Creation vs. Evolution

[Tyrathca]

Tyrathca, if you are just going to continue to ignore modern biology, I'm not sure how we can continue to have a conversation about it.

You are ignoring a fundamental aspect of what information can mean. I on the other hand are rejecting your opinions on biology.

Actually, we were not discussing physics, nor biology. We were debating the definition of information....and if information is evidence of intelligence.

Yes and information in physics does not require intelligence. That is an unavoidable fact of how the term is used in that field. This is why definitions are important.

I defined with definitions. You didn't like the definitions because they were from a dictionary.

Correct, when talking about science I don't like to use the dictionary especially when being precise is important.

But to explain further what I think you have done unwittingly:
You've said DNA has information -> defined information as coming from intelligence -> concluded DNA came from intelligence.
So you've defined an intelligence behind DNA into existence because you never see if your definition fits DNA, you've assumed it from the start. It's like saying Usain bolt is fast then defining fast as >100km/h and then concluding that Usain Bolt must therefore be able to run that fast.

What I have shown is that depending on how you conceptualise information it is perfectly reasonable to talk of it being in DNA without implying an intelligence. I.e. you can't quote mine scientists saying there is information in DNA to prove your point

I even provided an argument for you. You could argue that, this complex sophisticated motor had self assembled. (That seems to be the best argument evolutionists have to offer)

Why would I play creationist whack-a-mole with you when you haven't offered any argument? You've simply saying that that because something is complex or you can use the word motor to describe it therefore it is irreducibly complex because..... reasons (you don't actually say). That is literally all you've actually said about your example.

Even if I can explain how to reduce it that achieves nothing since you have a whole cell full of things to move on to. Examples aren't arguments, if I disprove your example it does nothing to sway your hiden argument. Furthermore I reasonably infer that you assume that if I or anyone else can't say how to reduce something then therefore you are automatically right and it is irreducible.

"Common ancestry is how we came to the conclusion that certain animals were good for models for human physiology and testing which we only later were able to test for with genetics and other analysis of our biochemistry."
(That's your belief. My belief is that a common designer is the best explanation)

No it was a response to you saying it hasn't contributed to any technology. Common ancestry was how these conclusions were made and thus it contributed to subsequent technology from it.

Now you might say creationists could have come have up with the same conclusions. Problem is they didn't.

We disagree...A evolutionary prediction from Darwin is that we would have organs "imperfect, and (in) useless condition". It was because of that belief that many researchers didn't bother looking for functionality, purpose and design.

What Darwin said here wasn't wrong, we can expect to find such vestigial organs, and researchers did bother to look they just for a long time didn't find any for the appendix or junk DNA for quite a while (the appendix was particularly difficult because it's function is made to a large extent redundant with modern sanitation and medicine, making its affects very subtle to find)

Geneticist John Sanford talks about how evolution hurts science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-H4X2b7x7Q

I'm not going to watch an entire hour long video about someone's opinion. Can you point me to the particular relevant highlight as I did with the information and physics video I provided?

That wasn't the problem. The problem was that non coding DNA, was mostly ignored because of evolutionary beliefs.
As one professor said, ignoring introns / 'junk DNA' could be "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” (John Mattick of University of Queensland)

Yes scientists got something wrong. Science does that a lot but fortunately science self corrects. You haven't said how common ancestry should take most of (or any of) the blame.

You do realise that the finding of such large areas of non-coding DNA came as a surprise in the first place?

In fact, some atheists seem to demand that we have 'junk' DNA, (And seem angry with suggestions are non coding DNA has purpose). "If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome.

I don't much care what "some atheists" say (those are weasel words anyway). Those "some atheists" are idiots.

Why were so many evolutionists angry with ENCODE for saying that non coding DNA had function?* Simple answer... 'junk' DNA was the foundation of the evolutionist argument, that our genome was not the result of an Intelligent Creator.

So many? I was unaware any were angry. Some scientists may have argued against it, which is what scientists are expected to do (critique). Obviously it survived the critique and was accepted by many of those same scientists.

