I left the borg because of evolution myself
dude, this is super rare among ex-wits. trust me, i know. it's the same reason i left too. after biology, there is nothing left of their doctrine. but so few see that while in. kudos to you.
ts
HAS AN EVOLUTIONARY LINK BEEN DISCOVERED?
by badboy 46 Replies latest jw friends
-
tetrapod.sapien
-
hooberus
And also, statements like this one drive me crazy "Where did they come from? An accidental big bang from nothingness?" The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with cosmology. They are not related at all. But, why would the big bang have to be an accident? Do you equate belief in the big bang with athiesm? Why? What evidence do you have? What does the bible say about the mechanism that God used to create the universe? Why dont you like the big bang?
"Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Science, 155:409-415, 1967
And though Funkyderek already addressed the statement that "DNA is set in stone", AK also said that "there is still no science to backup the evolution of DNA to progress to a more complex species." If the following REAL LIFE example does not completely prove these two statements to be wrong, then I do not know what will. The example has to do with bacteria. As everyone posting here no doubt knows, bacteria are known to consume anything from crude oil to our own tissues. What they can or can not consume depends upon the instructions contained in their genome. In 1975, Japanese scientists reported finding a bacteria that could even consume Nylon. This would not seem to be too extraordinary of a finding except for the fact that Nylon is completely synthetic. It did not exist in nature prior to 1935 when it was manufactured by Dupont. So where did the genetic information come from? The bacteria did not lose the ability to consume what it was able to consume previously, but it gained the ability to consume this new, synthetic, material in addition to what it could consume previously. This new ability within the bateria Flavobacterium is the result of an additional Thymine nucleotide to be added to the DNA sequence of this bacteria. In my mind, this proves that not only is DNA NOT set in stone, it also proves that order can arise from chaos, and that evolution does occur in order to cause one species to progress into a more complex one. Because, just because the bacteria evolved on the micro level, it still became more complex in the process. This is a real life example of the one thing that creationists insist that evolution can not do, add new genetic information, and yet here it is! The genome for this bacteria actually grew and became more complex by the addition of the Thymine nucleotide! This really isnt any surprise to scientists and other people that like to actually learn, but in my mind this is proof on the most basic level that creationists for some reason insist that they need...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm
-
slacker911
Amazing1914 (1914), Sick of Lies (SOL), and Tetrapod.Sapien, I am honored to be in such company! 1914, and SOL thank you for the kind words and compliments! I look forward to seeing you all on this forum! And I too left because of evolution...thank you TalkOrigins!
Hooberus,
Thanks for the links...
Frankly, I am confused by your post. I think that the fact that you feel the need to define evolution as you did means I either misscommunicated, wasnt thorough enough with my post, or you jumped into the thread at the point of my post. The post I made was in response to the statement by another poster that evolution does not happen, and there is no proof for it. All your first quote provides is a statement saying everything evolves, which I agree with. However, I would think that it is pretty blatantly clear that we were all talking about biological evolution in this thread, and there is not a reputable scientist alive today that would put biological and cosmoligical evolution in the same group, unless they are wanting to define the generic word "evolution", which is "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." That's fine. To illustrate my point though, the definition of "biological evolution" is "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." No one is going to confuse that with a definition for cosmology. But I will remember to be more specific in the future.
This is where I get confused though. You provide a statement stating "Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life." I would only presume you would post this statement because you are in support of it, if not you care about the actual definition of evolution more then any other creationist that I have talked to. That being said, I am suprised you would make that statement and then post two links to websites that clearly would not be in support of the prior quote that you just made, and the claims within that quote. And though the information in the answersingenesis page is thought provoking, particularly in their spin that the capability of the bacteria to adapt the ability is by design and contained within the bacterial plasmids, I will contend that their argument is flawed for two reasons. To start with, the article in AIG completely ignores the fact that the frame shift resulted from the addition of completely new genetic information. The fact that they ignore it is right there in the subheading before they list their six problems with evolutionary theory in regards to this adaptation. Also, though they mention it, they do not explain what a frame shift actually is, which is the real heart of the matter. It is the addition of the Thymine nucleotide itself which caused the frame shift and allows for the ability to consume Nylon. This additional genetic information changes the type and sorting of the amino acids within the proteins that make up the bacteria. The plasmids actually have nothing to do with it. This new bacteria literally has a different amino acid sequence, as opposed to its ancestor, and this is strictly due to the additional genetic information contained within the bacteria, something every creationist website spends their entire existence saying doesnt happen.
