Some questions about evolution (genetics etc) and possible implications for creationism

[gnostic]

If the difference between two animals from different species are dictated by the genome and the genome can change why can't a series of mutations produce creatures "outside the taxonomy" of the creature we started with?

Because what you are asking for, is not natural and not reality.

What you are looking for is fairy tale. If you want fairytale, then look at some of the creatures or beings in the Bible, like Ezekiel’s 4 angels with four faces and four wings, or the many headed of the 2 beasts and the dragon from Revelation.

And in Genesis, it say that dust can transform instantly into a living adult human. That creationists can whole-heartedly believe such fairytale about the supernatural creation of Adam and cannot understand evolution, just how delusional creationists are about nature vs supernatural. Creationists will only accept the supernatural.

No biologists would consider dogs giving birth to cats or vice versa. This sort of ignorant claims can only come from creationists who don’t understand the limitations of biology. Creationists want the impossible to happen, so they make up such wildly absurd claims.

All this demonstrated just how uneducated the creationists are with biology, and how very little they understand evolution.

 

[gnostic]

I think you are referring specifically to YEC's.

To YEC creationists & to all forms of Intelligent Design creationists.

 

[firedragon]

To YEC creationists & to all forms of Intelligent Design creationists.

Ah. So you said ""Creationists usually dont understand what a scientific theory is." to all of those people you spoke of above. Which is actually bigoted statement, not based on any quantitative research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah. So you said ""Creationists usually dont understand what a scientific theory is." to all of those people you spoke of above. Which is actually bigoted statement, not based on any quantitative research.

No, he put a qualifier on it. And we do have massive personal experience debating with people that make the error of thinking that they are qualified to debate on this topic and most of them do not even understand the concept of a theory. Does it not make sense that, at least hopefully, it is the best informed that debate and not the least? Are you saying that most creationists know that they are wrong but believe anyway? It is what is implied by your attempt to claim that creationists do understand what a scientific theory is.

 

[Yerda]

Because what you are asking for, is not natural and not reality.

What you are looking for is fairy tale. If you want fairytale, then look at some of the creatures or beings in the Bible, like Ezekiel’s 4 angels with four faces and four wings, or the many headed of the 2 beasts and the dragon from Revelation.

And in Genesis, it say that dust can transform instantly into a living adult human. That creationists can whole-heartedly believe such fairytale about the supernatural creation of Adam and cannot understand evolution, just how delusional creationists are about nature vs supernatural. Creationists will only accept the supernatural.

No biologists would consider dogs giving birth to cats or vice versa. This sort of ignorant claims can only come from creationists who don’t understand the limitations of biology. Creationists want the impossible to happen, so they make up such wildly absurd claims.

All this demonstrated just how uneducated the creationists are with biology, and how very little they understand evolution.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, fella. I'm asking what stops the end point of a lineage being drastically different from the start point.

I'm not a creationist.

 

[gnostic]

Ah. So you said ""Creationists usually dont understand what a scientific theory is." to all of those people you spoke of above. Which is actually bigoted statement, not based on any quantitative research.

You did ask, so I gave answer.

Both groups of people from the YEC & Intelligent Design, that I hav seen in this forum, and other forums that I was previously members of, most of them don’t understand what “scientific theory”, “Scientific Method”, or “scientific evidence” are?

Do you know many times we have heard creationists confuse “evidence” with “proof”, or with whatever statements of claims made with “evidence”?

The later, think that any claim of their belief are one and the same as “evidence”.

Some of them have even tried to redefine what theory, Scientific Method and evidence mean to meet their religious beliefs.

And whenever someone try to correct their mistakes, then they accuse people of being “atheist” this or “atheist” that, or “evolutionist” this or “evolutionist” that.

Evolution have absolutely nothing to do with atheism. There are plenty of theists, here at RF who accept Evolutionary Biology as factual information.

YEC and ID adherents refused to recognize their mistakes and learn from them.

And even you have been making cheap shots when used the word “evolutionists”.

I think you are referring specifically to YEC's. And I dont know with what knowledge you are making claims like "Creationists usually dont understand what a scientific theory is. Thats absolutely false. The man who is considered the man who propagated the scientific method was a creationist. Creationists propagated evolution way before this new evolutionists you are referring to as if its exclusive to who ever you are referring to. Its fundamentally an uneducated assessment.

Again, I think you are referring to some fringe group of people. Just know that the world is wider than that and history is definitely wider in time span that what ever you are referring to.

And guess what, firedragon, there are no such things as “evolutionist”, no more than there are “gravitation-ist”, “quantum-ist”, “ohm-ist”, “germ-ist”, etc.

