Replies

Most "scientists", on the other hand, must believe it is all natural processes in order to continue subjecting it to study.

That would be because science is unable to study anything beyond the natural universe.

The only problem I have is when you state with certainty that everything is subject to natural laws.

When speaking of science, there is no other option. If something isn't subject to natural laws, then science cannot address it in any meaningful way.

And in order to prove that you overstate what you know and present as fact things that only conjecture, best guesses or subject to interpretation.

What, you mean like not considering every cockamamie assertion that a supernatural process "might" have been behind some given event?

2) The religious text of your choice says nothing in this world is perfect.

What "religious text of my choice?" I'm an atheist.

I'm sorry, but they haven't. Nothing I've seen is very impressive.

That would be because you're not looking.

ust count what no scientist on this thread could answer or tried to sidestep or semanticize: hybridization that does not produce hybrids,

What are you talking about? You've already been corrected on this matter.

a "new species" that is not new,

Are you playing semantic games now? Does it not get to be labelled "New" unless it is no older than a date that you specify?

why it is valid to call a group of fossils "whales" because the ears and teeth are similar when the bodies are drastically different

Are you a biologist? Have you studied the fossils in-depth to determine that there is no valid reason to call them "whales", or are you a layman who has decided that you know better than all of those uppity secularists with their "degrees" and their "education" and you know a whale when you see one, damnit, and you know that you're right because some of the fossil finds are not museum quality, and that just proves everything.

"When a development is really independent it shows in the DNA" does not assume the conclusion it is supposed to prove

We're sorry that we don't assume supernaturalistic explanations by default, as you apparently do.

Independent development resulting in DNA differences was a prediction of evolution, not a find out of nowhere that led to a conclusion. It was predicted that similarly functional structures that appeared in otherwise apparently unrelated (due to other physiological differences or the fossil record) species would show differences in the DNA. That prediction was borne out.

why creation implies there should not be a "defective" GLO gene ("Defective" is an opinion, not a physical property.

The real question is why the "broken" (in that it does not work as it does in most creatures that have it) GLO gene seems to be the same in all primates, including humans, and different in guinea pigs. If the "designer" really wanted to copy over that "feature" across species, why wouldn't it be the same? Moreover, why include such a detrimental trait? We'd do a lot better without that little inability; ever hear of scurvy? Why would the "designer" decide to include the same type of non-functional gene in all primates?

You are aware that some genes have multiple purposes?

Tell me the purpose of the "broken" GLO gene, then.

No, it is you who simply scoff and dismiss and move on, refusing to consider other views.

Please. You assume your conclusion from the beginning, and then invent bogus reasons for not accepting any evidence to the contrary; your "a designer could have done it this way" excuse for dismissing any and all presented evidence for evolution is an empty cop-out.

I'm disappointed. I was hoping for something responsive. Still, you make a few points worth addressing:

"When speaking of science, there is no other option. If something isn't subject to natural laws, then science cannot address it in any meaningful way."

That is a limitation on science, isn't it? If, for example, a city disappeared or a new species suddenly appeared in your livingroom, your inability to explain it scientifically would not change the fact of it. You could assume that such never happens and never has happened. But on what basis does science make that assumption? The sum total of all events in the universe which have occured while being scientifically observed is literally infinitesimal.

"What, you mean like not considering every cockamamie assertion..."

Cockamamie assertions usually don't take that much to dispel.

"What "religious text of my choice?" I'm an atheist."

That does not prevent you from choosing one to test my assertion.

"semanticize: hybridization that does not produce hybrids,

What are you talking about? You've already been corrected on this matter."

js1138: "Here we have an example of a fertile hybrid that breeds despite chromosome count differences."
furball4paws: "I have chosen my words quite carefully. None of these species are hybrids. Hybrids are sterile."
furball4paws: "Hybrids are often completely sterile, because they fail to produce the appropriate sex organs."
furball4paws: "In Helianthus, hybrids of H. annuus and H. petiolarus are almost completely sterile, but there are a few with some fertility. If there weren't there would be no post."
furball4paws: "A mule is a cross between a donkey and a horse producing a hybrid. Except for one report that has not been confirmed, all mules are sterile."

If you find these "corrections", all responses to me, to be consistent, then you are insane.

"We're sorry that we don't assume supernaturalistic explanations by default, as you apparently do."

No, that would be exactly the opposite of a useful approach. But such an explanation exists until and if you eliminate it. You cannot eliminate supernatural explanations by default.

"Have you studied the fossils in-depth to determine that there is no valid reason to call them whales"

You can call them what you like. It does not make it so, particularly when the differences are far greater than the similarities. I invite you look at the chart hotlinked into post 123. The other differences are explained away by showing the known fossil species as offshoots of the main branch. The problem with that approach is that it leaves you with nothing on the main line and no filled in "missing links" at all. This flawed logic is repeated in charts of human and other species evolution.

"Independent development resulting in DNA differences was a prediction of evolution, not a find out of nowhere that led to a conclusion. It was predicted that similarly functional structures that appeared in otherwise apparently unrelated (due to other physiological differences or the fossil record) species would show differences in the DNA. That prediction was borne out."

That is a fine result. But it doesn't distinguish between the two theories. "Creationism" at its basic doesn't make a prediction in this area regardless of whether individuals have. I am very familiar with computer program design which is analogous to the function of DNA. I would not be surprised that functions in similar applications would have similar logic (reusable modules) while other applications would have quite different logic.

"Tell me the purpose of the "broken" GLO gene, then."

Telling me it doesn't have a purpose would be more to the point.

"Please. You assume your conclusion from the beginning, and then invent bogus reasons for not accepting any evidence to the contrary; your "a designer could have done it this way" excuse for dismissing any and all presented evidence for evolution is an empty cop-out."

Until the *processes* are demonstrated, you cannot eliminate the possibilities of what did happen. I need no assumptions whatever to know that and therefore it is the epitome of scientific inquiry.

The real question is why the "broken" (in that it does not work as it does in most creatures that have it) GLO gene seems to be the same in all primates, including humans, and different in guinea pigs. If the "designer" really wanted to copy over that "feature" across species, why wouldn't it be the same? Moreover, why include such a detrimental trait? We'd do a lot better without that little inability; ever hear of scurvy? Why would the "designer" decide to include the same type of non-functional gene in all primates?

That would require reading the mind of the Creator (if there is one.) I'll offer a suggestion in the form of an analogy from the Bible however:

2 Corinthians 12:7-9
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

I'll return the questions: Why would such a "defect" survive in preference to a functioning gene if natural selection were operative? That seems to be a much more difficult question than answering from a design perspective.

Out of curiosity, did you not read my last post or did you simply dismiss it?