Some may have been more vigorous in their disagreement because scientists are human and sometimes don't like their work being declared irrelevant.

You are making a couple false assumptions. Creationist scientists have long said that the non-coding DNA may have function / purpose/ design that has not yet been discovered. They were correct.

And yet it was evolutionists who proved it first. If creationists were saying it from the start but evolutionists still proved it first it can't have been as totally ignored as you think could it?

Also... it was*science which helped determine evolutionary beliefs about pseudogenes and*junk DNA was false. (Both evolutionists and creationists). A minority of scientists had been pushing for many years for more research on our non coding DNA. Nope..... Science did not get it wrong..... Evolutionists had it wrong. Fortunately science corrected

Evolutionists getting something wrong is evolution. Evolutionist getting something right (using evolution) is science. You're dancing around with your words to suit your own convictions.

You have one standard for science, one standard for creationism, one standard for evolution.


Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Yes and information in physics does not require intelligence. That is an unavoidable fact of how the term is used in that field.

We were discussing cell biology.

This is why definitions are important.

I agree. I already had mentioned there many levels and theories of information. I provided the common and everyday definitions of info.. So here is a more precise definition from an information theorist, Werner Gitt..."symbolically encoded, abstractly represented message conveying the expected action(s)and the intended purpose(s). In this context, 'message' is meant to include instructions for carrying out a specific task or eliciting a specific response."

What I have shown is that depending on how you conceptualise information it is perfectly reasonable to talk of it being in DNA without implying an intelligence. I.e. you can't quote mine scientists saying there is information in DNA to prove your point

It's unreasonable to talk of any code that doesn't require intelligence. And DNA is the most sophisticated complex code there is. Bill Gates says "“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

You've simply saying that that because something is complex or you can use the word motor to describe it therefore it is irreducibly complex because..... reasons (you don't actually say).

I did actually say..... "You need all the parts together for the motor to function; and, there are many parts. For ex.... (and this is "completely fascinating") F1-ATPase motor is just a sub unit of the 'larger' ATP synthase motor, but this sub unit has 9 components." You need all 9 components of the subunit... Its all or nothing. The main motor won't work without the subunit...and the subunit won't work with all of it's 9 components.

Common ancestry was how these conclusions were made and thus it contributed to subsequent technology from it.

No Ty... that is not true. There has never been a single new technology...nor any medical advancement that resulted from common ancestry beliefs. Medical advancements are made through the same science used by evolutionists and*creationists. They study mutation rates, genetic homology, reproduction rates etc. They perform the exact same science, but have different beliefs about the past.
And, as you know...if anything, common ancestry beliefs have hindered medical progress in the past.

We disagree...A evolutionary prediction from Darwin is that we would have organs "imperfect, and (in) useless condition".

What Darwin said here wasn't wrong, we can expect to find such vestigial organs

Darwin was wrong... science continues to prove the old vestigial arguments to be false.

It was because of that belief that many researchers didn't bother looking for functionality, purpose and design.

..researchers did bother to look

What I said is correct and even evolutionists admit it

Geneticist John Sanford talks about how evolution hurts
science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-H4X2b7x7Q

I'm not going to watch an entire hour long video about someone's opinion.

Ok... No worries. In summary, he is a geneticist, inventer and professor who has been published in secular articles about 80 times. His hour long talk discusses how common ancestry beliefs hinder science.

The problem was that non coding DNA, was mostly ignored because of evolutionary beliefs.

You haven't said how common ancestry should take most of (or any of) the blame.

Sure...evolutionists assumed Darwin was correct about "useless" organs. So, when they didn't understand or have full knowledge, they just dismissed things as useless... 'why bother studying junk? They started with a false conclusion,* which hindered science, and hurt people.

[You do realise that the finding of such large areas of non-coding DNA came as a surprise in the first place?

The large areas of non-coding DNA often was used as prime evidence for evolutionism. Many evolutionists expressed surprise when science found (still finding) much if not all our 'junk' DNA has purpose and function.

