Evolution My ToE

[Jose Fly]

Ha. You must have a reason for asking. I think my English is great. So, why do you ask?

You didn't answer the question. Is English your first language? The reason I ask is covered below.

So he created geneless cells?
I am confused as to what you are not understanding. It seems you are looking for detail upon detail of what God did. Help me here. What are you really asking?

Because on one hand you say God isn't "playing with genes", but then you say God creates genes. So from what I can gather, you believe God created the first original organisms with all their genes, and didn't intervene (genetically) after that, correct?

Me? Okay. What about you?
I have a hard time understanding your line communication.
Perhaps it's an English problem. English tend to be tricky, depending.

That's why I'm asking if English is your first language.

I sometimes get accused of quoting someone out of context. I hope you don't think you are immune to that.
All I ask, is that if you are going to quote me, in response to something said, please put the quote in full, because you may warp my response by chopping off sections that changes the response to reflect something entirely different.
Is that too much to ask? Am I being unreasonable?

From now on, when I reply to one of your posts I will include everything from your post.

It's not necessarily a case of adapting ways of resisting antibiotics.
The cell is designed with mechanisms to detect invaders. It has mechanisms for quickly removing or neutralizing those invaders. Adaptation may occur then, yes.
That's my understanding.

So how does the "adaptation" occur? Try and address the specific circumstances of the experiment I conducted, where the bacteria we started with didn't have resistance and the bacteria we ended with did (and had genetic sequences that the starting population lacked).

I don't believe the ability to adapt is in mutations. I've been trying to explain that to you for the past millennia (when we were discussing mutations), but as I said, you don't get it.
It seems to me, you could only see one side - the one you believe to be the only way.

Then how do you believe populations adapt to changing conditions?

Can genes adapt? I believe so.
Fish Turn on Genes to Adapt to Climate Change

Do you believe all adaptation is epigenetic?

Can Population Genetics Adapt to Rapid Evolution?

Is there a specific reason you posted that link?

While I am not saying how it happens, or that this is the case in all situations, the genes are an amazing design, which I believe is the reason scientists cannot agree on the mechanism. for their Darwinian belief.
Isn't that part of the reason some don't support the Modern Synthesis, and have create a "battle royal" by proposing the Extended Synthesis?
Speaking of which... I didn't get a blow-by-blow commentary, but I heard when this blow landed...
[Michael Lynch] went so far as charging his scientific opponents of engaging in little more than uninformed musings comparable to those of intelligent design creationists.
I hope no one gets seriously hurt... other than ego.
I wonder if Lynch accused the ES proponents of having a religious agenda... or was that just a ID agenda.

Do you believe the MS works fine, or do you think there is a need for the ES? Do you think it's possible the two can merge, or would the MS need a complete makeover?

Honestly, it's not something I've followed closely (I'm not an evolutionary biologist). But my understanding is that it's the sort of thing we've covered before, i.e., scientists bickering over details.

This and much of the other ongoing controversies, and debates over how a theory that is such a well established fact of science has so many unanswered questions and squabbles on how the idea works in practical, reminds me of the counsel of Nicaea.
The only thing different is the garb, but they look quite similar.
There is a philosophical side to what believers in Darwinism present in theory.

You tried this earlier and got called on it, and now here you are doing it again. To repeat, scientists arguing over the specific details of something does not call into question the entire construct.

I don't know if there are actually religious people that will tell you, when you every flash of lightning you see, God created it; every lightning bolt, God created; every snowflake... every raindrop that goes pitter patter on your window pane... every storm, and hurricane, God created... every time you stump your toe, God created.
No Fly. I don't believe God is in heaven tinkering with every thing on earth. He could, but he is selective.
He only alters things that has a bearing on his overall will, and purpose.

God setup things at the beginning, to work according to his will.
Think of a designer. He will set up his design with everything in place. So if it's a home, when the home owners move in, they would not see a contractor turn up and say he needs to have his team tweak the sprinkler system, or...