People who studied biology and worked in biological fields are simply biologists, “evolutionist” isn't a work title.

And here is the thing with creationists who tried to redefine the meanings of basic scientific terms, eg theory and evidence: Why is that they need to redefine them whenever the subject of Evolution come up, and not for non-biological fields?

 

[gnostic]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, fella. I'm asking what stops the end point of a lineage being drastically different from the start point.

I'm not a creationist.

Ok.

Sorry, my bad.

 

[firedragon]

And guess what, firedragon, there are no such things as “evolutionist”, no more than there are “gravitation-ist”, “quantum-ist”, “ohm-ist”, “germ-ist”, etc.

I think you should do a bit of research.

There are creationist evolutionists. But you have a concocted, new idea and definition for creationists. Your favourite "scientific method" is considered t have been championed by a creationist called ibn Haytham.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you should do a bit of research.

There are creationist evolutionists. But you have a concocted, new idea and definition for creationists. Your favourite "scientific method" is considered t have been championed by a creationist called ibn Haytham.

That is stretching the word "creationist" to the breaking point. Those people tend to have the misnamed belief of Intelligent Design. They are at least honest enough to admit that life is the product of evolution, but they still want to claim that "God done did it".

 

[shunyadragon]

You have not answered anything, you only keep repeating " you're wrong. " Kinda pointless.

No, there are volumes of texts and scientific journals, and over 200 years of research and discoveries that support the science of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

All the answers are in. Still waiting for you to respond with reliable scientific references

 

[shunyadragon]

Adaptation is possible because of the information already present. It's not change to a different kind of animal. A raccoon has thicker fur the further north you go, for example. That's not what creationists mean by " evolution."

Nol in all the billions of years of evolution all the information is not presents in the simpler life forms that evolve into the more complex life forms. Minimal changes like in the length of hair in response to evolution in representative of the overall process of evolution over hundreds of millions if not billions of years.

 

[rational experiences]

The God teachings owned the one self any form by two.

The scientific teaching.

If you own the highest form as parents first then you could never be a mutation.

Reason. The mutation is only a damaged higher origin cell.

So you could quote a wolf ovary was irradiated. A lesser wolf pup a dog was born. So the lesser body has its wild parent.

If science claims a human is a lesser being than an ape we would in fact not be intelligence as dominion.

Reason owner intelligence is applying all the comparisons.

A human highest cell can give birth to lesser human bodies. Proving that we are not a mutation.

As we don't give birth to apes when cell is mutated.

Place human theorising in its teaching as a motivated position.

Trying to find for a long time as a human what it explains is a God state.

All done only by humans in human self presence.

Whether your claim is biology or not. It is the human scientific memory advice human in the research.

Looking for the exact reason. Reasoned for a human in the claim superiority in wisdom.

Which a human always quantified and Idealises was God. By term self human identity to know.

The highest human expressed realisation of the claim I know. For prestigious human idolisation.

We have lived the human identified science expressed problem before.

Which is why human written biblical advice stated what it had.

Life's sacrifice caused by God theist human scientists claiming they knew it all.

As it was only a human consciousness that discussed God.

 

[gnostic]

I think you should do a bit of research.

There are creationist evolutionists. But you have a concocted, new idea and definition for creationists. Your favourite "scientific method" is considered t have been championed by a creationist called ibn Haytham.

When it come to who say what, I have not heard of this ibn Haytham, so I really can’t comment on his view.

The “Scientific Method” required 2 main steps:

1. To formulate the explanatory/predictive model of the physical phenomena under (meaning formulating the hypothesis).
2. The next step is the testing the hypothesis (observations of the evidence) & analyzing the evidence (eg data, like properties, quantity, measurements, etc).

There are actually lot more steps in Scientific Method than what I have described above.

The point is that evidence needs to be physical, and natural or artificial.

But the term “creation” in the religious context (as oppose to the contexts of creation of art or craft), creation would involve supernatural entity or supernatural forces, hence supernatural phenomena, like divine power, miracles, magic, psychic abilities, etc.

To date, there have been no evidence of any supernatural phenomena.

To give you an example of supernatural phenomena in religion, the creation of Adam.

Adam was created from the “dust” of the earth (meaning soil), according to Genesis, or from clay, according to the Qur’an, then molded into shape and given life.

Neither dust (soil), nor clay, can instantly turn or transform into a living adult human male. Such supernatural creation is based on myth, fable or fairytale. It isn’t natural, and there are no evidence for the supernatural.

Plus, a human body is made out of cells, not soils.

