Science vs. Creationism

[One Brow]

"Genetic literature on the subject often confuses mutations with alleles, or even mutations with recombinations. The finding of an allele that is useful for some purpose is not the equivalent of demonstrating a positive mutation — similarly when the find concerns a useful recombinant of alleles existing in the gene pool."

Lenski's experiments found beneficial mutations in some generations not present in their prior generations.

 

[One Brow]

Your source says this but duplication ain't new information...it is more information, like 2 copies of the same book would have more words, but not new words. (you can learn this from information theory).

Information theory says the opposite. Given a single letter "k" and some measure of information, then for any chosen amount of information m, you can create a string x where the difference in information between xk and xkx is larger than m. There is no limit to the amount of information that can be added by gene duplication.

 

[One Brow]

A book is inanimate.

Even so, it's false for books.

https://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/01/test-your-knowledge-of-information.html

 

[One Brow]

The analogy is sound since I took it straight from the theory.

I will give you enough credit to assume you took it straight from Dembski, or one of his acolytes, and assumed Dembski was telling you the truth.

Dembski was not telling you the truth. He is lying to you, and giving you a false understanding of information theory. He is counting on your lack of education in actual information theory to make himself sound plausible. He is playing you for a fool.

 

[One Brow]

Wait, wait, wait, wait, so if you claim something, tell people the EXACT way you did it, others try (which is what peer review is about) and nobobdy replicates the result, you consider that a fallacy with peer review? It's like saying you did an experiment and 2+2 ended up being 5 and when everyone else does it, they get 4. If that were to happen to me, I'd try to replicate the results again.

Peer reviewers rarely try to duplicate the experiments directly, to my understanding. They look over the numbers, try to find holes in the logic, and see if the stated conclusions can be drawn from the results, when they are doing their job correctly.

 

[One Brow]

I said "Peer Review" isn't part of the scientific method as it was defined a few decades ago. And that's the fact. It is not publication in a "Peer-Reviewed" journal that makes a result valid, it is actual validity. And in "Science" there is no person or authority that can make a result valid. You and many others today mistake state sanction for validity.

Peer review not a state sanction, unless you call inviting golfers to the Masters tournament a state sanction. Peer review is not regressive nor repressive. The truth is that most experiments that produce revolutionary results do so from experimenter error (e.g., the not-really-faster-than-light neutrinos of a few years ago), and peer review is a vital part of sorting these errors out.

 

[carolinajazz]

Your source says this but duplication ain't new information...it is more information, like 2 copies of the same book would have more words, but not new words.

...excellent point! Evolutionist state OVER and OVER and OVER again the same discarded ideas of how this MIGHT have happened or possibly COULD have happened...and then expect a reasoning mind to accept the hogwash just because they've repeated it once again!

 

[Deleted member 848]

Pearl why did you ignore my retort on plasmids?

No surprise that you escaped that conversation while you could

 

[Deleted member 848]

babe is right in terms of peer-reviewing-- it's a process with many holes. Scientific research's contemporary fascination with novelty completely compensates the reproducibility of experiments.

 

[♪alt13]

I was hoping for a more authoritate or scholarly source. . . ..

BTW, I did the wiki on Behe. Funny I didn't know who he is already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

yah, he's human. yah, his views are not endorsed by an entrenched orthodoxy or a fascist State. yah, the entrenched atheists who want to dictate our educational curriculum are gonna run him down. And some commies are anti-Semitic, too. He's not just a stupid man and he is working on an idea that he thinks is important.

I loled at the "equal" part.

Easy. Because the evidence supports those theories.

I don't need Darwinian evolution to be false to be a God-believer, it is atheists who need it to be true. "Darwinism is the greatest engine of atheism devised by man."

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

I am certain that at least 90% of the people on school boards across the nation are christian. This conspiracy theory makes zero sense. Evolution is taught in schools because of the evidence for it.

I am not an atheist because of I think evolution happened or vice versa. I am an atheist because I don't find god to be a very compelling or logical explanation for anything. You are both(to my knowledge) Ganesh atheists, Zeus atheists, and Krishna atheists. It is no big deal. You just don't believe in their gods. You're not out to get Hindus, ancient greeks, or HAre Krishnas, just as I am not out to get you.

 

[cowhide]

...excellent point! Evolutionist state OVER and OVER and OVER again the same discarded ideas of how this MIGHT have happened or possibly COULD have happened...and then expect a reasoning mind to accept the hogwash just because they've repeated it once again!

Yes, religious people state OVER and OVER and OVER again the same discarded ideas of how this MIGHT have happened or possibly COULD have happened.. and then expect a reasoning mind to accept the hogwash just because they've written it in some fairy tale book.