Why were so many evolutionists angry with ENCODE for saying that non coding DNA had function? Simple answer... 'junk' DNA was the foundation of the evolutionist argument, that our genome was not the result of an Intelligent Creator.

So many? I was unaware any were angry. Some scientists may have argued against it, which is what scientists are expected to do (critique). Obviously it survived the critique and was accepted by many of those same scientists.

Not aware they were angry?? When ENCODE first published there was a firestorm of angry evolutionists making statements like "most scientists sincerely care about accuracy and truth. Thus, it was no surprise that scientists were irritated by the misrepresentation of ENCODE’s results, and have spoken out in protest. " BTW... There wasn't misrepresentation of ENCODES results, by creationists so much,as there was by evolutionists saying 'not much new here'. . But evolutionists admitted concern that creationists could use this data against the common ancestry belief system. The data continues to pour in finding purpose, design, function.

You are making a couple false assumptions. Creationist scientists have long said that the non-coding DNA may have function / purpose/ design that has not yet been discovered. They were correct.

If creationists were saying it from the start but evolutionists still proved it first it can't have been as totally ignored as you think could it?

Many evolutionists such as yourself, want to whitewash...or, rewrite the history. Many scientists and many articles admit things like "scientists have largely ignored the stretches of repetitive genetic code known as 'junk' DNA in their search for differences that influence human health and disease." Science Daily* https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160830121720.htm

 

[MichaelCadry]

The search function on this forum makes it hard to dig those up but if I recall correctly it involved you quoting people who would not agree with your interpretation of what they said.
Again this is why it is hard to take your opinion on science seriously. You don't give real citations, you don't give definitions you use, and you in the very next sentence don't use any science.
And this is why you need definitions. A physicist could say there is a lot of information in paint. Even I can say that, the red paint tells me the chemical composition of all the molecules in the paint.

All you are really saying is there is not any information relative to the context in just paint.
You are making the assumption that everything you call information is intelligently designed and then seemingly defining it as such.

The only definition for information you have given so far is that it comes from intelligence. You are defining yourself as right, using linguistics and your biased assumptions not logic or science.
Again this depends on your definition of information. You could say there is information in the dimples just not information relevant to the context of the human touching it.

If you define information as intelligently designed then off course type conclusion will be that information is intelligently designed though. You'll have a challenge though proving anything not made by humans contains any information (unless you don't stick with one definition, which you are known to do)
Again, that you are taking a journalism article with all of us sensationalist language as representative of science is... troubling. Oh and they said NEARLY unbelievable anyway, not that it matters given this is a piece of JOURNALISM.

Do you really not see what you are doing here though? You've latched on to a single sentence, and an emotive response at that, made by someone who obviously disagrees by you and ignored everything else they have said or think. Why? The most obvious explanation for that behaviour is you think that one sentence agrees with you whilst everything else they said does not. In other words - huge confirmation bias.


And what is the 'simplest cell'? Is this a real cell represented by an actual organism or is it a concept?

As for ATP synthase do you actually want to debate that? Because playing creationist whack-a-mole where you just move on to the next claim and the next without defending one gets old fast. Given the scientific knowledge you have shown over the years here I highly doubt you actually understand much about the subject so I'll wait for you to make an argument for how you know it is irreducibly complex and not just that we don't know how it evolved (the latter argument is dull and pointless as it relies on you being automatically right if I say I don't know. Which is a dumb argument)

Given life had a long period of evolution prior to this as single cells and smaller colonies some degree of complexity is expected. The speed of diversity is impressive but given they were the first to develop into this large niche it is not unexplainable. Do you actually what to debate that the cambrian explosion is impossible?
Yeesh. You're like a broken record, it's as if you think saying it enough times makes it true.

You (creationists) don't have the scientific community agreeing, you have an extremely small fringe of people with scientific background, you don't have any substantial (if any) research, you don't have data or predictions to test, you have added nothing to scientific knowledge in over a century, you rely on quote mines from journalism articles rather others real data and research, you rely on the false assumption that if evolutionists are wrong or don't know then you must automatically be right ... Where is your science hiding?



Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

Dear Tyrathca,

I believe everything what 6days and Rosenritter have said. Your problem, Ty, is that you don't believe in God. And you probably never will. Woe to you is all I can say for now. You'll get the message once you get your reward for your actions and words. Even as we cannot explain everything that God does, or have citations, doesn't mean you are correct in your own assumptions and those evolutionists. You just keep ignoring everything that we have to say, just because you don't want to be wrong. It figures with you and many like you. We cannot explain everything that the Lord does, but He does say that, when the seventh angel sounds, the mystery of God shall be finished, as He has declared to His servants, the prophets {Rev. 10:7KJV}. 6days and Rosenritter are like the prophets, for they speak what God says about everything and can wait for that seventh angel to sound, just as I do. It won't be that long, so that is good news for you and us. Neither 'scientists, nor atheists, nor evolutionists, not even creationists can know everything and even I have to wait for the approval from God when He's ready, not when you wish it or ask us of it. Your science is blasphemy quite often, to be honest, for you do not savor the things that are of God. You will receive your reward, Ty, after you find out from the Lord, and not anytime sooner. We who know God and what He can do are a lot further ahead than scientists and evolutionists, atheists, etc. could ever hope to be. You are all so screwed up in your heads that no one will get anything through you brain, and because you rebel against God, your fate becomes more sealed. For you, there will be no second chances. You are a staunch supporter of Satan and you don't even know that, because like your friends, you don't believe in him either. You are in a pathetic time in your life and you will probably not fare any better, because God doesn't want you in Heaven. You're a lost cause and God doesn't want to save you! Go ahead and disbelieve me, Ty, because you will think back to this time and you will not be able to even forgive yourself. And you want to ask Jesus to let you into Heaven? It won't happen, dude.

We don't need citations. We agree because we know all that God will give us the ability to possibly believe, and it doesn't jive with what you or your scientists believe. We know as creationists that we can believe God and you don't have that luxury. So go ahead and continue on your road and we will probably not grieve for you and what your scientists, and evolutionists, believe. There is NO billions or millions of years. Not even 10,000 years. We know that because we understand that the timeline of Adam until now is roughly more like 6-7,000 years, and it could be less. You don't understand that God created man in one day along with all of the creatures, fish and bugs besides. I'd best close for now. You keep going down your road and we will go down the road our God has reassured for us, and we'll see who gets into Heaven and who doesn't. So don't ask us for citations. Some things go without saying. Like I said, see you at the finish line? I doubt it.

Should I call you a numbskull? I won't, because I don't use that type of language. You are still just someone who is not going to believe anything no matter what we say. I know that 6days and Rosen are both more knowledgeable about the subject than you, with all of your science and conjecture. I am relieved that I have been so lucky to have friends like them, than whoever you call friends. Yeah, I know all of your scientists and evolutionists will disagree with me. I have many more millions of Christian people that believe that Jesus is the answer and that He comes in the name of our Father, in Heaven.

Michael

 

[popsthebuilder]

Don't people realize that GOD could have created everything and everything does too evolve or change over time, through generations and breeding.

It shouldn't be creation vs evolution. It should read some things closer to creation and evolution, or created evolution.

As if one is as a necessity, wrong if the other is right.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[patrick jane]

Don't people realize that GOD could have created everything and everything does too evolve or change over time, through generations and breeding.

It shouldn't be creation vs evolution. It should read some things closer to creation and evolution, or created evolution.

As if one is as a necessity, wrong if the other is right.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I agree pops -

 

[Caino]

God created evolution, the proof is in the earth. The Hebrews created Genesis, the proof is in the same earth.

 

[Jose Fly]

Tyrathca,

FYI, 6days is just repeating the same failed arguments over and over and over. The last time he and I discussed the subject of pseudogenes, I made him aware of a few facts (e.g., the differences between intron and exon regions, and how evolutionary common ancestry is the framework under which these studies are conducted). You can read through some of it starting HERE, a post where I laid all that out and 6days just flat-out ignored it.

