-
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!
The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution
- Thread starter Little Nipper
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One thing that drives me nuts is when the person that gave the title to an article, usually not the author, has not understood the article that they named. In this case they claimed that it had "human cancer". That was not the case. That is in fact a ridiculous claim What they did was to compare the dinosaur fibula to the fibula of that was part of a leg that a human had to have amputated due to an analysis of bone cancer:
"The dinosaur fibula was compared to a confirmed case of human osteosarcoma, from a young man whose lower leg had to be amputated following his diagnosis, as well as with a healthy Centrosaurus fibula.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What was the point of the video?
gnostic
The Lost One
I couldn’t care less as to what Stephen Meyer had to say, in which he has no qualifications as to what he is talking about.
for Meyer is qualified geologist, and he worked for oil company, neither of them would make him an expert in either biology or fossil studies.
it would be like asking electrician to do brain or heart surgery. Or asking a lawyer to teach nuclear fusion in the star’s core.
Meyer is out of his league.
gnostic
The Lost One
I have no problem with you or anyone being Christian.
a lot of my friends are Christians.
that’s not the issue.
the issues I have, are with creationists who don’t have basic sciences and the requirements of testable and verified evidence, telling me that Evolution isn’t science…and their reliance on citing dubious and obvious pseudoscience sources.
They ignorantly keep confusing evidence with proof, and keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again, even when people take the times explaining to the differences between evidence and proof. That stubborn ignorance revealed to me that not only they cannot learn from their mistakes, it revealed to me they are wilfully being intellectually dishonest.
Evidence have to be observable and testable. Proofs are nothing more than logical statements, usually presented as formulas or equations. But formulas and equations can be wrong, because they are based on person to reason. And people can be wrong, they can make mistakes with their proofs/equations/formulas.
Just like the explanations in hypothesis, any mathematical equations, must be tested too, to see if the equations are correct or wrong.
Just as no explanation in a hypothesis “true” by-default, no equations (or proofs) in a hypothesis true by-default.
Science, particularly Natural Sciences, required evidence, not proof. Only evidence & experiments, and the all-important data, can determine which model is science and which model isn’t science.
I have explained the difference between evidence and proof to many creationists, many times, but it is incredible how many creationists cannot learn this lesson.
They are also incapable of understanding that if they make claims of alternative concepts, that are contrary to the existing theories, then they are the ones who must present evidence and data to support their “alternative concepts”…they rarely do.
And this is why I don’t trust the integrity of any creationists, when it come to any subject regarding to any science, not just evolutionary biology.
Simply the number of generations since Adam described in the text.
You are foolishly implying science is a religion. You need a basic education in English concerning the definition of religion.
This is easy. The description of a perfect world without suffering and death Created by God ended with the 'Original Sin and Fall by Adam and Eve, To add the time frame and the sequence of Creation described in Genesis also opposes the natural history of life and our physical existence.
Also the belief in geocentrism, which was the belief of ancient cultures.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The main problem with the modern theory of Evolution, is not the Natural Selection idea and contribution of Darwin. It is the organic centric approach of modern biology which still needs the fuzzy dice of casino science to prop it up. The life sciences would all stall if they could not use the fuzzy dice approach of casino science. The theory is not fully self standing, except as a catalog of good observations.
This whims of the Gods approach does allow all the rational connections needed to fully separate the life sciences from a form of semi-religion; whims of the gods is old time polytheism. This is why evolution has a chip on its shoulder against religion and feels threatened. Chemistry and Physics is much less insecure, so there is no need to start a religious war using Big Brother censorship tactics. The life science religion is fixable, if we include the affects of water, since water is the integrating variable of the living state, from abiogenesis through evolution.
Below I started to apply a water side analysis to the DNA, since the DNA is key to the modern theory of evolution. The water side analysis is a simple and repeatable procedure, to show how water evolved and defines the workings of the DNA. I will start by quoting two of my posts in this Evolution topic, and build from there.
The next aspect of the DNA I would like to approach, from the water side, are the histone packing protein, which are used to wind the extremely long DNA molecules into condensed chromosomes in a very orderly and reversible fashion. Water makes this possible. It similar to water packing proteins into active shapes, to reduce surface tension in water, but taken to the next level.
Histones are the alkaline protein which wrapped DNA into a more condensed form. Histones consist of two basic (positively charged) amino acids arginine and lysine. Arginine and lysine are shown below. Notice the long organic chains of carbon and hydrogen. This tells me these two proteins are very reduced and will create lots of surface tension in water.
