Posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Sure, it's pretty much SOP for evos.
Correct. Although my professional science background is extensive, I am not published in the fields of paleontology, geology, etc. No real scientist would reference my work there.
You, however, referenced ICR as a source of credible science. That’s analagous to my example above, but much more egregiously desperate and deceptive.
“Sure a true Christian would because the conflict comes in as to whether to believe man or God’s word.”
The bible is allegorical. Christians understand that, and most accept it. Those who don’t fall into 2 categories:
o Those who base their literal argument on faith alone and don’t seek to rely on “science” to prove creation and disprove evolution. This is the larger of the 2 groups. I respect them.
o Those whose faith is week and need to pervert science to provide them some false firmament. These are the cultists. You belong to this group, as does the rest of the ping list.
“egregiously desperate and deceptive” I could hardly agree less. You simply miss the point that I do not accept the modern day re-definition of science aka naturalism. Your words are best reflected by those in the ‘evolutionary religion.’
If you posit there is a God then He most unequivocally must be the God of the Bible due to all of the evidence. However, your posts on FR seem to betray any real allegiance to the one true God.
Wow....a Roman history lesson.
Ooooooo....a BAD analogy concerning surgery and anaethesia.
So why not make similar applications in the forensic science of origins? Darwin published his Origin of Species just before the Civil War. Numerous advances in science since that time bring into question the validity of Darwin's theory, yet biology textbooks today maintain the Darwin mantra, "Darwin said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
Ignorance of genetic research is bliss. Appeal to the simple-minded....
In 1986 I read my first creationist article, written by a biologist. By the time I finished, I knew I could no longer justify my evolutionary thinking.
I LOVE it every time I read about some YEC nut that "read ONE article" and all of a sudden became a believer that Man walked the Earth with dinosaurs 4400 years ago.
She simply pointed out, armed with modern scientific facts, that practically everything I had learned in medical school--especially in genetics--directly conflicted with Darwin's theory.
Wow...."nearly everything learned in medical school" conflicted with the Theory of evolution? I surmise that you didn't talk much about anything having anything to do with evolution in medical school, but you, sir, will NEVER be my PHCP.
....especially genetics???? In exactly what century did you take genetics, Dr.?
Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics--that is, if an animal acquired a physical characteristic during its lifetime, it could pass that characteristic on to its progeny.
This is quite a STUPID thing to say and shows ignorance in the ToE. One does not acquire a charachteristic over one's lifetime.....one acquires it at conception from one's parents. Man, this Dr. is stupid, but this is just a strawman to kick around in the next few sentences as THAT is not the ToE, Dr,.
Of course, it is an established fact that living things can only pass on the genetic information they inherit from their parents.
Of COURSE, it's that way.....but you had to claim the notion of Evolution being "acquiring a characteristic over your life" so you could kick it around.
Will a man who loses a leg in an accident have one-legged children?
No, but you have to follow your stupid line of strawman thinking. HOWEVER, a genetic mutation that leads directly to a one-legged offspring will get passed on to HIS offspring, though this could get taken care of in the synaptonemal complex.
No, his children will have two legs, because although the man's body (or phenotype) changed, his genotype (or DNA) remains the same.
ANOTHER stupid thing to say. His "phenotype" didn't change one freakin' bit. His physical appearance changed. Phenotype is the physical expression of the GENOTYPE, you stupid summabitch. Kind Dr. here didn't pay attention in genetics class.
But natural selection only explains survival of the fittest; it fails to explain arrival of the fittest
D'uh...stupid comment #853. "Natural selection" is not SUPPOSED to explain "arrival of the fittest" any more than the ToE is SUPPOSED to explain the origin of life.
Natural selection, i.e., the forces of nature, does not change the DNA of the individual animal at all, and can only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals (leading to the loss, not gain, of genetic information).
Stupid comment #948. Natural selection does not ELIMINATE unfit individuals, it merely makes one individual more likely to pass on its genes to viable, reproducing offspring. Increasing likelihood of A does not eliminate B.
Typical usage of scriptural term "kind"....we in thescience world use the term "species", Dr.....as "kind" has a chameleon definition to suit the needs.
Biology textbooks in theory present positive and negative mutations to students as though these were commonplace and roughly equal in number.
How simple-minded of you, Dr.....what about mutations that do not change the amino acid sequences of proteins? MY biology books taught that NEUTRAL mutations that might or might not have a +- affect in the present, might in the future with further mutations or not. REALLY didn't pay much attention in genetics class.
However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed (or are so rare as to be irrelevant).
The specific mutations on chromosome 2 that lead to adult lactose tolerance is a positive mutation noted in real-time....but nice qualifier "unequivocally" is.
The biology textbooks in other chapters teach that most mutations are pathologic, or disease-causing, but they don't apply that information to evolution.
