seems to me that these mutations would hinder said organisms I'm quite sure the language behind a functioning lung and its corresponding circuitry and integration into the creature is extremely precise and tediously detailed. I just don't see this fitting into the whole "survival of the fittest" concept as this creature would be burdened by carrying around useless weight until it finally hit the genetic jackpot per se.

Life is tenacious, if there's a niche to exploit, life will find a way.

If the language was even slightly awry, even with the lung fully in place and such, that creature would be burdened and shouldnt have great reproductive success.

This was not the case. Opening a new frontier on land has been a huge success.

Lampreys are ancient fish that have characteristics similar to the first vertebrates. They do not have lungs and do not breathe air. As larvae, they live in tubes dug into soft mud and breathe and feed by pumping water through their bodies. When mud or debris clogs a lamprey's tube, they use a cough-like behavior to expel water and clear the tube. A rhythm generator in their brain controls that behavior.

Link

reply to post by sdb93awd

If the language was even slightly awry, even with the lung fully in place and such, that creature would be burdened and shouldnt have great reproductive success.

I doubt Neanderthals introduced themselves before getting it on with a helpless female.