The water will need to ball up these protein and then combine different histone protein units to lower their surface area and surface tension. Since the lower nitrogen atoms are what bind to the DNA, this tells me that the histones cannot be folded by water in a way to bury all the reduced arginine and lysine. Therefore one would expect residual reduction potential in water. This potential is removed by burying the packing protein under winds of DNA. Water by being a global continuum, will gather the histone from here and there to the DNA, and pack them together until the surface tension potential is minimized; condensed chromosomes.
The last thing I will address are what are called post transcription modifications. The addition of a methyl group to the cytosine residue of the DNA molecule is referred to as DNA methylation. The addition of acetyl groups to the lysine residues of the histone molecule is referred to as histone acetylation. These takes place in the DNA and histone and affect the activity at specific places on the DNA. These take advantage of surface tension changes in the local water and how that will impact the folding of the local DNA and packing protein.
Methylation adds a methyl group; CH3-, which is reduced and will increase surface tension in water. This make it harder to separate the DNA double helix and can render genes inactive. The addition of an acetyl group, which is very polar, to a packing protein lowers its reduction potential allowing the DNA to unwind easier for transcription. This offer a simple water based way to created cellular differentiation in multicellular life. Multicellular life has the same DNA and histone in all cells, with placement of methyl and acetyl defining the paths of least and most water resistant.
This whims of the Gods approach does allow all the rational connections needed to fully separate the life sciences from a form of semi-religion; whims of the gods is old time polytheism. This is why evolution has a chip on its shoulder against religion and feels threatened. Chemistry and Physics is much less insecure, so there is no need to start a religious war using Big Brother censorship tactics. The life science religion is fixable, if we include the affects of water, since water is the integrating variable of the living state, from abiogenesis through evolution.
Below I started to apply a water side analysis to the DNA, since the DNA is key to the modern theory of evolution. The water side analysis is a simple and repeatable procedure, to show how water evolved and defines the workings of the DNA. I will start by quoting two of my posts in this Evolution topic, and build from there.
The image of the DNA double helix in textbooks almost always misrepresents the DNA, since DNA also has a double helix of water in the major and minor grooves. The DNA will not work without that water. That water is as important as the sugars and phosphate, which are usually shown. I am still not sure why this water is left out of textbooks, since it would encourage students to ask questions about its purpose. Why the continued dumb down? Is it to protect the politics of casino science?
Below is a diagram of the hydrogen bonding of the base pairs of DNA and the hydrogen bonded water, used for the water double helix, that has an impact on DNA hydrogen bonding. The GC base pair form three base pair hydrogen bonds and six water based hydrogen bonds, while AT form two base pair hydrogen bonds and five water hydrogen bonds. The attached water, attached to other water, can influence the resonance electrons of the aromatic bases and alter the strength of the base pair hydrogen bonds. The water has a sweet spot in mind.
Here is an interesting fact. Pairing between single nucleic acid bases upon hydrogen bond formation in bulk water does not occur (although often shown for simplicity's sake, see below) unless there is a string of hydrogen-bonded bases.
In other words the nucleic acid bases need to be part of larger DNA and RNA structures before the hydrogen bonded base pairs form. The above diagram, although useful for showing the base pairs, is misleading. What do you expect from a black box and outdated biophysical chemistry.
The reason for this distinction is the DNA and RNA polymers, include sugar moieties; ribose for RNA and deoxyribose for DNA, that will both create surface tension in water. In the case of DNA, deoxyribose creates even more surface tension, so the water forms the double helix, targeting all the base pairs to form. This allows for a minimal potential structure, which is now a function of the degree of hydration. RNA, via ribose is less reduced and creates lower surface tension in water, so the base pairs can go both ways; some single and double helical areas.
When water was selecting molecules at the nanoscale, this minor sugar tweak made a big difference in evolution. There was also the Uracil to Thymine change; extra methyl in thymine, which had a similar affect. It allowed life to go from an RNA world, to the more stable DNA world of today; surface tension stabilized the base pairs for more reliable genetic memory.
The water took two hits by allowing the higher fixed reduction potential of DNA; added activation energy, but this led to a much more diverse world of life. This was an example of a stable entropic state or new stable platform for life to further advance, with the nucleus water staying more energized to compensate.