MY books taught me that MOST mutations are neutral and do not alter the amino acid sequence expressed.
However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare "positive" mutation, like sickle cell anemia. The fact of some 4,000 devastating genetic diseases is suppressed from publication.
Uhhhh.....NO FREAKIN' SHI'ITE. When discussing EVOLUTION and mutation, it's useless to go talking about 4,000 deleterious mutations. When discussing GENETICS and mutation, THERE is where one would talk about deleterious mutations more. Maybe, Dr, you should've paid attention in genetics class or MAYBE you should have taken a population genetics/biology class. No, it's not "supporessed"...it's NOT RELEVANT TO THE THEORY.
Ooooo....a lesson on polycystic kidney disease....pretty cool stuff. Kind Dr, you don't know squat about "fitness"....PKD si diagnosed at ages 30-40....most likely AFTER the individual already passes it on to offspring....as such, it will persist in a population with a minimal affect on fitness....a maximal affect on the longevity of life.
OK...there's genetic diseases.....established.
Since a random change of three nucleotides in a three-billion-part genome is fatal (0.0000001%), how is it remotely possibly that a chimp could be the evolutionary cousin of a human?
Genetically ignorant thing to sy, Dr. Just because a mutation in 3 nucleotides is bad, doesn't mean all mutations are bad.
The lowest estimate of the genetic differences between our DNA and that of chimps is at least 50 million nucleotides
Wow....only 1.7% different? That's the best I've seen.
The ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations is 0.00041!
Irrelevant statistic directed at ignorant people to make them think the ratio means something.....set up for the false conclusion.
Thus, even if a very rare mutation is "beneficial," the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt.
Presupposes that one that receives a beneficial mutation will then receive a negative mutation.
This creates bacterial resistance to that antibiotic. Does this support evolutionary genetic theory? No, since the mutant bacteria do not survive as well in the wild as the native (non-mutant) bacteria. That is, the resistant (mutant) bacteria will only do well in an artificial situation, where it is placed in a culture medium with the antibiotic.
BOLD baseless statement, Dr., actually it's a false one. Guess you didn't pay attention in micro-class either. Take a fat look at MDRSA, which does quite well in humans. How about the mutation in SA that gave it protein A as a surface protein....which binds up human antibodies in a useless position? Such ignorance...
In the wild, the native bacteria are always more vigorous than the mutant bacteria.
LIE.
However, the majority of mutations are "neutral mutations" that do not cause any detectable change in the phenotype or body of the animal.
Yeah....and?
Harmful mutations destroy the individual organism, preventing the gene from being passed on.
BS ALERT!!!! Harmful mutations only prevent the gene from being passed on IF they kill the individual BEFORE they generate offspring.....many harmful mutations do not kill until post-reproduction years.
The "neutral mutations" will ultimately destroy entire species, because the mutated genes will be passed on and accumulate.
BS ALERT.....what if, Dr....ther eis no further mutation at that site for 1,000,000 generations and then only in ONE individual in the population? Genetics ignorance is bliss.
Evolutionary science teaches that all the wonderful organs and enzymes in humans and animals--eyes, hemoglobin, lungs, hearts, and kidneys, all coded with DNA--arose totally by random chance through mutations in DNA.
Yes, to simple-minded folk. There is also a degree of direction from less beneficial to more beneficial accumulations. Once beneficial proteins are created, they are retained and increased in prevelance in the population such that beneficial mutations can accumulate to a higher degree in those that already HAVE beneficial mutations. Such that populations accumulate beneficial mutations.
Research is demonstrating that the "near-neutral" mutations are accumulating far too rapidly for organisms to have avoided extinction if they indeed have existed over the millions of years claimed by evolutionary biologists.
Is THAT so....just another ignorant statement, but the Dr has a tale to tell.
Harmful mutations destroy the individual organism, preventing the gene from being passed on. The "neutral mutations" will ultimately destroy entire species, because the mutated genes will be passed on and accumulate.
BS alert....simple-minded nonsense. Harmful mutations don't necessarily destroy the individual before reproducing. Neutral mutations do NOTHING. Passed on, they DO NOTHING. Accumulated, they do NOTHING. Further mutations at the same site that alter protein expression may do something.....may not....may cause a fatal genetic flaw and be removed from the pool.
On rare occasions, however, a mutant allele |gene| may actually fit its bearer to the environment better and enhance the reproductive success of the individual."
AND BINGO WAS HIS NAME-O...
equivocally beneficial mutations (which still have a downside) are extremely rare (about one in 10,000),
Only 1/10,000?? What happened to the 1/1,000,000 that YOU touted? So, at a minimum, 1 in every 10 offspring has a beneficial mutation (mutation rate of 100-200 per offspring) SWEEEEEET.....