There are 3 types of soils:

1. silt
2. clay
3. sandy soil

Each soils are made of weathered rocks, broken down to either finely grained or coarse grained rock minerals. Minerals, like silicates, eg feldspars, micas, quartz.

That’s the most basic composition of soils; these soil minerals are inorganic.

Organic materials are only introduced into the soils, from waste products of organisms, eg feces (drooping, or manure), urinate, skin shedding, dandruff, leaves, pollens, etc, or from decomposition of organisms that have died.

If Adam was made from soils (eg clay, silt, etc), then those soil minerals should be present in the human bodies. But no such soil minerals exist, not even in trace amount.

The cells in all organisms, including humans, are made of many components, especially of organic matters, but no such silt minerals or clay minerals exist in the human body.

And every cells in organisms (organisms from bacteria to the fungi, plants and animals), have 3 essential biological macromolecules in common:

1. proteins (which are made of amino acids)
2. nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA)
3. carbohydrates (eg sugar)

Soils are not made out of cells.

So there are no evidence that soil can turn into a human being.

So if you did a hypothesis on the creation of human, that man would be made of soil, there would be no evidence that humans are made of dust or clay, hence creation would fail the Scientific Method.

But then again, Evolution have nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is about biodiversity of life over times. Biodiversity as in changes, like speciation.

Currently, the only scientific field involving the study of origin of life, is Abiogenesis, and Abiogenesis is still only a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different studies or two different fields.

So your claim of “creationist evolutionist” is basically oxymoron.

 

[firedragon]

When it come to who say what, I have not heard of this ibn Haytham, so I really can’t comment on his view.

No problem. But you can still do some research.

The “Scientific Method” required 2 main steps:

Many have done this research already.

But the term “creation” in the religious context (as oppose to the contexts of creation of art or craft), creation would involve supernatural entity or supernatural forces, hence supernatural phenomena, like divine power, miracles, magic, psychic abilities, etc.

You should know better than bringing in creation and metaphysics into science. Even creationists who are scientists know that science has a methodological approach of naturalism. So its absurd to even begin this discussion, unless you are looking for gaps.

So your claim of “creationist evolutionist” is basically oxymoron.

Thats because you dont understand it.

Creation happened prior to evolution, according to creationist evolutionists if there is a phrase like that. Evolution was such a discussed topic by creationists in history that they never made this distinction. It was normal for them. But since you are coming from the propagandists plan of separating science from theists you cant see past your agenda.

There were many many creationists who taught evolution. Maybe you are just not aware.

 

[gnostic]

You should know better than bringing in creation and metaphysics into science. Even creationists who are scientists know that science has a methodological approach of naturalism. So its absurd to even begin this discussion, unless you are looking for gaps.

You are right that science follow the Methodological Naturalism (MN), and MN tell us that for any model (eg scientific theory) must pass all 3 essential requirements to qualify as being “science”:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

And the only way to pass 2 & 3 (SM & PR) is with evidence. Evidence that are observable & testable.

As to what you say about Creation and Metaphysics:

“...bringing in creation and metaphysics into science.”​

You cannot bring Creation into science, PERIOD! The Creation of the Bible and Quran, required the existence of God, the Creator, as well as the existence of supernatural phenomena, eg creation of Adam, miracles, afterlife like resurrection.

And science cannot observe or test god or any other supernatural phenomena, that the Bible or Quran have narrated. A supernatural beings (eg god, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, etc) and supernatural phenomena are not falsifiable, so it cannot be tested through Scientific Method, hence Creation cannot be brought into “science”.

There are metaphysical approach to Naturalism, this called Metaphysical Naturalism.

Metaphysical Naturalism don’t require evidence like the way Methodological Naturalism required evidence, but it does approach Naturalism through ontology, thus another name for Metaphysical Naturalism is Philosophical Naturalism.

A large part of modern Physical Cosmology relied on theoretical approach to cosmology, meaning it heavily relied on finding theoretical solutions through solving mathematical equations.

Equations, however, are not evidence.

In any case, Metaphysical Naturalism reject all forms of supernatural, so it would reject biblical creation or Islamic creation, simply because it isn’t natural.

So Methodological Naturalism reject Creation on the basis that god and miracles are untestable. And Metaphysical Naturalism would reject Creation on the basis that it isn’t natural.

 

[rational experiences]

When it come to who say what, I have not heard of this ibn Haytham, so I really can’t comment on his view.

The “Scientific Method” required 2 main steps:

1. To formulate the explanatory/predictive model of the physical phenomena under (meaning formulating the hypothesis).
2. The next step is the testing the hypothesis (observations of the evidence) & analyzing the evidence (eg data, like properties, quantity, measurements, etc).

There are actually lot more steps in Scientific Method than what I have described above.