To illustrate... A designer can design and set up his creation to function without the designer's tinkering. It can be random, or specific, or a combo.

God fixed the earth in place, and designed living things to act according to the instructions and design. Environmental factors play a role in the way(s) that they may change.
God has acted perhaps on two occasions, that would have effected change, according to the Bible.

Okay, so back to the experiment I conducted. Where do you think the genetic sequences that were in the population at the end came from? They weren't in the population when we started, but they were there at the end. Where did they come from?

I am not aware that it is a fact that when someone tries to get the perspective of the person they are conversing with, that means they are "trying to score debate points".

You specifically noted that we are in a debate forum and explained how that's the approach you take here. You even suggested that if I wanted a discussion, I should take things to a different sub-forum. So as I said, I will definitely approach our interactions with that in mind.

I know it is a very good way of communication, because it reduces the confusion that could arise because of one person assuming, and assuming wrong.
For example... I may meet someone who says the believe the trinity, and instead of first getting their perspective on the trinity, I assume their view is the main one, and start down a line that both confuses the person, and gives them the impression that I am only interested in my position, and not theirs.
All because of my having a black and white view.
#2 black and white view from the man who says I see things in black and white.

Obviously you don't know what black/white thinking is. It's when someone only considers two possibilities (usually two extremes), such as the--it's either proven or merely assumed--framework you exhibited in our junk DNA discussion.

So I suggest if you're going to throw around the term "black/white thinking", you at least take the time to understand what it means.

Obviously.

Me too.

Agreed.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interestingly, you can ask questions of me, but when I ask you questions, they are too hard to give an answer.. especially after making claims.
No problem. It appears we don't understand each other... and I will take it, you can't back up your claims.

Exactly as I predicted....."And of course if I don't post anything, you'll take that as something like "See? You don't have any evidence, 'cause if you did you'd post it!""

Remember this.

That was before you revealed that you weren't asking me questions in good faith, and instead were just trying to score debate points ("having the view that I ask questions because I need help, is in my opinion, not appropriate, for debate forums. Q&A yes. Or some other DIR").

Also, did you not notice that I asked you specific questions about your request for UCA evidence? I asked why you wanted me to post evidence for UCA, and even said "before I decide what to do, please explain your intent and desired outcome."

Did you miss that?

 

[nPeace]

@Jose Fly I'll answer this one comment for now.

You specifically noted that we are in a debate forum and explained how that's the approach you take here. You even suggested that if I wanted a discussion, I should take things to a different sub-forum. So as I said, I will definitely approach our interactions with that in mind.

Where did I do such a thing?

 

[nPeace]

Exactly as I predicted....."And of course if I don't post anything, you'll take that as something like "See? You don't have any evidence, 'cause if you did you'd post it!""


That was before you revealed that you weren't asking me questions in good faith, and instead were just trying to score debate points ("having the view that I ask questions because I need help, is in my opinion, not appropriate, for debate forums. Q&A yes. Or some other DIR").

Also, did you not notice that I asked you specific questions about your request for UCA evidence? I asked why you wanted me to post evidence for UCA, and even said "before I decide what to do, please explain your intent and desired outcome."

Did you miss that?

So you presumed.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly I'll answer this one comment for now.

Where did I do such a thing?

"I don't mind someone stepping in to help, as you did, because I might be missing something, which the person may provide, and that happens. It happened in the case of the stick insect.
However, having the view that I ask questions because I need help, is in my opinion, not appropriate, for debate forums. Q&A yes. Or some other DIR."

 

[Jose Fly]

So you presumed.

And quite accurately, as it turns out.

 

[nPeace]

"I don't mind someone stepping in to help, as you did, because I might be missing something, which the person may provide, and that happens. It happened in the case of the stick insect.
However, having the view that I ask questions because I need help, is in my opinion, not appropriate, for debate forums. Q&A yes. Or some other DIR."