....and for the false conclusion, complete with baseless statements:
Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos program "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue," stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." While this may be the current popular theory, real science disagrees. The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality--the God-created reality--where living things and their genomes were created "very good" and have degenerated from there. Genetic science demonstrates that the absolutely essential ingredient for the origin of life is an infinite Intelligence. Of all the origin stories, only one contains this essential ingredient--Genesis 1.
You, sir, will NEVER be my PHCP or my urologist, if I ever need one.
This is how I respond to correspondents who ask, get a very specific, unequivocal answer, and still pretend that I was "unresponsive". There was a very specific quote from the discussed source, stating that natural selection appears AFTER self-replication.
Please don’t hold back, tell me how you really feel! :o)
From my quoted source “unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed...”
Lactose intolerance is that all you got? I regret to say I read your entire post... err ranting... and came away with very little connstructive information from you.
Your pomposity did shine through once again though. :’)
When I told my son about Santa Claus, was I "lying"? Or was I using an accepted reference suitable for his age to teach a larger lesson? Should he reject everything I've said since then because I "lied" about that?
Everybody thinks some of the Bible isn't true. You yourself have tried to explain how the "windows of Heaven" aren't really windows. Is the Bible lying when it says there are holes in the sky? Jesus referenced Noah, as creationists love to point out. Does that mean Jesus was lying about there being holes in the sky?
And not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one.
And here we come to the crux of the matter. This isn't really about the evidence or the science. This is about being able to tell other people they're not Christian. How ironic that you chose to quote the chapter that starts with "judge not."
“If you posit there is a God then He most unequivocally must be the God of the Bible due to all of the evidence. “
Of which bible do you speak—the allegorical one?
Are Catholics Christians?
Will you respond to me via private mail as you did earlier, or make your weak argument public?
ARRRGGGGHHHH! Week=weak!
Evos are nothing if not arrogant.
THIS:
unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed
...is a well-couched false statement. "Beneficial" is a couched phrase, "unequivocally" is a couched phrase.....and "unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed" is a lie liek saying "there have been no mutations that ensure a life span of 400 years.
Lactose intolerance is that all you got?
To prove a lie that they don't exist.....that's all that's needed. Need more? Lipoprotein lipase mutations (3 known)? Coagulation factor VII mutations. The CCR5 delta 32 mutation.
Need more?
I wouldn't expect for you to get anything from me, you've done "research" on "YEC sites"...where dinosaurs live in the time of Man.
Maybe in the circles you run in, but I doubt anyone who really believes that the Bible is the written word of God thinks that there's lies in it.
You simplistic rendering of something that God describes as *windows of heaven* does nothing to weaken the integrity and truthfulness of Scripture.
Do I believe that what you propose is the interpretation of *windows of heaven* is accurate? Absolutely not.
Do I believe that they exist in some manner that we don't fully understand and that the description of them as God gave us is the most accurate that we are able to comprehend? Yes.
The fundamental question is not where life came from but where the universe came from. Life is a subset of existence.
Beneficial is as beneficial does, Forrest.
Yes, a mutation causing adult lactase production is a beneficial trait, increasing genetic fitness by increasing nutrition, decreasing malnutrition throughout breeding ages.
Yes, it will also have the negative cause of a higher fat diet, higher body fat, and more heart attacks......LONG AFTER REPRODUCTION AGE. As in, they have limited negative affects on genetic fitness that are overshadowed by the increase in genetic fitness.......which is why the prevalence of the known mutations is increasing in the population. Breast cancer genes persist because they don't kill the individual until after they have kids. They REALLY persist in place liek Iceland because of the island effect....little genetic variability.
“Do I believe that they exist in some manner that we don’t fully understand and that the description of them as God gave us is the most accurate that we are able to comprehend? Yes.”
Can’t you make the same case for the bible’s description of “breathing life” into man, given that the people who existed on earth thousands of years ago were unable to comprehend God’s method of evolution?
Wow—I think we’re making progress! You’re beginning to understand allegory!
No, I don’t think it’s allegory. I think it’s actual *windows* (floodgates) of heaven but it’s better to use the definition than a Hebrew word that nobody can translate.
Words can define more than one thing, you know, and not be allegory.
How do we know, then, whether other such passages in the bible are translation issues or allegory?
Did you want to make it public? It’s fine w/ me, I thought I was doing you a favor keeping my insults private.
It certainly would be in character for you though since it adds nothing constructive to FR threads.
Ummm it’s really not judging when you simply point out scriptures that indicate some people will fool even themselves and only God and the believer know if the truth is sincere and secure in your heart. With others we’re simply told to see what kind of fruit they bear, but even that imho can be mis-leading sometimes.
When you think someone is ‘judging’ try to think if they are actually handing down some punishment for you and if it is binding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.