The point is that evidence needs to be physical, and natural or artificial.

But the term “creation” in the religious context (as oppose to the contexts of creation of art or craft), creation would involve supernatural entity or supernatural forces, hence supernatural phenomena, like divine power, miracles, magic, psychic abilities, etc.

To date, there have been no evidence of any supernatural phenomena.

To give you an example of supernatural phenomena in religion, the creation of Adam.

Adam was created from the “dust” of the earth (meaning soil), according to Genesis, or from clay, according to the Qur’an, then molded into shape and given life.

Neither dust (soil), nor clay, can instantly turn or transform into a living adult human male. Such supernatural creation is based on myth, fable or fairytale. It isn’t natural, and there are no evidence for the supernatural.

Plus, a human body is made out of cells, not soils.

There are 3 types of soils:

1. silt
2. clay
3. sandy soil

Each soils are made of weathered rocks, broken down to either finely grained or coarse grained rock minerals. Minerals, like silicates, eg feldspars, micas, quartz.

That’s the most basic composition of soils; these soil minerals are inorganic.

Organic materials are only introduced into the soils, from waste products of organisms, eg feces (drooping, or manure), urinate, skin shedding, dandruff, leaves, pollens, etc, or from decomposition of organisms that have died.

If Adam was made from soils (eg clay, silt, etc), then those soil minerals should be present in the human bodies. But no such soil minerals exist, not even in trace amount.

The cells in all organisms, including humans, are made of many components, especially of organic matters, but no such silt minerals or clay minerals exist in the human body.

And every cells in organisms (organisms from bacteria to the fungi, plants and animals), have 3 essential biological macromolecules in common:

1. proteins (which are made of amino acids)
2. nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA)
3. carbohydrates (eg sugar)

Soils are not made out of cells.

So there are no evidence that soil can turn into a human being.

So if you did a hypothesis on the creation of human, that man would be made of soil, there would be no evidence that humans are made of dust or clay, hence creation would fail the Scientific Method.

But then again, Evolution have nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution is about biodiversity of life over times. Biodiversity as in changes, like speciation.

Currently, the only scientific field involving the study of origin of life, is Abiogenesis, and Abiogenesis is still only a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different studies or two different fields.

So your claim of “creationist evolutionist” is basically oxymoron.

The teaching has been ignored man's image was made out of dust a nuclear reaction.

Not man's life.

To be with God by image voice recordings in gods heavens.

It was mans reasoning why his science relativity machine was proven evil.

As to teach you teach the relativity advice about creation.

Nuclear converting by sun as mass was not by sun as light converted earths body. Plus most other planets etc.

The state recording came about in that invent. It was created.

First state crystalline earth facure. No alight heavens immaculate earth as God.

Converted.

So removal of origin first state crystalline mast left separated dusts nuclear. When the state to record was introduced.

Now humans life is recorded. As it was attacked as man of science caused it by imposing dust nuclear converting himself. His choice proven wrong advice.

The relativity of the advice his and why man's sacrificed was by life image gain. Appeared as ground removed life water support. To form new cloud mass to save life by flooding.

Gases burning are water cooled part of man's machine scientific thesis first.

Atop mountains the landing hit as UFO ark was travelling irradiating life until it hit ararat.

Humans witnessed the whole event. Documented it and knew flooded rain over the mountains counted for forty days after the face of Ararat and Sinai were covered. Cloud coverage.

Mountains disappeared. Why Buddhist monks own an event of leaving their temple on the mountain.

As the mountain began to melt stone as philosophers stone was how to produce gold as a melt by product. Nuclear converting process.

Why rich greedy men didn't want to give up on the technology.

Is how the study creation of man's image to be with God was taught. Man's life was sacrificed.

 

[gnostic]

The teaching has been ignored man's image was made out of dust a nuclear reaction.

Not man's life.

To be with God by image voice recordings in gods heavens.

It was mans reasoning why his science relativity machine was proven evil.

As to teach you teach the relativity advice about creation.

Nuclear converting by sun as mass was not by sun as light converted earths body. Plus most other planets etc.

The state recording came about in that invent. It was created.

First state crystalline earth facure. No alight heavens immaculate earth as God.

Converted.

So removal of origin first state crystalline mast left separated dusts nuclear. When the state to record was introduced.

Now humans life is recorded. As it was attacked as man of science caused it by imposing dust nuclear converting himself. His choice proven wrong advice.

The relativity of the advice his and why man's sacrificed was by life image gain. Appeared as ground removed life water support. To form new cloud mass to save life by flooding.

Gases burning are water cooled part of man's machine scientific thesis first.