That's not a suggestion, and certainly I did not suggest it to you.

 

[nPeace]

And quite accurately, as it turns out.

Perhaps because you designed it to.
Just like ToE. Presume. Then build the structure around it, so that it looks accurately predicted.
Perfect.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's not a suggestion, and certainly I did not suggest it to you.

That's patently absurd. You specifically said...in a post to me...that assuming you ask questions because you need help on the subject isn't appropriate in a debate forum. Then you mentioned Q&A and DIR forums.

It's right there in the written record.

Perhaps because you designed it to.
Just like ToE. Presume. Then build the structure around it, so that it looks accurately predicted.
Perfect.

So your explanation for that exchange is that I tricked you, and therefore the theory of evolution is the product of the same sort of trickery.

I'll just let that speak for itself, as it is self-refuting.

 

[nPeace]

That's patently absurd. You specifically said...in a post to me...that assuming you ask questions because you need help on the subject isn't appropriate in a debate forum. Then you mentioned Q&A and DIR forums.

It's right there in the written record.


So your explanation for that exchange is that I tricked you, and therefore the theory of evolution is the product of the same sort of trickery.

I'll just let that speak for itself, as it is self-refuting.

You did not trick me.
Designing something where the outcome is very limited doesn't necessarily involve trickery, but it is genius.
That's the way it is.

 

[Jose Fly]

You did not trick me.
Designing something where the outcome is very limited doesn't necessarily involve trickery, but it is genius.
That's the way it is.

I agree, that is the way it is.

Now that that's been resolved, we can move on to the other items you left on the table: Evolution My ToE

 

[nPeace]

I agree, that is the way it is.

Now that that's been resolved, we can move on to the other items you left on the table: Evolution My ToE

We both left something on the table apparently Evolution My ToE
I lost my appetite though, so I'll see if that changes at a later time.
Take care, for now.

 

[dad]

WOW! Two Christian fundamentalists agreeing with each other that there is no evidence for evolution. WhodaThunkit?

This just proves that the only reason to disbelieve ToE is to blindly believe in Genesis.

This just proves that some people would rather believe a thousands year old creation story than believe the accumulated knowledge of mankind.




I do realize that reading and understanding Genesis is a lot easier than actually getting an education. Maybe that's part of the appeal.

Peer review is not something limited to inbred so called science.

 

[Jose Fly]

We both left something on the table apparently Evolution My ToE
I lost my appetite though, so I'll see if that changes at a later time.
Take care, for now.

If you'll recall, I asked you what your intent was with the request for "top seven evidences for UCA", and you didn't say. As I noted, that play has been run to death here, so why are you so keen to repeat it yet again?

But if you are intent on leaving, it'll be yet another instance where you find ways to halt the discussion once it turns to you answering questions about your views.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do realize that relatedness testing is not so simplistic as "their sequences are similar, therefore they're related", don't you? Have you ever actually taken the time to learn how relatedness testing is conducted?


Well that's kinda the thing about "maybe God just made it that way"....you can say that about anything, all the way up to Last Thursdayism. So it's not really much of a rebuttal to anything.

It's a possibility. I think it's more of a possibility than figuring it just 'happened' because...the time and physical, combustible connections were right so the genes moved along, forming something else kind of, sort of.

 

[YoursTrue]

nPeace said: ↑
God fixed the earth in place

Uh huh.

I have to figure that happened. The forces are just too strong (either way, whether gravity in the universe keeping these humongous planets, suns, etc. in place) to just have happened. That's the way I figure.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have failed to present a case that the evidence is faulty. The best you have done is present a faulty logic of the arguing from ignorance, because you believe that there is missing evidence the hypothesis is false.

There is no trial by jury, and you have added an insult to our judicial system. There are tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, making new discoveries and researching the genetics, geology, paleontology, physics, stratigraphy, and other fields in biology.



