question for those who reject biological evolution

[YoursTrue]

Which is a totally different subject.

No, it's not. Beliefs and teachings change in SCIENCE.

 

[Pogo]

I am speaking about DNA evidence. Not feathers in stone or fossils. I think you are evading the reasoning about DNA. There is no evidence. If there were, just like human DNA investigation, that would be a closer call.

The DNA evidence says the same thing and there is lots of it.
That is why it is called the twin nested hierarchy, because you get the same evolutionary tree whether you use morphology from fossils etc. and the DNA from currently existing creatures.

see nested hierarchies.

 

[Pogo]

No, it's not. Beliefs and teachings change in SCIENCE.

The fact that we did not have MRI machines and blood analyzers and pain killers beyond aspirin is not a change in belief or teaching, but a change in technology. Think don't troll

 

[YoursTrue]

The fact that we did not have MRI machines and blood analyzers and pain killers beyond aspirin is not a change in belief or teaching, but a change in technology. Think don't troll

It's not trolling just because you say it is. Furthermore, gorillas and dogs do not have this technology.

 

[YoursTrue]

The DNA evidence says the same thing and there is lots of it.
That is why it is called the twin nested hierarchy, because you get the same evolutionary tree whether you use morphology from fossils etc. and the DNA from currently existing creatures.

see nested hierarchies.

However it happened, there's a lot of information packed into a little tiny cell. I don't believe it happened by "natural selection."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yes, gorillas remain gorillas and dogs remain dogs, so far

How many more times must the sillyness of such statement be pointed out to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However it happened, there's a lot of information packed into a little tiny cell. I don't believe it happened by "natural selection."

Your argument from incredulity is noted.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Your argument from incredulity is noted.

would that come from the same line of thinking that believes that the function of growth rings in trees is simply for dating the age of the tree? Most probably don't know that growth rings actually have a function other than aging and therefore God creating mature trees with growth rings already in them is exactly the same as creating fully grown man and animals...and an environment with already existing maturity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

would that come from the same line of thinking that believes that the function of growth rings in trees is simply for dating the age of the tree?

Huh?

Most probably don't know that growth rings actually have a function other than aging and therefore God creating mature trees with growth rings already in them is exactly the same as creating fully grown man and animals...and an environment with already existing maturity.

Yeah, I'm not impressed with species of Last Thursdayism which rely on the deception / planting of false evidence.

 

[leroy]

Oh I am not saying you can't reject reality and except for gene therapy treatment of cancer treatment is not the same as understanding the cause and mechanism.

Ok what part of cáncer treatment relies on the claim that complex organs evolved from simpler organs through random mutations and natural selection?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am speaking about DNA evidence. Not feathers in stone or fossils. I think you are evading the reasoning about DNA. There is no evidence. If there were, just like human DNA investigation, that would be a closer call.

The DNA evidence backs up what that poster said.

 

[leroy]

Birds are still dinosaurs (theropod) always have been and always will be no matter what they evolve into.
This is the confusion, things do not stop being what they are now with further evolution. Birds, dinosaurs, fish, cows and humans are all vertebrates. Sort of like kinds, vertebrate kind which will only ever give birth to vertebrates and never to arthropods.
If the world floods and humans survive, we may well have flippers like seals, but we will still be humans.

Redefining the word “Dinosaur” such that it now includes birds, doesn’t solve the problem, the issue is how can a flightless creature evolved in to a creature that can fly, through random mutations and natural selection…… weather if you what to label them as dinosaur or bird, or both is irrelevant.

 

[Pogo]

Ok what part of cáncer treatment relies on the claim that complex organs evolved from simpler organs through random mutations and natural selection?

Since that is not what cancer treatment or cancer is, your question is irrelevant.

 

[Pogo]

would that come from the same line of thinking that believes that the function of growth rings in trees is simply for dating the age of the tree? Most probably don't know that growth rings actually have a function other than aging and therefore God creating mature trees with growth rings already in them is exactly the same as creating fully grown man and animals...and an environment with already existing maturity.

Omphalos is not a good argument as it makes your God a deceiver and that wont win many intelligent converts. I thought the other god was supposed to be the deceiver.

