1. 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!

Featured The Wild Experiment That Showed Evolution in Real Time

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Kangaroo Feathers, Feb 6, 2019.

  1. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,044
    Ratings:
    +6,564
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I believe what I've been told because I've also made plenty of observations and participated in plenty of experiments that support what I've been told. When you have any experimental evidence backing up your assertions, be sure to let us know.
    False dichotomy. "Random process" and "intelligence" aren't the only two options. The third, "natural selection", explains the observed phenomena better than the other two.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    10,075
    Ratings:
    +3,090
    Religion:
    Christian
    Isn't it fascinating that humankind has a brain and that's a problem for fundamentalist Christians.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Ratings:
    +3,732
    Religion:
    atheist
    Try to stay on topic...

    All I asked for was your definition of life.
     
  4. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Ratings:
    +3,732
    Religion:
    atheist
    I don't know if that is true or not. If anything, the arguments I have seen center on the various critters that creationists have assigned to the various kinds. Nevertheless, you folks have had thousands of years to very specifically define your understanding of your unchanging kinds, so there should be no confusion whatsoever.

    Why should that be troubling? Science has refined the methodology for assigning critters to species as new information becomes available. DNA analysis has had a major impact. DNA analysis was not available 75 years ago.

    I do realize that one of the things that makes creationism so attractive to many people is its simplisticism. It's just so easy to read a short book once and "know" all that needs to be known.

    It's much harder to get an advanced education and do actual research.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Ratings:
    +3,732
    Religion:
    atheist
    Bait and switch? Hardly. We are discussing science vs creationism. Analyzing tree rings is science. Determining the age of trees by analyzing tree rings is science.

    Determining the age of fossils and rocks uses a process called radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is science. Radiometric dating is based on the knowledge of one aspect of the nature of atoms. This knowledge comes from physics and has been around for over a century.

    I do know that you hope and pray that physics is wrong, but it isn't. All experiments done in the past 100 years confirm the fact that certain elements have specific half-lives.


    But it didn't and they don't.

    What's your point? Had you been born last year, you could not be typing on a computer keyboard. Had Marcion won out, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You do know who Marcion is, don't you?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    10,075
    Ratings:
    +3,090
    Religion:
    Christian
    The guy who claimed the God of the OT and the God of the NT were not the same?
     
  7. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Ratings:
    +3,732
    Religion:
    atheist
    You are absolutely right.

    However, over the next two thousand years, many things changed. The tools people had to study nature improved. With new and better tools our knowledge advanced.

    What you believe, and would have us believe, is that the knowledge of people 4000 years before Ptolemy was more accurate than the knowledge of Ptolemy and more accurate than the knowledge of people today. That's at once sad and ludicrous.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Ratings:
    +3,732
    Religion:
    atheist
    [sarcasm]
    Yep. It's truly amazing that better tools led to a better understanding of the universe. Who could have foreseen that?
    [/sarcasm]

    What is really strange is that you criticize Ptolemy for his outdated and incorrect views and still cling to the even more outdated and incorrect views of your Genesis.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Ratings:
    +3,732
    Religion:
    atheist
    Yep, that Marcion.

    But I'd still like to hear from OurTruthSeeker.
     
  10. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,838
    Ratings:
    +3,728
    Where did you come up with that and what are you referring to, specifically?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  11. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,952
    Ratings:
    +3,419
    I'm normally reluctant to show science to creationists, but this is just too easy....

    Transposons are a type of genetic parasite that replicates only in the genetic material of their host. However, unlike viruses, they don’t have genes for viral coat proteins and can’t cross cellular boundaries. Also, transposons come in two general categories: retrotransposons and DNA transposons. Retrotransposons replicate via “copy-n-paste” (they use RNA to make a copy of themselves, which is inserted elsewhere in the genome). DNA transposons move about via “cut-n-paste” (they use an enzyme to cut themselves out of the genome and then reinsert themselves somewhere else in the genome). In both cases the location of the insertion/reinsertion is random. This has been directly observed to have happened to many organisms (e.g. yeast, humans, bacterial, flies).