Finally, I wasnt saying that there was not a creative hand involved here. I firmly believe that a higher power could have created a mechanism like evolution that allows for biological development and progression of species, I just do not insist that that is the case. I made the point I made about this bacteria because AK made the statement that there was no scientific evidence to support the evolution of a species into a more complex one...and that is blatantly wrong.
-
funkyderek
slacker911:
Hooberus,
Thanks for the links...
Frankly, I am confused by your post.
You'll get used to that. Hooberus is a fundamentalist Christian with no scientific background. If someone posts something he doesn't understand but that upsets his blinkered creationist worldview, he'll look up his favourite web site (answersingenesis.org) and find what he thinks is a rebuttal. There's no point arguing with him as he doesn't understand much of what he posts. But the place wouldn't be the same without him.
Anyway, welcome to the board. Great stuff so far.
-
hooberus
You'll get used to that. Hooberus is a fundamentalist Christian with no scientific background. If someone posts something he doesn't understand but that upsets his blinkered creationist worldview, he'll look up his favourite web site (answersingenesis.org) and find what he thinks is a rebuttal. There's no point arguing with him as he doesn't understand much of what he posts. But the place wouldn't be the same without him.
Anyway, welcome to the board. Great stuff so far.
Comments such as the above are one reason why I try to no longer dialogue with the evolutionists here anymore. Thanks for the reminder.
-
ellderwho
Comments such as the above are why I am loathe to dialogue with evolutionists here anymore.
Hoob, how you dare attack the sacred theory of evolution!
-
funkyderek
hooberus:
Comments such as the above are one reason why I try to no longer dialogue with the evolutionists here anymore. Thanks for the reminder.
Are you sure it's not because you were so far out of your intellectual depth in any arguments you had on the subject that you resorted to just copying and pasting from your favourite creationist websites? I guess people can look at your post history and make up their own minds.
-
hooberus
Are you sure it's not because you were so far out of your intellectual depth in any arguments you had on the subject that you resorted to just copying and pasting from your favourite creationist websites? I guess people can look at your post history and make up their own minds.
They certainly can.
-
slacker911
Hooberus,
I see you have revisited this thread multiple times since I last posted my response to the AnswersInGenesis link that you posted. I had looked forward to your reply to the points that I made regarding the problem with those links. This would be a good opportunity for you to show FunkyDerek, and others, that you actually know what you are talking about and are interested in the actual truth...not maintaining a belief that you already hold.
Like I said in an early post, I used to be a creationist. I also used to be a Ministerial Servant and Regular Pioneer. I am none of those things right now. But I guess it takes an open mind...
So, Hooberus, what is your reply to my response to your links?
Look forward to hearing back from you.
-
Abaddon
Apostate Kate
There still is no science to back up the evolution of DNA to progress towards a more complex species.
The Second LAW of Thermodynamics, Entropy, erases any chance for the theory of evolution to ever be proven.
As the link kindly provided by MaudDib shows, such an argument is based on what can politely be called a misunderstanding of the Law you quote.
When DNA mutates the greater percentage of times the mutation is detrimental to the organism.
Ah, a correct statement. I glow with happiness. Apart from the fact here you admit to DNA mutating... and elsewhere you insist it is set in stone, which is you contradicting yourself... in one post... cool...
When it is a good thing it will never change the DNA code, but can rearrange the genes.
Okay... genes are made of DNA... if the genes are rearranged, then the DNA is changed. How on god's green earth do you feel qualified to make pronouncements on evolution when you can make such a massive error on a fundamental?
Please, answer me that, I am curious.
I have asked a couple biochemists, in all sincerety, to be shown the theory has some kind of scientific validity. They come up with outrageous so called closed environment. In other words by dinking around with nature, they can manipulate organisms. and I ask...and this meeeaaans.....?
Please restaate the above in a way understandable by someone not inside your head. Or are you garbling their completely reasonable response that the 2nd Law does not apply to an OPEN system where ENERGY (from the sun) goes INTO the system and thus makes 2nd Law arguments about evolution 'rather' wrong?
Next, Joe the plumber and why Open heart surgery ain't never going to work... sorry for the sarcasm, but you earnt it.
I find Talk Origens to be very myopic.
Please expand on this, it will be fun... there was me thinking myopia was insisting fanciful contrived explanations of existence developed by primative cultures involving skymen are really real were the myopic points of view.
FD I may be blond and an apostate but I can read and reason.
