What's new

Science vs. Creationism

What I said IS Biblical and NOT counter to biology!

There is nothing in the Bible that defines "kind" as "able to interbreed". There is no Biblical justification for saying there is a Biblical "feline kind" that includes house cats, lions, etc., and a separate "canine kind" that includes dogs, foxes, etc., but that the feline and canine kinds must be different. There is nothing that says all members of a kind must be able to interbreed. If you think you have something, post it. You are taking the opinions of modern men and pretending they are Biblical.

It's funny how you evolutionists want us to accept or believe that with "millions of years of time" these monstrous, galactical changes have take place but when we say that over a period of hundreds perhaps thousands of year certain "varieties" within a kind could be produced....you call us "stupid" and "fairytale believers!"

It's funny that you believe in a faster, stronger, more effective sort of evolution that the evolutionary scientists, while saying evolution is a lie.

Genesis chapter one says that each basic kind could produce offspring only “according to its kind.”

The word "only" does not appear, and is not implied by the text of, Genesis 1. You are adding words to the Bible.

Fish would forever stay fish, birds forever birds, land animals forever land animals, and humans forever humans.

Evolutionary theory says the same thing.

If evolution is true, there should be evidence of the beginnings of new structures in living things. There should have been an abundance of developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other organs and bones.

We have evidence of developing arms, legs, wings, and bones (eyes and other internal organs are almost never fossilized

This should be true in the fossil record and even in some living things today. At the very least there should be some partially developed structures somewhere!

There are some.

Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].”

Let me know the next time you see a beagle the size of a Great Dane. This oscillation can happen in nature under changing conditions, but it is not inherent to the population.
 
Conflict? I'd say inaccuracy. Let's remind ourselves of what you said that pushed me into action:
Alrighty then.
To make this even simpler, I'll just stick to the example that One Brow mentioned(and you ignored):
I'll try to be simple and succinct: the body has two proteins that it uses to shuttle oxygen around the body: hemoglobin, and myoglobin. Myoglobin and hemoglobin are extremely genetically related-- the major difference is this: hemoglobin is assembled from several similar subunits (let's call them 'globin-monomers' for the sake of this conversation) that came to fruition from gene duplication. Well, the question becomes this: what was the original function of the gene that coded for the 'globin-monomer' before it duplicated?
Answer: it was myoglobin (or it's analogue at that point in time).
Myoglobin is coded by the gene called MB here is the link for the gene info
If you want to think of it this way, 4 myoglobins that assemble together make a structure really, really similar to hemoglobin. This is how hemoglobin arose. This has been proven ad-nauseum.
Now, as anyone with some basic human physiology might know, hemoglobin and myoglobin serve completely different functions: and it's purely because of how many subunits the protein has.
Let's look at their oxygen-binding curves, to try and point out what I am talking about:
Since hemoglobin has 4 major subunits, in other words 4 spots where oxygen can bind, it has a sigmoidal curve. What this means is that it doesn't bind oxygen extremely tightly right away-- the binding is a lot more loose, and the affinity of hemoglobin to oxygen is very modifiable by factors that exist in the bloodstream (1,3 BPG, H+, etc.)
Depending on what the summated state of the subunits of hemoglobin are, it has different states that either bind oxygen tightly or release it. These two states make it possible for hemoglobin to bind oxygen tightly when it comes in through the lungs and then release it easily when it gets to the body tissues (that need the oxygen).
In contrast, myoglobin is usually more involved in the body tissues where the oxygen is used. It binds oxygen with a greater affinity than hemoglobin. This is not by accident. It receives the oxygen transported by hemoglobin and keeps it there until it is needed by the body tissue.
Hence, hemoglobin, stemming from the historic-myoglobin, now serves a different function because it's duplicated subunits make it's affinity more sensitive to oxygen levels, allowing it to take in loads of oxygen from the lungs, and give up loads of oxygen to the myglobin in the tissues, where it can then divvy up the oxygen to the tissues that need it most.