Probably the most telling part of that exchange was when he admitted that no matter what, "I will keep saying your [sic] wrong".

 

[Jose Fly]

Wow. To demonstrate just how repetitive it is to engage 6days, look at this post of mine to Tyrathca from February...

6days and I went over this, and as was explained then, it wasn't that geneticists ignored pseudogenes and other non-coding regions, it's that they weren't prioritized for research in the early days of sequencing. And that made sense, given that sequences were hard to come by, and large-scale sequences weren't available for comparison. So as they began researching genetic functions, of course they generally started by looking at coding regions. I mean, at best the non-coding regions were likely going to serve a regulatory role, so it made sense to first look at the regions that code for proteins, and later look into how they are regulated.

Also, as I explained to 6days earlier, the "gene" parts of pseudogenes (the parts that are supposed to code for proteins....exons) are still non-functional. They've either been disabled to the point where they don't even code for anything, or they code for a few steps in the protein-making process (amino acids) but because subsequent steps are broken, the process stops and the amino acids just get re-digested by the cell without doing anything.

The research we'd been discussing is about geneticists discovering that in some cases, the regulatory regions (introns) of these pseudogenes have been co-opted to regulate other genes. But the parts that were supposed to code for proteins (exons) remain non-functional.​

 

[6days]

It shouldn't be creation vs evolution. ....

As if one is as a necessity, wrong if the other is right.

Well, if death pain and suffering is not a result of first Adam's sin; then, the Bible is wrong, and there was no point in Christ's death and resurrection.
So.... Yes, if one is right, the other is wrong.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Well, if death pain and suffering is not a result of first Adam's sin; then, the Bible is wrong, and there was no point in Christ's death and resurrection.
So.... Yes, if one is right, the other is wrong.

Wow... What a terrible example.

Both the sin of Adam and the atonement of the Christ are true.

Your point is moot.

The number of the day is two. Ah-ah-ah.

Peace friend, don't contend with others for no reason.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Well, if death pain and suffering is not a result of first Adam's sin; then, the Bible is wrong, and there was no point in Christ's death and resurrection.
So.... Yes, if one is right, the other is wrong.

Wow... What a terrible example.
Both the sin of Adam and the atonement of the Christ are true.

Yes, both are true.
But the question is, why did Christ have to suffer physical death? IOW, If God had created everything through a process of death, extinctions, pain and suffering...calling it all very good; then the purpose of Jesus suffering death becomes meaningless. (See 1 Cor. 15:26)

Clearly from scripture, physical death is not "very good". Death is connected with sin, and referred to as the "final enemy"...death being part of the curse which Christ conquers.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes, both are true.
But the question is, why did Christ have to suffer physical death? IOW, If God had created everything through a process of death, extinctions, pain and suffering...calling it all very good; then the purpose of Jesus suffering death becomes meaningless. (See 1 Cor. 15:26)

Clearly from scripture, physical death is not "very good". Death is connected with sin, and referred to as the "final enemy"...death being part of the curse which Christ conquers.

Yes sir, I agree; death- bad.

Was trying to say that your example didn't really lend any credence to your supposition.

I didn't mean to be so harsh in attempting to convey that message though, so I apologize. It was uncalled for and unprofitable towards peaceable conversation or understanding.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

The last time he and I discussed the subject of pseudogenes, I made him aware of a few facts .....Evolution&p=4608620&viewfull=1#post4608620"]HERE[/URL], a post where I laid all that out and 6days just flat-out ignored it.

Jose..... its not that I ignored you...It's that you keep repeating the same failed arguments trying to whitewash the history of shoddy evolutionary conclusions.
Here is one of the points from the post you refer to and a response.

I did bring this subject up with a colleague of mine who is a geneticist. She explained that it wasn't so much that pseudogenes were "ignored" as they were "not prioritized". In the 1970's and 1980's, genetic sequences were pretty hard to come by ...
Then in the 2000's, as whole genomes became available for comparison (under the framework of evolutionary theory), more geneticists noticed these highly conserved sequences among the non-coding regions and the results are in the papers we've been discussing.