 

[♪alt13]

I was hoping for a more authoritate or scholarly source. . . ..

BTW, I did the wiki on Behe. Funny I didn't know who he is already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

yah, he's human. yah, his views are not endorsed by an entrenched orthodoxy or a fascist State. yah, the entrenched atheists who want to dictate our educational curriculum are gonna run him down. And some commies are anti-Semitic, too. He's not just a stupid man and he is working on an idea that he thinks is important.

well, the point of the "guy on the right" is sustained even here, on two very important counts you seem to have missed.

You have sorta "extrapolated" from the actual findings of this study, stating as a conclusion what is reported as a possibility. You say "here are a bunch of beneficial mutations" when the abstract only asserts that a certain class of observations might be



candidates for beneficial mutations. Clearly the researchers are staying on solid ground and are not asserting anything not yet demonstrated.

And clearly, these researchers are validating "the guy on the right" in the assertion that beneficial mutations are rare. More to the point, you should listen to his comments another time and notice that he is further "right" on the issue of alleles, not just "mutations".

while the physicist, "the guy on the left", doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

The link had more than one example.

 

[carolinajazz]

Yes, religious people state OVER and OVER and OVER again the same discarded ideas of how this MIGHT have happened or possibly COULD have happened.. and then expect a reasoning mind to accept the hogwash just because they've written it in some fairy tale book.

....a "fairy tale book?" The first chapter of the Bible gives partial details of some vital steps that God took to prepare the earth for human enjoyment. The chapter does not give every detail; as we read it, we should not be put off if it omits particulars that ancient readers could not have comprehended anyway. For example, in writing that chapter, Moses did not report the function of microscopic algae or bacteria. Such forms of life first came into human view after the invention of the microscope, in the 16th century. Nor did Moses specifically report on dinosaurs, whose existence was deduced from fossils in the 19th century. Instead, Moses was inspired to use words that could be understood by people of his day—but words that were accurate in all they said about earth’s creation.

Animal life would depend upon chloroplasts for survival. Also, without green vegetation, earth’s atmosphere would be overly rich in carbon dioxide, and we would die from heat and lack of oxygen. Some specialists give astonishing explanations for the development of life dependent on photosynthesis. For example, they say that when single-celled organisms in the water began to run out of food, “a few pioneering cells finally invented a solution. They arrived at photosynthesis.” But could that really be so? Photosynthesis is so complex that scientists are still attempting to unravel its secrets. Do you think that self-reproducing photosynthetic life arose inexplicably and spontaneously? Or do you find it more reasonable to believe that it exists as a result of intelligent, purposeful creation, as Genesis reports?

In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time!

Can you really put faith in this account of creation and the prospects it holds out? As we noted, modern genetic research is moving toward the conclusion stated in the Bible long ago. Also, some scientists have taken note of the order of events presented in Genesis. For example, noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time!

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/alien-code-in-human-genes_n_3034876.html

The scientists are suggesting that an advanced alien civilization "seeded" our galaxy eons ago with an ET signal that eventually found its way to Earth, implanting a genetic code into humans, reports Discovery.com.

Physicist Vladimir I. shCherbak of al-Farabi Kazakh National University of Kazakhstan and astrobiologist Maxim A. Makukov of the Fesenkvo Astrophysical Institute refer to this far-out concept as "biological SETI."

The results of their research -- "The 'Wow! signal' of the terrestrial genetic code" -- can be found in the peer-reviewed journal, Icarus.

Peer reviewed. Gotta be real science.

 

[MVP]

...For example, noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time!

False yet again. Aren't you tired beating the same dead mule all over again? Birds appeared milllions of years after land creatures. Enough is enough - Bible is proven wrong so many times that is is not even funny anymore. Maybe we should touch subject of immaculate conception and virgin birth???
Oh and were do you find these old geezers as your reference source?
Wallace Everette Pratt (1885–1981) was a pioneer American petroleum geologist. He died at age of 96 (33 years ago). So basically last time he had any common sense in his old brain was about 50 years ago. Nice source. As always.

 

[One Brow]

Reports about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it.

There was no ancestral Adam. There was a most recent patrilineal ancestor, which means if you go back using only male ancestry, you eventually reach a single individual (this is a mathematical statement more than a scientific one). Other men would have existed at this same time. There was also a most recent matrilineal ancestor, who lived about 600,000 years later than the patrilineal male ancestor.