The next aspect of the DNA I would like to approach, from the water side, are the histone packing protein, which are used to wind the extremely long DNA molecules into condensed chromosomes in a very orderly and reversible fashion. Water makes this possible. It similar to water packing proteins into active shapes, to reduce surface tension in water, but taken to the next level.
Histones are the alkaline protein which wrapped DNA into a more condensed form. Histones consist of two basic (positively charged) amino acids arginine and lysine. Arginine and lysine are shown below. Notice the long organic chains of carbon and hydrogen. This tells me these two proteins are very reduced and will create lots of surface tension in water.
The water will need to ball up these protein and then combine different histone protein units to lower their surface area and surface tension. Since the lower nitrogen atoms are what bind to the DNA, this tells me that the histones cannot be folded by water in a way to bury all the reduced arginine and lysine. Therefore one would expect residual reduction potential in water. This potential is removed by burying the packing protein under winds of DNA. Water by being a global continuum, will gather the histone from here and there to the DNA, and pack them together until the surface tension potential is minimized; condensed chromosomes.
The last thing I will address are what are called post transcription modifications. The addition of a methyl group to the cytosine residue of the DNA molecule is referred to as DNA methylation. The addition of acetyl groups to the lysine residues of the histone molecule is referred to as histone acetylation. These takes place in the DNA and histone and affect the activity at specific places on the DNA. These take advantage of surface tension changes in the local water and how that will impact the folding of the local DNA and packing protein.
Methylation adds a methyl group; CH3-, which is reduced and will increase surface tension in water. This make it harder to separate the DNA double helix and can render genes inactive. The addition of an acetyl group, which is very polar, to a packing protein lowers its reduction potential allowing the DNA to unwind easier for transcription. This offer a simple water based way to created cellular differentiation in multicellular life. Multicellular life has the same DNA and histone in all cells, with placement of methyl and acetyl defining the paths of least and most water resistant.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Rogan actually asked a decent question or two, but overall was snowed by the nonsense of Meyer. It is a bad sign when Rogan is the most sensible person in the room.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please, just because the math is beyond you is not a valid reason to attack it. You need to do better than that.
Oh my more nonsense and projection. Try to find a serious argument against evolution if you do not like it. Don't make up false narratives.
You don't have the education that would allow you to make such an analysis even if it was a real thing.
No... that isn't enough information to discuss, other than, "why"?
No I didn't, if you read it correctly. I simply said science points to the potential of a God and some scientists come to that conclusion.
Here you have simply made statements.
I could equally just say "I disagree" and also have no additional information.
The number of generations fit the short time frame of the history of the earth and humanity specifically described in the Bible..
Why? . . . because this is what they believed at the time without science.
Then you did not make yourself clear, but nonetheless, very few scientists consider Genesis in terms of how it was written. Yes many scientists believe in many diverse versions of God, Not really the issue here
This is simply a dodge of the simple fact that Genesis describes the Creation of an existence perfect and without death and suffering. I answered your specific question concerning 'why' Genesis is in direct conflict with science and evolution and simply dodged and refused to respond.
Without a response, I can assume that yes, Genesis is in direct conflict with science regarding the dodge of interpretation in part because of the necessity of the Original Sin and the Fall at the foundation of Christian belief in the purpose of Jesus Christ and salvation
What specifically are the Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin's Evolution?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There is only one. And it is not much of a secret: Creationists do not have any valid arguments against evolution. There one best hope is to try to make it all about Darwin.
This view still reflects a false view of how contemporary science considers the role of genetic mutations, natural selection, and environmental factors in the sciences of evolution. This remains the product of an ancient tribal agenda that electively and dishonestly sifts data and concepts to justify a biased agenda. There are no 'fuzzy dice' of casino science in the sciences of evolution.
You are neglecting the fact that mutations are not random except in the timing of each event in the chain of cause-and-effect events such as mutations. I devoted an entire thread to this issue and the false assumptions of those with a biased religious agenda.
The above is a stinky 'Red Herring' big time.
Science is not remotely threatened by the false agenda of ancient tribal religions. Science does its thing concerning the nature of our physical existence neutral of any ancient tribal agenda. Science cannot nor will attempt to falsify hypotheses that lack objectively verifiable evidence such as those that make claims of God or Gods or supernatural events or persons
There is no such thing as 'water evolution' in science.