That is supposed to be simpler than 1 sentence on each of the two articles you posted? Was Brow's example even related to the two articles you posted?
I agree.
As you stated both globins where designed to shuttle oxygen around the body. What's the new function duplication brings?
 
Last edited:
...don't evolutionists believe that ALL dinosaurs disappeared at once, leaving the earth barren of living reptiles.....and then somehow started over again as croc-a-gators out of swamp slime???

This is the thing I find the hardest when we have this discussion... There are phrases and ideas that people will say about what they think the other person or groups of people belive without actually finding out themselves...

I can imagine you've heard many people say stuff about your religious belief that isn't true but gets floated out there as though it is...
 
This is the thing I find the hardest when we have this discussion... There are phrases and ideas that people will say about what they think the other person or groups of people belive without actually finding out themselves...

I can imagine you've heard many people say stuff about your religious belief that isn't true but gets floated out there as though it is...

Now you get it.
We ain't always sure about what Darwiniacs believe, and neither are they until they consult the prophets who make up the stories.
 
You seemed interested to here what the other side belives.... Guess it was just an act !!!



You are the only one who doesn't seem to fit the dogmatic atheist mold, so I WAS interested in trying to understand the reasoning behind your belief, but I've considered Darwinism an ideology all along.
 
You are the only one who doesn't seem to fit the dogmatic atheist mold, so I WAS interested in trying to understand the reasoning behind your belief, but I've considered Darwinism an ideology all along.

I'd say Dalamon and myself are the same... Both Religiously and Scientifically inclined!!!!
 
You are the only one who doesn't seem to fit the dogmatic atheist mold, so I WAS interested in trying to understand the reasoning behind your belief, but I've considered Darwinism an ideology all along.

I'm an atheist?
 
That is supposed to be simpler than 1 sentence on each of the two articles you posted? Was Brow's example even related to the two articles you posted?
I agree.


The two examples I mentioned were a bit more complex, and abstract to understand, so I went with a more relatable example that would probably be somewhat relevant, as hemoglobin is well known, and talked about lots. I went for a simpler example to explain, and understand.

Yes, I didn't oblige to your one sentence preference-- but that's because I have a tendency to try an educate, and display things in a readable, non-biased, and educational manner. Was my post hard to read & understand? If so, that wasn't the goal.
As you stated both globins where designed to shuttle oxygen around the body.
You misread my post. One shuttles it around the bloodstream (the body), the other shuttles only within tissues)
What's the new function duplication brings?

Umm, the new functionality of hemoglobin is it's ability to adjust its affinity of oxygen by binding to hydrogen ions, 1,3 BPG, and be able to carry out oxygen transfer in a body with a closed circulatory system. If your argument is that myoglobin and hemoglobin serve different functions (a hilarious argument, if so), then your argument would infer that one of them could simply replace the function of the other, which is impossible. They need to work in unison, and one cannot encompass the functions of both. Just because both genes are involved with oxygen transfer, it doesn't mean that they serve the exact same functionality. They play completely different roles in the body.
 
I'd say Dalamon and myself are the same... Both Religiously and Scientifically inclined!!!!

babe would be part of that group as well, but you actually teach the ideology.

I consider Darwinism an ideology not a science, so you've somehow been able to merge both your Mormon and Darwin ideology.

Biology/Genetics are the sciences. Darwinism is the ideology.

Population geneticist: I know of no biological data relevant to tree genetics that would require evolutionary explanations. I could easily pursue my career without ever mentioning evolution.
 
babe would be part of that group as well, but you actually teach the ideology.

I consider Darwinism an ideology not a science, so you've somehow been able to merge both your Mormon and Darwin ideology.

Biology/Genetics are the sciences. Darwinism is the ideology.

Population geneticist: I know of no biological data relevant to tree genetics that would require evolutionary explanations. I could easily pursue my career without ever mentioning evolution.

so Science is an ideology-free grasp of things?

