Denial of evolution IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
James R said:
matthew809:
The question of the origin of life is a separate question from how life evolved after its origin, obviously.

If I ask you to describe how you grew up you don't start talking about the time your Mum and Dad had sex and conceived you.
Click to expand...

In the restrictive view of an evolutionist, I can understand how one may see no value in understanding the seemingly unimportant connection between origins and post-origins. But for someone like me, who believes that the DNA-based life of this earth was created by a super-intelligence and was programmed with inherent limited flexibility, updatability, and adaptability... can you understand why I think that connection should be established?

Understanding that life was created by a super-intelligence is key to understanding how life evolves and seems to evolve.
 
Last edited:
matthew809 said:
... Understanding that life was created by a super-intelligence is key to understanding how life evolves and seems to evolve.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to your beliefs, but I like mine, which is equally well supported by the evidence:

I.e. I believe:

Understanding that life was created by a magnetic fields is key to understanding how life evolves and seems to evolve.

Reason I prefer my POV is that I can prove magnetic fields exist and have from the Big Bang forward in time.
Also one can show magnetic fields do control some forms of life, even today - homing pigeons, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GeoffP said:
Well, how would you discern that He did it? What evidence is there of His actions, as you imply them?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that HE did anything. The question is directed toward someone (based on the title of this thread) who would claim to know that God did in fact create life on earth and exactly how he did it.

I am just curious why someone would presume to know how and why god created life and also why such a god would leave all that bizarre and anti-creationist evidence of evolution lying around.

It seems to me that if you did believe that god created life on earth, it would not need to conflict with evolution. The fact is that it doesn’t need to conflict at all, it only conflicts with a very literal interpretation of a very old and often mistranslated book.
 
The problem with fossils is that they don't show DNA, nor do they tell us whether or not the animal ever even had offspring. Therefore any information concerning lineage inferred from fossil evidence is useless.

Similar design of different species could be evidence of a common ancestor, or it could be evidence of a common designer.

Also, assuming connected lineage, many differences between related fossils may be evident of evolution(gaining DNA code), de-evolution(losing DNA code), or micro evolution(a re-expression of already existing DNA). But since fossils don't show DNA, nor do we even understand the language of DNA, how could we know whether or not evolution took place?
 
You don't even understand what evolution is, matthew809. Do you make up your own definitions?
 
I know exactly what evolution is supposed to be.

My alleged misuse of words should not have detracted from my point...

Did my words confuse you?
 
matthew809 said:
I know exactly what evolution is supposed to be.
Click to expand...
Apparently not.

My alleged misuse of words should not have detracted from my point...
Click to expand...
No. Your ignorance of what evolution is, and your own specious definition makes it so that you don't have a point.

Did my words confuse you?
Click to expand...
Not really. But your ignorance does.

Please link to a reliable source that states evolution is a "gaining of DNA code".
(This wouldn't be yet another of your lies would it?)
 
Your misuse of words belies your basic fallacies. Fossil evidence is far from useless even if it's only about morphology. In fact we don't even need DNA to show that evolution is true.
 
spidergoat said:
Your misuse of words belies your basic fallacies. Fossil evidence is far from useless even if it's only about morphology. In fact we don't even need DNA to show that evolution is true.
Click to expand...

Please give an example of how you could prove evolution true without DNA evidence.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Please link to a reliable source that states evolution is a "gaining of DNA code".
(This wouldn't be yet another of your lies would it?)
Click to expand...

Any change to a species would be reflected in it's DNA. If a cat was born with a horn coming out it's forehead, there would be DNA for this. Therefore, it can be said that this DNA was gained.

Isn't that common sense?
 
matthew809 said:
The problem with fossils is that they don't show DNA
Click to expand...

Some do indeed show DNA. Several neanderthal fossils have had their DNA sequenced, and there are a lot of similarities between it and homo sapiens sapiens DNA.

nor do they tell us whether or not the animal ever even had offspring.
Click to expand...

Several pregnant fossils (mother plus fetus) have indeed been discovered. So we have proof that the animals represented by fossils do in fact reproduce.

Similar design of different species could be evidence of a common ancestor, or it could be evidence of a common designer.
Click to expand...

The DNA and morphological evidence does indeed point to a common ancestor. Nothing about it points to a common designer. Indeed, if the Genesis story is correct, and (for example) humans were designed independently of cattle, then an intelligent designer is strongly contraindicated - we share several of the same genetic "leftovers" (remnants of previous stages of evolution) that would not be present in a purpose-designed organism.

Also, assuming connected lineage, many differences between related fossils may be evident of evolution(gaining DNA code), de-evolution(losing DNA code), or micro evolution(a re-expression of already existing DNA). But since fossils don't show DNA, nor do we even understand the language of DNA, how could we know whether or not evolution took place?
Click to expand...

We do understand the language of DNA. We can point to codon X and tell you what it does. We can point to a set of oncogenes and say "turn these off and you will get cancer." We can point to which chromosome causes Down Syndrome. We definitely have a lot more to learn, but we know quite a bit.

And as explained earlier, we can indeed see what DNA those fossils had.
 
matthew809 said:
Any change to a species would be reflected in it's DNA. If a cat was born with a horn coming out it's forehead, there would be DNA for this. Therefore, it can be said that this DNA was gained.

Isn't that common sense?
Click to expand...
Not even close.
All that would mean was that the already-existing DNA became "active".
:rolleyes:

One more time:
Please link to a reliable source that states evolution is a "gaining of DNA code".
 
matthew809 said:
Any change to a species would be reflected in it's DNA. If a cat was born with a horn coming out it's forehead, there would be DNA for this. Therefore, it can be said that this DNA was gained.

Isn't that common sense?
Click to expand...

It's common nonsense. DNA isn't like an architectural blueprint that shows every structure.

I'm sure RichW9090 would love to answer this, but give it up already, you are embarrassing yourself.
 
@matthew --

Any change to a species would be reflected in it's DNA. If a cat was born with a horn coming out it's forehead, there would be DNA for this. Therefore, it can be said that this DNA was gained.
Click to expand...

Or it could be that already present but non-coding DNA(the so-called "junk" DNA) reactivated, or that a chemical imbalance in the uterine environment caused DNA which normally codes for a different part of the body(say, the claws) to activate in the head. Or it could be that someone glued it on.

All of these are definite possibilities and none of them involve "gaining" any DNA. So your definition is bunk.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Yeah! Yeah!. Blah!

"It is good that you can see that evolution is not perfect. What areas of evolution need work and could new insight inot these areas help the current imperfect theory?

Can you answer that?

jan.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you wouldn't understand it.
 
Arioch said:
@matthew --

Or it could be that already present but non-coding DNA(the so-called "junk" DNA) reactivated
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is what I meant by micro-evolution. This is consistent with both evolution and ID.

Arioch said:
or that a chemical imbalance in the uterine environment caused DNA which normally codes for a different part of the body(say, the claws) to activate in the head.
Click to expand...

That's an error in DNA replication. No new DNA code was gained, but the existing code was shuffled. That's not proof of evolution. It's merely proof that DNA replication is not perfect.

Arioch said:
All of these are definite possibilities and none of them involve "gaining" any DNA. So your definition is bunk.
Click to expand...

Actually, the examples you gave are no good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top