Your geneticist uses a excuse I wish my kids would try..."Dad, I'm not ignoring washing the dishes...it just isn't a priority". And, a large part of the reason non coding regions were "not prioritized" was evolutionary beliefs in useless biological remnants. Or as biologist Kenneth Miller preached that "the human genome is littered with pseudogenes"

Your history lesson does have some truth in it Jose. But in 2006, there was still prominent evolutionists who essentially discouraged research into pseudogenes and non coding DNA* by comparing it to trash floating in the ocean ("genetic flotsam and jetsam"). And... even now in 2016, there are still evolutionists with false beliefs about pseudogenes. I'm sure his words encouraged many to spend research money studying 'litter'.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose..... its not that I ignored you...It's that you keep repeating the same failed arguments trying to whitewash the history of shoddy evolutionary conclusions.

Obviously you think citing multiple scientific journal articles and quoting extensively from them constitutes "whitewashing history". I guess we can add that to the list of truly ridiculous things you've said about science.

Here is one of the points from the post you refer to and a response.
Your geneticist uses a excuse I wish my kids would try..."Dad, I'm not ignoring washing the dishes...it just isn't a priority".

And here's another idiotic thing you've said about science....scientists aren't allowed to prioritize their work. Further, you completely "whitewash" the fact that creationists had access to plenty of resources that would have allowed them to conduct their own research according to their own priorities.....but they instead chose to focus those resources on lobbying school boards, making movies, conducting church tours, building theme parks, etc.

So in essence all you're doing is throwing rocks (after the fact) at the geneticists who carried out all the foundational research that led to the state of our genetic knowledge today, while at the same time giving your fellow creationists a pass for not doing a single thing during the same time period.

You should be ashamed.

And, a large part of the reason non coding regions were "not prioritized" was evolutionary beliefs in useless biological remnants. Or as biologist Kenneth Miller preached that "the human genome is littered with pseudogenes"

It's obvious by know that your understanding of this subject is limited to whatever talking points you've managed to memorize from whatever creationist source you're relying on. That explains your complete reluctance to discuss the subject in any detail beyond them.

Let's recap....

In the 1970's and 1980's, genetic sequences were pretty hard to come by and we really were in the earliest stages of figuring out what the human genome even looked like, let alone what it all did. So it was quite logical for geneticists to first prioritize coding regions in their research. Coding regions = proteins, and proteins are where most of the action is in the cell. But even then (as I showed with references to the literature), some geneticists were looking at non-coding regions.​

...and and little more detailed....

As I explained earlier, some evolutionary biologists thought all pseudogenes were non-functional, others (e.g., panselectionists) thought they were functional. So geneticists, armed with the understanding of evolutionary common ancestry, did some research and they found very small percentage of pseudogenes have been co-opted for new functions. That's how science works.

But we can answer this question pretty easily. Remember, the draft human genome was published in 2001. In 2003 there were already papers like this one: Pseudogenes: Are they "junk" or Functional DNA?. And notice something else about that paper? They note the fact that even at that time geneticists had already identified "functional roles" for some pseudogenes. Not only that, but a simple search of the literature for "pseudogene" and "function" turns up plenty of papers from the 1990's that either speculate about possible pseudogene functions, or directly identify those functions (and some even offer evolutionary pathways for how it happened). If we go back much farther that that, we hit a time period where the sequencing technology just wasn't sufficient to properly investigate this issue.

But even then, here's a paper from 1977 that discusses a possible function for a pseudogene.

So it seems all your rhetoric about "evolutionists ignoring pseudogenes" is flatly contradicted by reality.​

So as is evidenced by examining the relevant literature on the subject, this creationist talking point you've memorized is demonstrably wrong.

Your history lesson does have some truth in it Jose. But in 2006, there was still prominent evolutionists who essentially discouraged research into pseudogenes and non coding DNA* by comparing it to trash floating in the ocean ("genetic flotsam and jetsam"). And... even now in 2016, there are still evolutionists with false beliefs about pseudogenes. I'm sure his words encouraged many to spend research money studying 'litter'.