#Amazing
 
Myoglobin and hemoglobin are extremely genetically related-- 4 myoglobins that assemble together make a structure really, really similar to hemoglobin. This is how hemoglobin arose. This has been proven ad-nauseum.

Hence, hemoglobin, stemming from the historic-myoglobin...

This premise is the problem.

You say these 2 cogs in a complex system look the same so one must have blindly arose from the other, but there is a problem with that assumption.

The two cogs work in concert, so if you don't have one of the cogs the system doesn't work in the first place.
 
babe would be part of that group as well, but you actually teach the ideology.

I consider Darwinism an ideology not a science, so you've somehow been able to merge both your Mormon and Darwin ideology.

Biology/Genetics are the sciences. Darwinism is the ideology.

Population geneticist: I know of no biological data relevant to tree genetics that would require evolutionary explanations. I could easily pursue my career without ever mentioning evolution.

I actually teach "the modern synthesis of evolution" which takes a lot of ideas first presented by Darwin and Wallace, but their ideas presented 150 years ago aren't complete specifically cause they didn't have the pleasure of knowing about genetics!!!
 
This premise is the problem.

lol k...

You say these 2 cogs in a complex system look the same so one must have blindly arose from the other, but there is a problem with that assumption.

It's obvious that your knowledge of genetics is lacking, as you approach this 'cog-issue' in a narrow, one-dimensional manner. You need to find better justifications of ID tbh.

The two cogs work in concert, so if you don't have one of the cogs the system doesn't work in the first place.

maybe both cogs were created before the sophisticated circulation system was developed. Maybe the cog served an alternative function (at a less efficient rate) upon its creation, but it ended up being best suited for its eventual role. Expand your scope of possibilities, Pearl.

An excerpt from a paper that talks about Hb evolution:
The amino acid sequences of the α- and β-globins are approximately 50% identical, regardless of which vertebrate species is the source, arguing that these two genes are descended from a common ancestor approximately 450 million years ago, in the ancestral
jawed vertebrate (Goodman et al. 1987). Both α- and β-globins are about equally divergent from the monomeric myoglobin, an oxygen storage and delivery protein found in many tissues. It lacks the exquisite cooperativity of the blood hemoglobins, but its relationship to them is clear from both the primary sequence and the virtually identical three-dimensional structures, each containing the globin fold (Dickerson and Geis, 1983)
 
Still waiting on Pearl to justify my label in her eyes as an atheist Darwinist.
 
In the context of this argument it would be nutrigenetics, not nutrigenomics. It's an important difference.

Both disciplines were touched on.

What babe was talking about was nutrigenomics. The idea that increased starch led to increased gene duplication within a subject.

Your chart represents nutrigenetics. Comparison between populations in amount of duplication.
 
lol k...
It's obvious that your knowledge of genetics is lacking, as you approach this 'cog-issue' in a narrow, one-dimensional manner. You need to find better justifications of ID tbh.
maybe both cogs were created before the sophisticated circulation system was developed. Maybe the cog served an alternative function (at a less efficient rate) upon its creation, but it ended up being best suited for its eventual role. Expand your scope of possibilities, Pearl.

Maybe...maybe....you should take your own advice. It could ultimately lead to being a better practitioner.

The cog analogy originated from a dude with more knowledge in genetics than you, and is no more narrow than the underlying assumptions of Darwinism are, so don't worry about my "justifications."

Your use of the word creation conflicts with your Darwinian framework, so it is a barrier to my understanding your perspective.
 
Still waiting on Pearl to justify my label in her eyes as an atheist Darwinist.

2 reasons I didn't consider you when I made that statement:

You seemed more concerned about showing off your genetics knowledge than being a Darwin missionary...until now.

If you believe in a god who requires abstinence or sobriety of you, I don't understand your resistance to even the possibility of design, unless you are really an atheist at heart.
 
Back
Top