Atop mountains the landing hit as UFO ark was travelling irradiating life until it hit ararat.

Humans witnessed the whole event. Documented it and knew flooded rain over the mountains counted for forty days after the face of Ararat and Sinai were covered. Cloud coverage.

Mountains disappeared. Why Buddhist monks own an event of leaving their temple on the mountain.

As the mountain began to melt stone as philosophers stone was how to produce gold as a melt by product. Nuclear converting process.

Why rich greedy men didn't want to give up on the technology.

Is how the study creation of man's image to be with God was taught. Man's life was sacrificed.

Well...this post just show me that you have no understanding of what you are saying...

...that you don't understand nuclear reaction, and you are confusing nuclear reaction with chemical reaction.

Plus, you are simply making things up.

 

[rational experiences]

Well...this post just show me that you have no understanding of what you are saying...

...that you don't understand nuclear reaction, and you are confusing nuclear reaction with chemical reaction.

Plus, you are simply making things up.

Man experimenting with machines does not understand as maths is not a human female mother. Life continuance.

Dust is just dust. Dust can only be observed by a living man scientist in its exact place in gods creation. As the dust.

All said by man theorising every single observed highest state of God.

In life on planet earth theist satanist. The list...ist.

Man in ego by word use quotes I am the God explaining all things. I give everything a name.

Is who natural human spirit life argues against.

A human is self present. Self owned. Body spirit a human.

Human heavens after ice age recordings. As human recorded bodily and voice was encoded already. By first man scientist earth life destruction. Amass event by sun mass equals time shift event.

The satanic brother I sent you all humans to hell confession in science.

Gods hell. Opened carpenter tectonic volcanic plates. Earths.

Historic. I am not talking power plant reaction. It was sun time mass calculated caused.

Human life destroyed to own encoded recorded imagery. That returned in cooling.

Father mother after saviour ice age new spirit of God born the ice state was why we came back out again into returned human form from the eternal spirit direct.

It was recorded heavenly as recording already existed. Of our life.

The records satanic and huge. Humans a very small body.

Large records not the same pressure status.

Water mass gods earth owned highest status of life either salted or fresh. We live as bio life in two types of water bodies. At the same time.

The eternal being took on the highest God status water. As bared naked earth life. A teaching.

Fallout still existed. Hence humans chemistry was inherited naturally by the eternal becoming chemistry bio.

Is exact human correct reasoning.

As only a higher body by mass can use consume other food bodies to remain present.

The irradiation effect eventually destroys bio life another proof that we are in truth from a spirit being pre owned body.

Not science.

Is not in creation not never was it creation.

Creation is a converted body with a portion of its origin immediately gone.

As we came from the same place our bio body acts accordingly to that origin law.

Only a sun consumes it's own body and remains.

Is it any wonder men in science compare our consuming of energy food as bio life to a sun? No. It only proves how evil theism is.

 

[firedragon]

You cannot bring Creation into science, PERIOD!

Exactly. So, why are you reiterating what I said?

And science cannot observe or test god or any other supernatural phenomena,

Very good. Exactly what I said. So why do you keep trying to?

So Methodological Naturalism reject Creation on the basis that god and miracles are untestable. And Metaphysical Naturalism would reject Creation on the basis that it isn’t natural.

Well. you said all the stuff you randomly wanted to say now. If you are done with that, now try to understand that there are many creationists, and have been in history, who believe in evolution or taught evolution. And your statement about all of them not knowing the scientific method is false because one of them developed the scientific method.

 

[rational experiences]

Fact of human advice is direct to humans

Whose claim is I speak on behalf of gods states as God tells me.

Lied.

Egotism.

Evolution in science is a pre burning state that cools naturally by voiding mass and by vacuum law.

Empty space.

First science statement God in its natural form is evolution. God as science.

Not God created you by evolution.

Fact. You are a human god theist first.

Fact you look directly at any dead body or living body. Apply its bodily status. Then you believe you explain why that body type became a new body type.

Yet what you claim is the new body type already exists.

Was the exact reason science said no man is God.

As it was God status versus human man theisms Satanism.

To believe you are the creator yourself as just the machine inventor.

Conscious science human memories first.

Dusts exist.

I want to do a nuclear reaction. It is safe my image exists.

Irrational.

Image existed after huge mass earth nuclear reaction turned you into ashes with gods converting dusts.

Gods dusts remained after you however were a pile of human combusted ashes.

Satan's dust ash body falls into the space hole deep pit of space by sun consumed mass. Are you Satan human brother?

If you review human consciousness men in science claim they are Satan first and not human first.

Science was never arguing science. Natural science human aware argued Satanism theisms.