Simply, the similarity of genetics is NOT how scientists use genetics, and the many other sources of correlated evidence to falsify the hypothesis of evolution.

Lousy understanding of science based on a religious agenda. Science does not prove anything. What you have blatantly failed to do is provide an alternative hypothesis based on the evidence,

Still waiting. . .



What you used to believe is absolutely meaningless. You need to present a positive hypothesis based on the evidence NOW, which you have failed to do, and explain why 98% of all scientists support evolution who believe in many diverse religions.

No, textbooks are not simply wrong and inaccurate in many areas. Your assertion is blatantly false based on a religious agenda. The fact that textbooks need to be revised over time simply reflects the advancing knowledge of science. You need to reread my previous post to understand how this is being addressed today. What is realy sad is the bogus science in the Creationists textbooks used in private schools. Also you have failed to respond to the fact that today electronic media updated constantly is replacing most textbooks.

I don't need to provide an alternative hypothesis. Because I brought to the table the idea of a jury having to decide on the basis of evidence. And people have been put to death because the evidence was persuasive, yet later discovered it was wrong. Similarly, people are being released from jail (sometimes, not all the time) because while the evidence to convict them was persuasive to the jury, again -- later on the authorities and courts find the evidence wrong. Even though it apparently was convincing enough to the jury at the time. From the 'evidence.'

 

[YoursTrue]

This accurate when put in proper context, but creationists take the concept of randomness out of context. The individual mutations are indeed random, and do not meet any individuals needs, but evolution is not based on nor dependent on individual mutations, Evolution takes place in the resulting genetic diversity in populations that are the accumulated result of mutations in individuals.

I brought this up many times concerning the misuse of the concept of randomness in genetics and evolution, but of course it is ignored. Randomness of individual mutations, nor any events in nature do not cause anything nor prevent anything. In terms of the genetics of DNA mutations simply increase the genetic diversity in populations.

OK, so I have a question. Is mutation necessary for evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

You have failed to present a case that the evidence is faulty. The best you have done is present a faulty logic of the arguing from ignorance, because you believe that there is missing evidence the hypothesis is false.

There is no trial by jury, and you have added an insult to our judicial system. There are tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, making new discoveries and researching the genetics, geology, paleontology, physics, stratigraphy, and other fields in biology.



Simply, the similarity of genetics is NOT how scientists use genetics, and the many other sources of correlated evidence to falsify the hypothesis of evolution.

Lousy understanding of science based on a religious agenda. Science does not prove anything. What you have blatantly failed to do is provide an alternative hypothesis based on the evidence,

Still waiting. . .



What you used to believe is absolutely meaningless. You need to present a positive hypothesis based on the evidence NOW, which you have failed to do, and explain why 98% of all scientists support evolution who believe in many diverse religions.

No, textbooks are not simply wrong and inaccurate in many areas. Your assertion is blatantly false based on a religious agenda. The fact that textbooks need to be revised over time simply reflects the advancing knowledge of science. You need to reread my previous post to understand how this is being addressed today. What is realy sad is the bogus science in the Creationists textbooks used in private schools. Also you have failed to respond to the fact that today electronic media updated constantly is replacing most textbooks.

That doesn't matter that the varying opinions on the electronic media replaces most textbooks. Whch is sad anyway. I was reading an article in National Geographic trying to explain why people lie. It's like embedded in their brains, according to some (scientists, I suppose).

 

[YoursTrue]

You do realize that relatedness testing is not so simplistic as "their sequences are similar, therefore they're related", don't you? Have you ever actually taken the time to learn how relatedness testing is conducted?


Well that's kinda the thing about "maybe God just made it that way"....you can say that about anything, all the way up to Last Thursdayism. So it's not really much of a rebuttal to anything.

Can you explain in a simple manner how relatedness testing is conducted? And what is relatedness? I thought it was like the 98% or so of genes that are like humans in bonobos, as one example. So please, what is relatedness? and how is it tested? If you can present it in a way that I understand.