Again you illustrate how your understanding of the subject is only as shallow as a simplistic creationist talking point. Let's recap again...

Also, as I explained to 6days earlier, the "gene" parts of pseudogenes (the parts that are supposed to code for proteins....exons) are still non-functional. They've either been disabled to the point where they don't even code for anything, or they code for a few steps in the protein-making process (amino acids) but because subsequent steps are broken, the process stops and the amino acids just get re-digested by the cell without doing anything.

The research we'd been discussing is about geneticists discovering that in some cases, the regulatory regions (introns) of these pseudogenes have been co-opted to regulate other genes. But the parts that were supposed to code for proteins (exons) remain non-functional.​

You also continue to ignore the documented fact that the research into potential functional pseudogene sequences is, and has been, conducted entirely under the framework of evolutionary common ancestry.

Let's also recall what you said your response to this will consist of..."I will keep saying your [sic] wrong."

Now this is the part where you repeat the same talking points again....

 

[6days]

In
As I explained earlier, some evolutionary biologists thought all pseudogenes were non-functional, others (e.g., panselectionists) thought they were functional. So geneticists, armed with the understanding of evolutionary common ancestry, did some research and they found very small percentage of pseudogenes have been co-opted for new functions. That's how science works.

Nice revisionist story. However the truth is that evolutionists (including some biologists, some geneticists, some sociologists, some science editors...etc) thought our genome was littered was useless biological remnants.* They taught that this "junk" was evidence of their belief system...common ancestry.*

Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents wrote articles and books suggesting that our genome may be much more functional than previously thought. These books such as 'The Myth Of Junk DNA', was sometimes met with hostility...even though that one was published in 2011.* Obviously down through the years there were scientists (both creationist and evolutionist) who did research... and did find our genome was the opposite of evolutionists *beliefs.

But we can answer this question pretty easily. Remember, the draft human genome was published in 2001. In 2003 there were already papers like this one: Pseudogenes: Are they "junk" or Functional DNA?.*.......
But even then, here's a paper from 1977 that discusses a possible function for a pseudogene.
So it seems all your rhetoric about "evolutionists ignoring pseudogenes" is flatly contradicted by reality.

Yet, in 2016, there are still evolutionists who*are still hoping that some of the*non-coding DNA might be junk.* They are having a hard time admitting that they were wrong, so cling to a icon of evolution...junk DNA.

After Wells book came out in 2011,* Russell* Carlson, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology said "Unfortunately, in their effort to keep the ‘junk’ label attached to non-protein coding DNA so that it remains in the box of Darwinian evolution, a number of prominent Darwinists continue to insist, in spite of the recent results to the contrary, that it is largely left-over waste from the evolutionary process"
and
Ralph Seelke,* Professor of Microbial Genetics and Cell Biology
University of Wisconsin said, "our early understanding of DNA was incomplete, and genomics research is now revealing levels of control and complexity inside our cells that were undreamed of in the 1980s. Far from providing evidence for Darwinism, the story of non-coding DNA rather serves to increase our appreciation for the design of life.”

 

[MichaelCadry]

I agree pops -

Dear Pops,

I don't believe and will tell you why. When God sees there is a need for a change or makeup, He intervenes and changes molecules, DNA, atoms, etc. to fit the change. They don't evolve. Just like we're being told that we are descended from a chimp or ape by evolution. God created man in His Image, not in a chimps image or in an ape's image. You are all way off base on this one. Now you even have 6days agreeing with you. That's a shame. God works wonders with chemistry and biology, and as soon as things need to be changed, He steps in and takes care of it. That is what you are seeing. What do you think, that God just sits up there and does nothing, day and night??!! What a boring life that would be for Him. He constantly interacts with His creations. Even a rock is in essence, a life. Inside you see beautiful crystals grow in each one and I'd bet no two are identical. Jesus said God is able to raise children up to Abraham with those rocks. That is because He can do it, and everyone seems to eager to jump on the bandwagon that it's some other way. God controls the atoms, minerals and molecules within those rocks, and He controls the minutest changes in genomes to help the creatures He's created be saved and rescued. You maybe don't know enough about life.

