tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2969901802454538599..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Rapid Origin of Domesticated ChickenUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11189306572778192642012-03-05T10:38:59.530-08:002012-03-05T10:38:59.530-08:00Do you speak jive?Do you speak jive?Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216381429665486830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83958133840773423332012-03-04T19:15:03.869-08:002012-03-04T19:15:03.869-08:00Nat: Natural selection substitutes in nature for s...Nat: Natural selection substitutes in nature for selective breeding done by humans. But if artificial selective is actually epigenetic, and not the result of random mutations selectied for desirable traits, then that would undermine Darwin's whole theory.<br /><br />Nat, you seem to be confused. <br /><br />Adaptive mechanisms are in themselves, adaptations which require knowledge of what changes to make, under what conditions, etc. As such, the question remains, what was the origin of this knowledge?<br /><br />This would only be a problem for evolution if the knowledge of which adaptations to make, when to make them, etc., was spontaneously generated or had always existed, rather than having been created by conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. <br /><br />An example would be observations that the vast majority of biological adaptions were epigenetic. <br /><br />Another problem for evolution would be observations that the vast majority of mutations were advantageous. <br /><br />For example, when human beings finds themselves in a environment with little to no vitamin-c, their genes do not consistently mutate to enable the ability to synthesize vitamin-c, which is then passed on to their offspring. Instead, they die of scurvy.<br /><br />If their genes did mutate, it would because they were a geneticist with access to the knowledge of what genes result in the ability to synthesize vitamin-c, how to enable just those genes, while leaving the rest unaffected, etc.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82581034813789288412012-03-04T03:22:56.251-08:002012-03-04T03:22:56.251-08:00Evolutionists resisted and denied these findings u...<i>Evolutionists resisted and denied these findings using the usual tactics of intimidation, dismissal, blackballing, and manipulation of the science.</i><br /><br />I ask again: which persons (who have provided evidence for epigenesis) were intimidated, dismissed, blackballed? What instances of “manipulation of the science” (whatever that means) have been found?Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23579021478452595482012-03-03T17:39:37.063-08:002012-03-03T17:39:37.063-08:00Didn't Darwin base his whole idea of natural s...Didn't Darwin base his whole idea of natural selection on the artificial selection scene in domesticated animals? Natural selection substitutes in nature for selective breeding done by humans. But if artificial selective is actually epigenetic, and not the result of random mutations selectied for desirable traits, then that would undermine Darwin's whole theory.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73589931087850418292012-03-03T13:25:52.056-08:002012-03-03T13:25:52.056-08:00Meanwhile scientists were discovering, much to the...<i>Meanwhile scientists were discovering, much to the chagrin of evolutionists, that populations adapt rapidly via intelligent encodings in the genome.</i><br /><br />Once again, the evidence SCREAMS "Design".National Velourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15142359587875219081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55117350913144014162012-03-03T11:56:14.635-08:002012-03-03T11:56:14.635-08:00I wrote: This is because one could more simply sta...I wrote: This is because one could more simply state organisms "just appeared', complete with the knowledge of how to adapt cells to environmental challenges, already present.<br /><br />While Cornelius continually attempts to misrepresent evolutionary theory as the above, this is not the case. <br /><br />The underlying explanation of evolutionary theory is that this knowledge was created by conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. <br /><br />On the other hand, "cdesign proponentsists" claim no explanation can be provided. This is so they can wedge the door open far enough for their preferred supernatural "cdesigner". <br /><br />Creationism is misleadingly named. It's not a theory that explains how this knowledge is created. Rather, it is the opposite in that it denies that creation happened, in really. Iit does so by pushing the origin of this knowledge into an explanation-less realm. <br /><br />As such, creationism is actually creation denial, as was Lamarkiism, etc.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2864150727657609432012-03-03T11:39:09.174-08:002012-03-03T11:39:09.174-08:00CH: Meanwhile scientists were discovering, much to...CH: Meanwhile scientists were discovering, much to the chagrin of evolutionists, that populations adapt rapidly via intelligent encodings in the genome. It has little to do with random variations as evolutionists had expected, but instead involves incredible biological machinery that rapidly respond to environmental challenges, using an amazing variety of techniques. <br /><br />Much to the chagrin of evolutionists? <br /><br />First, Cornelius is attempting to conflate researchers who are searching for cures to diseases people suffer from today, with "evolutionists" who are supposedly chagrined over their theory explaining more phenomena and becoming more accurate. <br /><br />Since it's supposedly based on divine revelation, one wouldn't expect prophecy to explain more phenomena or become more accurate. However, this isn't the case for scientific theories. In fact, it's unclear why Cornelius would assume this is the case, or why he'd hold evolution to the same criteria as prophecy, unless he assumes divine revelation is the gold standard of justifying conclusions. <br /><br />Second, if a cell can rapidly respond to environmental challenges using an amazing variety of techniques on it's own, this ability would require the cell itself contain those techniques, and when to apply them, in the form of knowledge. This is in contrast to an external abstract designer adapting the cell based on the designer's own knowledge. <br /><br />In other words, the origin of the ability to adapt is the origin of the knowledge used to perform the adaptations, not merely claiming the knowledge was previously "here" then moved "there" <br /><br />So, the question becomes, how was this knowledge created? Did it always exist? Did it spontaneously appear?<br /><br />Merely saying the designer, "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to adapt cells to environmental challenges, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more simply state organisms "just appeared', complete with the knowledge of how to adapt cells to environmental challenges, already present.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71514262598397865072012-03-03T09:33:03.264-08:002012-03-03T09:33:03.264-08:00CH -