    If the genetic material of the transposon is inserted directly into the host’s genome in a germ line cell (an egg or sperm), all the descendants of the host will inherit this material. Additionally, because the location of insertion is random, the only way two organisms would share the same transposons in the exact same locations is if they shared a common ancestor. Therefore, if common descent is accurate, we should be able to predict, based on the phylogenetic tree, which organisms will share transposons and their genetic locations.

    A common class of retrotransposon are SINEs (short interspersed elements). One important SINE is the Alu element. Alu elements are around 300 base pairs long, and are commonly used in paternity testing and in criminal forensics to identify individuals and establish relatedness. They are reliable identifiers because of what I discussed above, namely that the only reason two individuals would share the exact same particular Alu sequence insertion is if they share a common ancestor.

    About 2,000 Alu insertions are specific to humans, and an even larger number are shared with other primates. But more specifically, in the human alpha-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and each one is shared with chimpanzees in the exact same seven locations!

    Evolution of Alu family repeats since the divergence of human and chimpanzee. - PubMed - NCBI

    So again, the same methodology that allows us to determine paternity and relatedness in courts of law also allows us to show that humans, chimpanzees, and other primates share a common ancestry. Therefore one can argue that this bit of evidence “proves” human/primate shared ancestry in the same way the same evidence “proves” paternity in courts of law.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    "
    Additionally, because the location of insertion is random, the only way two organisms would share the same transposons in the exact same locations is if they shared a common ancestor. Therefore, if common descent is accurate, we should be able to predict, based on the phylogenetic tree, which organisms will share transposons and their genetic locations."

    Not a logical conclussion.....

    "DNA transposons move about via “cut-n-paste” (they use an enzyme to cut themselves out of the genome and then reinsert themselves somewhere else in the genome). In both cases the location of the insertion/reinsertion is random. This has been directly observed to have happened to many organisms (e.g. yeast, humans, bacterial, flies)."

    It is quite possible that regardless if it is random, that they would cut and paste themselves into the same locations...

    How do evolutionsist put it. that what we think is design is simply a random occurrence having the appearance of design??? What, don't like applying your own arguments to yourself? What you think means common descent is simply the random appearance of common descent.....

    Now I will be happy to let you demolish your own argument, as long as you realize you are demolishing the argument against design at the same time......

    You "assume" you know their starting point, even though you have directly observed them cutting and pasting themselves insertion/reinsertion randomly. According to evolution theory randomness can lead to an appearance of order where none actually exists.....

    Now if every single organism shared these exact same location, instead of just several...... and I know you are not going to claim that, are you??????

    And don't bring odds into the discussion unless you want to talk about the odds of even one transition from non-life to life or one mutation making a positive change as well..... which you don't mind accepting even if astronomical.....
     
    #152 Justatruthseeker, Mar 8, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019
  13. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,952
    Ratings:
    +3,419
    That makes no sense at all and is inherently contradictory. Further, are you now arguing that relatedness testing is fatally flawed and we should overturn all court rulings that have relied on this methodology?

    That's total gibberish.

    More nonsensical gibberish.

    None of that makes any sense relative to the point.

    You cited genetic testing in courts of law being used to determine relatedness and I showed how the same methodology also shows that humans and chimps are related. All your hand-waving and gibberish does not change that fundamental fact.
     
  14. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,346
    Ratings:
    +871
    Religion:
    nature
    You completely misunderstand the difficulty with the definition of species and the functional use of the word species. Yes there are flaws in the word which was pointed out in the book "Origin of Species". Darwin himself recognized the issues but the use of the word still, but also recognized it is still useful. Evolutionary theory would predict the problem with the word species but there remains a useful functional understanding of the word that allows us to communicate. It is more difficult to find a good definition for religion however than it is to find a definition of species that is useful.
     
  15. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    Apparently you didn't actually read what I posted on this subject. I am stating relatedness testing is just fine and has been proven to work......

    I am claiming the different test you use to claim relatedness is pseudoscience...... It's funny you should mention this since the test used in a court of law to prove relatedness or guilt of a suspect is not the same test used to CLAIM relatedness when in comes to monkeys, mice, and men.... At no time has anyone ever took a segment of the genome and then used an algorithm to randomly compare it to a segment not even in the same location and used it to prove relatedness or guilt of a suspect....