 

[leroy]

Since that is not what cancer treatment or cancer is, your question is irrelevant.

Ok a summary (please explain where I missed)

1 in the OP it was claimed that treating cancer relies on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true

2 I answered, cancer treatment doesn’t rely on the assumption that simple organs evolved in to complex organs through random mutations and natural selection. (weather if you want to call this evolution or not)

3 you said “you are wrong”

4 I asked why am I wrong? it what way does cancer treatment relies on the assumption that complex organs evolved from simpler organs by random mutations and NS?

5 you answered it is irrelevant (which means that I missed something)

So what did I missed?

 

[Pogo]

Redefining the word “Dinosaur” such that it now includes birds, doesn’t solve the problem, the issue is how can a flightless creature evolved in to a creature that can fly, through random mutations and natural selection…… weather if you what to label them as dinosaur or bird, or both is irrelevant.

It is not redefined and flight has evolved several times in very different lineages though feathers are limited to only one. Here is a start on your education.
BTW even creationists accept heritable random mutation (variation in progeny ex. dogs from wolf) and natural selection. (slow critters get eaten first and don't have babies)

Here is a new one in humans that lets you eat more hamburgers;

ApoA-I Milano is a naturally occurring mutant of Apo-AI, found in a few families in Limone sul Garda, Italy, and, by genetic + church record family tree detective work, traced to a single individual, Giovanni Pomarelli, in the 18th century.[16] Described in 1980, it was the first known molecular abnormality of apolipoproteins.[17] Paradoxically, carriers of this mutation have very low HDL-C (HDL-Cholesterol) levels, but no increase in the risk of heart disease, often living to age 100 or older. This unusual observation was what lead Italian investigators to track down what was going on and lead to the discovery of apoA-I Milano (the city, Milano, ~160 km away, in which the researcher's lab was located). Biochemically, apo A1 contains an extra cysteine bridge, causing it to exist as a homodimer or as a heterodimer with Apo-AII. However, the enhanced cardioprotective activity of this mutant (which likely depends on fat & cholesterol efflux) cannot easily be replicated by other cysteine mutants.[18]

 

[Pogo]

Ok a summary (please explain where I missed)

1 in the OP it was claimed that treating cancer relies on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true

2 I answered, cancer treatment doesn’t rely on the assumption that simple organs evolved in to complex organs through random mutations and natural selection. (weather if you want to call this evolution or not)

3 you said “you are wrong”

4 I asked why am I wrong? it what way does cancer treatment relies on the assumption that complex organs evolved from simpler organs by random mutations and NS?

5 you answered it is irrelevant (which means that I missed something)

So what did I missed?

cancer is the inherited change in the genetics of a cell that now has different traits. That is evolution.
As Darwin said "descent with modification"

 

[leroy]

cancer is the inherited change in the genetics of a cell that now has different traits. That is evolution.
As Darwin said "descent with modification"

ok, but one can accept the fact of “descend with modification” (including cancer stuff) without accepting the specific claim that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms through the mechanisms of random mutation + natural selection and still be intellectually consistent……………agree?

 

[leroy]

It is not redefined

Yes it was, originally the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s to refer to those ancient “big lizards” and birds were not included that definition…….. my only point is that the question on how dinosaurs evolved in to birds is not solved by simply changing the definition of dinosaur and say “ohh but birds are dinosaurs”

and flight has evolved several times in very different lineages

No doubt, taht flight evovled

My only objection is that there is no conclusive evidence that they evolved trough the specific mechanism random mutation + natural selection.

If you quote a paper that concludes the opposite feel free to quote it (the exact words) and I will admit my mistake and change my mind

 

[Pogo]

ok, but one can accept the fact of “descend with modification” (including cancer stuff) without accepting the specific claim that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms through the mechanisms of random mutation + natural selection and still be intellectually consistent……………agree?

If you could come up with an alternative that explains the data as well. Intelligent design, Saltation and Goddidit are not intellectually consistent.
Like I said, you will get a Nobel prize if you come up with one.

Aside, autocorrect is peeving me. I typed descent not descend. didn't even know it was on.