Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
What's there to to explain when someone proposes an impossible scenerio? They have the burden of proof.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Some questions about evolution (genetics etc) and possible implications for creationism
- Thread starter Yerda
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You are claiming it's impossible. The burden of proof is yours.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Because it is impossible. You can not get from a single celled organism to the diverse life on this planet without added information.
You can't make a house from a single tree either.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Your claims have been:
“You can not get from a fish to a bird for example without remaking the whole system. It's not just small changes, but it would be like saying you could program a unicycle a certain way and turn it into a 747.
Just not possible.”
“Lol, not without adding a lot of extra parts and not without an intelligent designer. Impossible.
Where are the extra parts coming from? Poof, magic?”
“Because it is impossible. You can not get from a single celled organism to the diverse life on this planet without added information.
You can't make a house from a single tree either.”
What you appear to be trying to say is that evolution is impossible. Since we know it is not only possible, but a fact of life, the burden of proof is on you to back up your own claims about its supposed impossibility. If you can demonstrate that evolution is impossible, you’ll most likely win the Nobel Prize. Let us know how that goes, okay?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Macro evolution is impossible.
And all the so called evidence for it is highly debatable.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
You just moved the goalposts, there. Now it's suddenly "you can't turn a unicycle into a 747 WITHOUT ADDING EXTRA PARTS FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE", because it's pretty obvious that, if we did have that ability, we absolutely COULD turn one into the other.
Which is why life is able to do it. It has an in-built process that constantly produces new parts: reproduction and mutation.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Macro evolution has been directly observed.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Then go ahead and demonstrate that. Show us your studies. Prove every biologist in the world wrong and get your Nobel Prize.
Funny how you don't go out and post your findings in science journals or on science blogs or something. Instead you're here, on a religious board making big bold empty assertions that you can't back up.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
If I add enough parts to turn a unicycle into a jet I'm not really turning one into the other at all. I'm simply using some parts of the cycle in designing the jet. And the idea that unguided evolution can do this is patently absurd.
Any half intelligent grade school student can see that everything can't create itself from nothing. Or that even given a headstart there's no designer to add parts to the cell to get to advanced life.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Which is why your analogy is very silly. Not only is it wrong (because we CAN turn a unicycle into a 747), it is also not an accurate comparison to evolution, because living populations naturally change over time, whereas unicycles don't.
This is another goalpost shift. We were talking about how evolution works, and now your argument is about how something can't come from nothing.
Firstly, this is clearly nothing to do with evolution (as any grade school student would know).
Secondly, this is utterly non-demonstrable. In fact, quantum physics may contradict it (which is something I would not necessarily know if grade school students would know, but maybe actual, qualified physicists would).
Fine. Then believe there's a designer, and that evolution is merely the physical manifestation of the expression of their will.
I see nothing wrong with that.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Ok go ahead. I'll wait. But no creating any extra parts.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
But they don't become other kinds of animals.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Ok, can you go into more detail or give general rules that lead to the conclusions you've reached?
This is the subject of the OP.
If we continually alter the genome of a lineage at some stage we'll have the situation where the descendents aren't the same species as the ancestors. If God started altering a lineage of lions one gene per generation at what stage would he have to stop? In my mind, there is no reason to put the stop sign in any particular place.
If instead of God making changes, the frequency of genes are altered by natural mechanisms like natural selection and mutation then we have the same scenario.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
There are many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolution.
(change from one basic kind of life to another)
A small change in the DNA can not last unless all these conditions are met at once, so any mutations can only have the effect of minor adaptation.
"I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”
(Professor James M. Tour... one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. )
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
What does that even mean?
What would I have to show you for it to count as another "kind" of animal? A different genus? A different species? What do you mean by "kind" and please be specific.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I find it very interesting that, rather than respond to my post, you clip a single out of context sentence from it and ignore the rest.
Why are you so afraid of engaging with my arguments?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Biology uses a shallow criteria to catalog species; the superficial shell. But the operating system of the brain is also connected to the DNA. That would involve consciousness and instinct. Consciousness leads the shallow body when any species interacts with the environment The brain may have a role in sculpturing the body to the shallow shell criteria of biology. Humans go to the gym and breeders choose which dog they will breed; final shell.
In the bible and creation the new human operating system had free will and choice, which was different from instinct. The dating coincides with the formation of civilization which will require a new operating system ; spiritual instead of material shell change.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I did address the subject of mutations etc. What argument are you talking about?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Respond to the entirety of my post, not just one out of context sentence.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Have you started trying to rearrange the parts of a unicycle in order to make it into a jet? How's that going for you?