Very wordy false anti-science approach to what are normal organic chemical reactions without your phony inserts.The next aspect of the DNA I would like to approach, from the water side, are the histone packing protein, which are used to wind the extremely long DNA molecules into condensed chromosomes in a very orderly and reversible fashion. Water makes this possible. It similar to water packing proteins into active shapes, to reduce surface tension in water, but taken to the next level.
Histones are the alkaline protein which wrapped DNA into a more condensed form. Histones consist of two basic (positively charged) amino acids arginine and lysine. Arginine and lysine are shown below. Notice the long organic chains of carbon and hydrogen. This tells me these two proteins are very reduced and will create lots of surface tension in water.
The water will need to ball up these protein and then combine different histone protein units to lower their surface area and surface tension. Since the lower nitrogen atoms are what bind to the DNA, this tells me that the histones cannot be folded by water in a way to bury all the reduced arginine and lysine. Therefore one would expect residual reduction potential in water. This potential is removed by burying the packing protein under winds of DNA. Water by being a global continuum, will gather the histone from here and there to the DNA, and pack them together until the surface tension potential is minimized; condensed chromosomes.
The last thing I will address are what are called post transcription modifications. The addition of a methyl group to the cytosine residue of the DNA molecule is referred to as DNA methylation. The addition of acetyl groups to the lysine residues of the histone molecule is referred to as histone acetylation. These takes place in the DNA and histone and affect the activity at specific places on the DNA. These take advantage of surface tension changes in the local water and how that will impact the folding of the local DNA and packing protein.
Methylation adds a methyl group; CH3-, which is reduced and will increase surface tension in water. This make it harder to separate the DNA double helix and can render genes inactive. The addition of an acetyl group, which is very polar, to a packing protein lowers its reduction potential allowing the DNA to unwind easier for transcription. This offer a simple water based way to created cellular differentiation in multicellular life. Multicellular life has the same DNA and histone in all cells, with placement of methyl and acetyl defining the paths of least and most water resistant.
I think you have this topsy-turvy - given it is mainly many with religious beliefs that have such chips and so feel threatened, and as to why so many (as displayed here on RF) refuse to accept quite basic science or will accept that which mainstream science cannot accept - because the evidence is lacking.
Tinker Grey
Wanderer
My daughter watched a video by Forrest Valkai (really good science educator) who said exactly (at least as relayed to me) your second sentence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And this is where interpretations differ. There are many interpretations of "short history of the earth' including an interpretation that there are actually a pre-Adamic race that was before Adam was created.
The Bible isn't a history of the earth, rather the history of mankind from the point of Adam.
As I said, there are many variances in the interpretation of Genesis. One thing we are sure... it was created. Some have the faith that God did it and others have the faith that it happened all by itself.
I think it is you that is dodging when you come out like that. I have been responding and continue to do so. When you say "refused to respond" it gives you less authority when you answer. IMV
Yes, I believe there was a time when it was perfect. When you said "in direct conflict" you did not really add details... at least you didn't explain it well enough. I don't see that Genesis is in direct conflict with science. Genesis does not mention "how" He created what we see... only how He created Adam and Eve. If He created what we see through evolution... fine. We certainly see how evolution seems to have a mandate, a driving force not in contrary to what god wants.
So... there is a response and maybe you can be more civil and cogent in your responses. I know you can do it... I've seen it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hardly. The Bible is largely a book of religious tales that do not have very much to do with reality. Some of the stories can be tested to see if they are true or not. All we need to do is to assume that if God exists he does not lie.
No, you do not have evidence of a creation. That is a loaded term. It implies agency. If you want to use that term you take on a burden of proof. If you want to say that the universe as we know it had a beginning almost everyone would agree with you. That is far more neutral in approach. It neither says that a God exists or that one does not.
"Mandate"? Just admit that all of the reliable evidence supports evolution.
Talking bad about the Bible is just giving opinions.
The Bible has been shown to be authentic in many ways, no matter what opinion you have of it. It's like someone constantly talks bad about a person, but you realize that the person who speaks badly doesn't know that person, but you do. Is what the other says going to change what you think of that person?
Those who speak ill of the Bible have never studied it thoroughly, just like someone who speaks ill of someone they don't know, they have to try to get to know them better.
The Bible has been shown to be authentic in many ways, no matter what opinion you have of it. It's like someone constantly talks bad about a person, but you realize that the person who speaks badly doesn't know that person, but you do. Is what the other says going to change what you think of that person?
Those who speak ill of the Bible have never studied it thoroughly, just like someone who speaks ill of someone they don't know, they have to try to get to know them better.