    That's the old bait and switch routine. Use a known test that has been confirmed, then use a totally different test instead of a proven one and then claim it is as valid as the first one.... So ask yourself, since one test has already been proven in a court of law to work in showing relatedness, why you all find it necessary to not use that test, and instead use one that relies on randomly comparing the genome with algorithms?????

    Perhaps because the proven one doesn't show what you claim about relatedness?

    I agree, your above argument is totally gibberish since the same test you understand has been proven to show relatedness or guilt of a suspect isn't used at all....


    You showed nothing of the kind since the test used in courts of law is not even the same test you used to claim relatedness between humans and monkeys.

    You showed you have been fooled by a bait and switch and were unable to tell the difference and are unaware that you were fooled..... That or you knowingly participated in the attempted bait and switch????? So which is it????
     
    #155 Justatruthseeker, Mar 9, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2019
  16. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    Yes, the flaw would be in following the definition you couldn't claim anything to be a separate species on any pretense you like....

    And yet I expect on many occasions you have asked creationists what a "Kind" is then derided them because it is difficult to classify anything????

    Oh no I realize the difficulty when someone has 26 definitions of what a species is.... but science is science precisely because it is precise......

    It isn't useful at all when you classify certain things as the same species simply because they mate, and then classify other things as separate species even when they are mating right in front of your eyes. that isn't useful, that is just pure contradiction and renders your use of species totally useless... by your own refusal to be consistent.... Because we all know you wouldn't want to classify Darwin's finches correctly and show Darwin's entire theory basically started from a mistaken classification.....
     
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,702
    Ratings:
    +11,229
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Only if the rate of selection is larger than the rate for mutation to restore variance. Humans tend to put a LOT of selection pressure and force change over very few generations. Yes, that can use up the available variation in the population. But it is the role of mutation to restore that variation. If the changes are slow enough, the variance stays the same and continued change is possible.

    But it is true that forcing change too fast can lead to problems, including extinction. This is why most species that have ever existed are now extinct.

    How fast are these breeds produced? How does that compare to the standard mutation rate?
     
  18. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,702
    Ratings:
    +11,229
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    There is an inherent problem with the notion of species when looked at over geological time. We cannot determine whether two animals a million years apart could interbreed or not, so we are limited to morphology to determine relatedness.

    The different notions of species are to make the distinctions more clear, not to confuse the issue. SO, when someone talks of a morphospecies, it is known what the criteria are and how they differ from a cladospecies.
     
  19. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,702
    Ratings:
    +11,229
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Ptolemy was prior to the development of the scientific method of testing as well as way before the development of effective instruments for collecting data. He also based his views on the *untested* physics of Aristotle, and a false view about how small the universe was.

    And even without those benefits, it was clear pretty soon after Ptolemy that his model was not very accurate. It did not predict the positions of the planets even to the accuracy available to those without telescopes.

    So, we have a set of beliefs based on a false philosophy, tprior to the rise of science, hat are a first attempt to organize the massive amount of data, that are quickly found to be a poor approximation, and that didn't have the ability to collect more accurate data.

    To me, that looks like what happened with creationism. It was the default prior to the rise of the scientific method, was based on a faulty philosophy, was popular before more accurate data was available, and was quickly realized to be a poor description when deeper study was done (in the early 1800's).

    In both cases, once people found new methods of collecting data (telescopes, microscopes, etc), the faults in the old view were quickly revealed and a new set of ideas (heliocentrism, change of species over time) replaced them. In both cases, the new set of ideas have changed over time to accommodate new data (genetics, relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry), but the core has stood firm under extensive scientific testing.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,702
    Ratings:
    +11,229
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Not so much, no. He made the same mistakes and based his ideas on faulty physics (Aristotelian notions of causality, force, natural motion, etc). His model was realized to give rather poor results quickly, but maintained because of a misguided philosophy. That is more like what happens with creationism than anything else.
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...