Your hair colour has nothing to do with the arrogance of assuming that you, who have no education in this field and have obviously (from what you say) failed to comprehend what you have read up about the subject independently, can set the world of evolutioonary biology aright. I can imagine you in the Sistine Chapel telling Michaelangelo where he was going wrong on the basis of a Reader's Digest article you had read once, and managed to get quite a lot out of despite the fact it was in a language you didn't understand...
A ludicrous example? No... a 'blue-collar' expert who has his craftsmanship questioned and dismissed as wrong by a neonate who isn't clear on what end of the paint brush is which would join the rest of the world in laughing at them.
If it is a white collar expert every underinformed person with a keyboard feels equiped to set them to rights, and no doubt will whine at how unfair it is when they are laughed at by those who DO understand the argument.
There is no scientific evidence for the mutation of one species to mutate into another even with billions of years to work at it.
This is just wrong, further illustrating the position of profound ignorance from which you are making this argument.
I have a genetic disease that caused me to begin researching DNA. It is a code, written in stone. And of it were not we would not be here.
Oh PLEASE. One of my daughters has talapeis. This is a genetic disease, as it is hereditable, but it also can arrise spontaneously, which is how she got it. If DNA were 'written in stone' the development of YOUR genetic disease and hers would be impossible. Seriously, you are so amazingly off base and utterly wrong (about your statements regarding DNA as well as those regading evolution) it defies belief, although it makes hooberus look surprisingly well informed (in comparison) for once.
Can you explain Thamalsemia and Sickle Cell trait with your crack-pot theory of DNA written in stone? No you can't, but I doubt if you can even explain why those two examples show that you are profoundly wrong.
The universe would be one bizaar unstable place without DNA codes.
Wrong...
Where did they come from? Oh an accidental big bang from nothingness.
And your theory of abiogodesis is?
Then chemicals came from more nothingness.
Keep up will you? You just said the big bang happened, which means there isn't nothingness anymore. And if you want one small chance in a million to appear as though you know something you should use 'elements' in place of 'chemicals'
They mingled.
"How do you do" said H to He. "Oh, not too bad... I know Fe from our days back as Sun, where do you know him from?"
Then all known scientific rules were broken
If we are talking about the ones you know, then none were broken
and DNA codes mysteriously appeared out of nowhere....
And your theory of abiogodesis was?
sure..makes perfect sense...
Oooo... sarcasm... take it from an expert, only use sarcasm if you are really, like really sure you are right.
But let's not be too hard on poor little you, eh? I don't imagine for one moment you are doing anything other than parroting things you have read somewhere (note, parrotting and education are DIFFERENT).
Although you'll probably be pissed at us, the people who you should be pissed at are those whose lies about evolution you have eagerly swallowed.
hooberus
Comments such as the above are one reason why I try to no longer dialogue with the evolutionists here anymore. Thanks for the reminder.
And there was I thinking you'd gone and hidden under a rock because everytime you crawl out and bleat 'godidit', you are
- shown to be wrong
- are frequently quoting from commercialised Creationist sites run by people awarding themselves double the normal salary for such a 'charitable' instititution peddling unscientific clap-trap to the gullible and maing quite good money doing it
- are making run-on assertions based on things having happened when there is direct proof they could not have happened
- are attacking theories with vast levels of supporting evidence on the basis of single-point crticisims which do not undermine the underlying theory
- ignoring the fact you can't prove anything about your beliefs of the origin of the world
Either that or you had evolved slightly... hooberus, you ARE the missing link, goodbye... is it nice under there?
slacker911
Hail and well met. Nice to have someone else to fight the rising tides of the Ignorami (the real threat to the world - the Illuminati story is just a cover-up).
The basic principle here (as in hoob et. al) is the defence of literalism. They believe their interpretation of the Bible means god is their best buddy and most everyone else is bad. To defend this belief (based on a literal reading), they have to defend other literal readings. If they conceed that Genesis is NOT literal, then they have to concede they might not be god's best buddy and that they should stop looking down their nose at the world.
It's not about god, or love, or anything other than them expecting their unsupported opinions to be worshipped. Rampant egotism driving the chariots of ignorance forwards to inevitable disaster, just as has happened every time belief and knowledge go one-on-one.
And don't expect a response from hoob. He is disengenuous. He promnised to rebutt a post I did showing how dendrochronology and many ancient structures show the Flood was not literal, and has failed to do so for several YEARS. He says this is because I am mean to him (poor ickle diddums), but I reckon if he COULD rebutt my argument he'd not be able to stop himself, as afterall, it's all about the vindication of his opinion.