But their expectations were soon dashed as ...CH - <br /><br /><b>But their expectations were soon dashed as mutations inevitably proved not to be a source of rich new biological innovation but rather of organic chaos and disaster.</b><br /><br />Who exactly did NOT expect to find deleterious mutations? Name a single person to whom evidence that deleterious mutations exist was a revelation.<br /><br />It is absolutely part of natural selction that many are produced and only the fit survive. So why should 'evolutionists' expect to find only beneficial mutations? That runs entirely counter to the whole principle of survival of the fittest.<br /><br /><b>As usual evolutionists did not doubt their theory, but instead adjusted their hypotheses into the realm of the unfalsifiable.</b><br /><br />No part of ToE is unfalsifiable. Not now, not at any point in the past.<br /><br />Unless you are referring (as you usually are) specifically to the assumption of naturalism. Which is an assumption ALL OF SCIENCE makes and you have no reason to single out ToE for particular criticism for adopting it. <br /><br />Face it, you are not just anti-evolution, you are anti-science.<br /><br /><b>Yes mutations wrought havoc, but there must be those very rare cases that move toward biology’s new and fantastic designs. Wait long enough and the frog turns into a prince.</b><br /><br />An assertion which has been beautifully demonstrated in meticulous detail. Don't pretend it hasn't been:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment<br /><br /><b>Meanwhile scientists were discovering, much to the chagrin of evolutionists...</b><br /><br />Love the way you persist in insisting scientists and evolutionists are different people.<br /><br />It true that a scientist doesn't HAVE to accept ToE, but the overwhelming majority of them do, and it is wholly supported by every single reputable scientific institute.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve<br /><br />This is nothing more than a snide tactic from Cornelius to give the impression that evolutionists are somehow not scientists, or at least not 'proper' scientists. <br /><br />This is staggering projection.<br /><br />The VAST majority of scientists are 'evolutionists', so much so that it is pretty much a nonsense to use the term. There are simply no credible scientists who oppose it at all. We might as well refer to physicists as 'gravityists'. The ONLY challenge (and I use the word loosely since in academic circles it is no challenge at all) to evolution comes from religious quarters, even ones that like to dress up and pretend they are sceintists like the Discovery Institute.<br /><br /><b>Evolutionists resisted and denied these findings using the usual tactics of intimidation, dismissal, blackballing, and manipulation of the science.</b><br /><br />Examples... Scources... Anything to prove this isn't a complete fabrication...<br /><br /><b>Were not such epigenetic mechanisms limited to physiological change within a lifetime?</b><br /><br />A testimony to how little Cornelius understands evolution that he thinks epigenetics is a challenge to it at all.<br /><br />In fact it is part of modern evolutionary theory.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics<br /><br /><b>While this is yet another failure of evolutionary theory...</b><br /><br />...no, it is nothing of the sort...<br /><br /><b>If evolution is true, then all kinds of random events must have occurred which much later would serendipitously aid the cause of evolution.</b><br /><br />Seriously? <br /><br />Come on Cornelius, this is poor, even for you. Evolution is not random chance. This is page 1 of Evolution for Dummies stuff:<br /><br />http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evonotchance.htmlRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29600229783663835802012-03-03T06:39:49.517-08:002012-03-03T06:39:49.517-08:00Hunter on epigenetics:
Evolutionists resisted and...Hunter on epigenetics:<br /><br /><i>Evolutionists resisted and denied these findings using the usual tactics of intimidation, dismissal, blackballing, and manipulation of the science.</i><br /><br />Really? Can Hunter document those claims? Names of perpetrators and victims and details of their interactions, please.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17541583569186220902012-03-03T06:29:15.343-08:002012-03-03T06:29:15.343-08:00Cornelius,
What a great article! Thanks for pos...Cornelius,<br /><br /><br />What a great article! Thanks for posting this.<br /><br /><b><br />It is yet another example of why it is, frankly, amazing that evolutionists continue in their dogmatic claims. <br /></b><br /><br />Yes, it is amazing. But once one has willfully rejected any possibility of Almighty God, the Supreme Creator of the universe and life, all that is left for such a person is insanity, foolishness, stupidity and blind faith in scientifically impossible naturalistic miracles to explain why we are here.wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80613525949711555392012-03-03T05:54:34.350-08:002012-03-03T05:54:34.350-08:00Don't call me ShirleyDon't call me Shirleyvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58593529870672423682012-03-03T03:45:33.364-08:002012-03-03T03:45:33.364-08:00I am not knowledgable about these intimate concept...I am not knowledgable about these intimate concepts but this YEC is convinced there was and must be innate triggers to allow sudden and important biological change.<br />I insist marsupials are just placentals <br />So they changed greatly suddenly in local areas based on innate triggers.<br />The evidence leads to this conclusion.<br />This change likewise would have like dna change.<br />I see marine mammals as indeed post flood creatures from pairs off the Ark.<br />Therefore I am sure mechanism is there to be discovered unless it was only at the start that it existed.<br />The great evidence for innate change is the differences in mankind.<br />Surely they did not change colour etc etc by slow selection of mutated ones and the rest dying without issue.<br />The mankind differences as always been the lesson for biological change but against selection on mutation.<br />Surely God did not only let the black ones survive and only the white ones survive and only the brown ones survive and their kids.<br />Nope. I insist the first generation saw their colour change from innate triggers for important reasons.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.com