PatrickJ, I'm sorry I posted this on your thread, but I felt that it was best. I hope that you don't mind. Everyone think about it all for a while and Tyrathca, you can fool some of the staunchest supporters of God, but not me. Think carefully about it all. You are just trying to mesh creation and evolution and saying hello to rash reasoning.

Much Love, In Jesus Christ's Example,

Michael

THANKS PATRICK!!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

I had to delete a post. It was a duplicate. Sorry!

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Nice revisionist story. However the truth is that evolutionists (including some biologists, some geneticists, some sociologists, some science editors...etc) thought our genome was littered was useless biological remnants.* They taught that this "junk" was evidence of their belief system...common ancestry.*

6days states something is history. Jose contradicts it with analternative more nuanced history with referenced sources. 6days restates his version of history without addressing the referenced evidence at all.

It seems fairly cleat from your behavior that you are the one doing the whitewashing. How do you reconcile your claims with what Jose has referenced?

Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents wrote articles and books suggesting that our genome may be much more functional than previously thought. These books such as 'The Myth Of Junk DNA', was sometimes met with hostility...even though that one was published in 2011.* Obviously down through the years there were scientists (both creationist and evolutionist) who did research... and did find our genome was the opposite of evolutionists *beliefs.

As Jose has shown sobe evolutionists also said that we may be underestimating the amount of fictional DNA and far earlier than that book too. Furthermore those evolutionists did actual research and proved their ideas right, where as creationists did not have the courage of their convictions to do the same. Those theme parks and lobbyists don't exist on good will I suppose....

Yet, in 2016, there are still evolutionists who*are still hoping that some of the*non-coding DNA might be junk.* They are having a hard time admitting that they were wrong, so cling to a icon of evolution...junk DNA.

There is a diversity of opinion whenever there is insufficient research to say something for certain. As more evidence comes in some schools of thought will be proved right or wrong, someone's many will be partly right (ie the answer is a mix of multiple options). That's how science generally works.

Here we have evidence that not only did some scientists did not ignore Junk DNA but they even convinced research departments to fund their research into these ideas. Spending money is a sure sign you're not ignoring something completely. Creationists however spent NOTHING on such research to my knowledge so who really was the one doing the ignoring? Surely bit the ones putting their money where their mouth is.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

MichaelCadry,

Firstly, GOD is omniscient and omnipotent and all is HIS creation. With that being said; your statement about GOD seeing the need for change in HIS creation means both that GOD isn't omniscient, and that GOD makes mistakes. To claim that GOD must change things is to say that GOD makes mistakes. I just can't justify that.

Even the staunchest of evolutionists won't agree with you that we came from chimps or another type of monkey, but they will say that both the monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. If you think life is without change over time then, well, look into the seating capacities of stadiums. Way back in the gap they were able to cram more people into stadiums than today because people are generally larger than they used to be. I am not saying that the creation story is wrong, but if GOD simply made the earth seem 6 billion years old, but it was actually only 6 thousand years old then that makes god a deceiver. Something else I cannot justify.

To be made in the image of God is to be comprised of the substance of GOD, not to be in likeness in physical form to the Spirit of GOD which isn't physical.

Do I think GOD sits up somewhere separate from creation and does nothing? No, I'm not a deist. I have no doubt what so ever that GOD is quite involved in HIS creation.

Why would you assume that I don't know about life? You know little of me. I won't be assuming things of you friend. So you say GOD controls all these things(which I agree with by the way) but calling these changes evolution is somehow wrong to you? What would you have us call it?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

.... if GOD simply made the earth seem 6 billion years old, but it was actually only 6 thousand years old then that makes god a deceiver.

The earth does not seem like it is 6 billion years old, but that is what you have been taught.... But apart from that; If God created a tree in the garden of Eden with 100 tree rings... and created a fully grown man in the garden...would you still call God a deceiver?