 

[cowhide]

....a "fairy tale book?" The first chapter of the Bible gives partial details of some vital steps that God took to prepare the earth for human enjoyment. The chapter does not give every detail; as we read it, we should not be put off if it omits particulars that ancient readers could not have comprehended anyway. For example, in writing that chapter, Moses did not report the function of microscopic algae or bacteria. Such forms of life first came into human view after the invention of the microscope, in the 16th century. Nor did Moses specifically report on dinosaurs, whose existence was deduced from fossils in the 19th century. Instead, Moses was inspired to use words that could be understood by people of his day—but words that were accurate in all they said about earth’s creation.

Animal life would depend upon chloroplasts for survival. Also, without green vegetation, earth’s atmosphere would be overly rich in carbon dioxide, and we would die from heat and lack of oxygen. Some specialists give astonishing explanations for the development of life dependent on photosynthesis. For example, they say that when single-celled organisms in the water began to run out of food, “a few pioneering cells finally invented a solution. They arrived at photosynthesis.” But could that really be so? Photosynthesis is so complex that scientists are still attempting to unravel its secrets. Do you think that self-reproducing photosynthetic life arose inexplicably and spontaneously? Or do you find it more reasonable to believe that it exists as a result of intelligent, purposeful creation, as Genesis reports?

In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time!

Can you really put faith in this account of creation and the prospects it holds out? As we noted, modern genetic research is moving toward the conclusion stated in the Bible long ago. Also, some scientists have taken note of the order of events presented in Genesis. For example, noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time!

Yes, a fairy tale book including a invisible jealous hateful GOD, burning bushes, a talking snake, a man eating fish with the man surviving to tell the tale, the great flood that contained 2 of every living species (wow that was some big boat) and a person who walks on water, tales of rising from the dead and a virgin birth. Stories taken or copied from other pagan religions all written and voted on by ordinary people deciding what was and is sacred. Besides has there ever been a person who has survived 2-3 days in side of a fish and lived? I have witnessed bushes burning but never have they talked to me. IF God does exists do you really think he would be so hateful and jealous as is recorded in the Bible. I hope that GOD (if there is one) would be above human pettiness since he is all knowing why would he/she be otherwise? You are entitled to believe it is sacred and from GOD just like I am entitled to believe it is a fairy tale.


As far as the Newsweek article, How does that prove the "truthfulness" of the bible? I would guess that most people believe that there was a first man and women. Some believed they evolved and there is plenty of science to back that up. While you used this article as "implied/proof" that the bible was right on, in reality they were wrong, Adam and Eve were not the first people on the planet and the writers of the Bible were simply writing their own history in a very small place on the planet. I wouldn't think that they would be aware of anyone else due to a lack of technology and understanding. I guess GOD could have told authors of the Bible there were other people long before Adam and Eve but he didn't since the Bible claims that Adam and Eve were the first. I won't even talk about the fact that you just proved the bible wrong because you said that there is an ancestral father ( don't know if this is true) and mother over 600,000 years ago not 6,000 like bible thumpers believe. Perhaps the truth is that the book was written by infallible men who had no knowledge of the outside world and its mysteries. I see the Newsweek actually contradicting your claim of "how would they know?"

William Pratt is dead and buried. That is the best source you have.
I think the sequence of creation has already been discounted in previous comments on this thread.

 

[PearlWatson]

Pearl why did you ignore my retort on plasmids?

No surprise that you escaped that conversation while you could

I didn't. It got lost in the shuffle.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?24905-Science-vs-Creationism&p=797954&viewfull=1#post797954

 

[carolinajazz]

Oh and were do you find these old geezers as your reference source?
Wallace Everette Pratt (1885–1981) was a pioneer American petroleum geologist. He died at age of 96 (33 years ago). So basically last time he had any common sense in his old brain was about 50 years ago. Nice source. As always.

Oh, so your quoting and using Darwin who died decades before Pratt makes more sense and is more creditable than my source? Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander! Besides, this guy has FAR more degrees and awards than your clown! Below is just a list.....an arm long.....I might add!

Graduated from the University of Kansas in 1907 with a bachelor's degree. Among the most notable early contributions made by Pratt and his staff were geological studies that led to the correct interpretation of the structure of the huge Mexia field, discovered in October 1920 in East Texas.

Pratt also played a prominent role in the scientific progress of his profession. He was the first recipient of the AAPG's Sidney Powers Memorial Award, awarded in 1945.

In 1972 he received the AAPG's Human Needs Award. He also received the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers' Anthony F. Lucas Medal in 1948, and the American Petroleum Institute's Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement in 1954.

 

[One Brow]

Oh, so your quoting and using Darwin ...

To my knowledge, the only person in this thread who has quoted Darwin as a source for current evolutionary theory is PearlWatson.