Creation vs. Evolution

[Sordello]

That movie is sort of like a Dan Brown book. Because so many people have no idea about biblical or religious history, Dan Brown can take a mediocre detective story and turn it into a best seller (the davinci code).

Zeitgeist is a conspiracy movie and its riddled with errors. Its sort of like Loose Change but anti-religious too.

Where zeitgeist does present actual facts, they then draw people towards incorrect conclusions. Just google for "zeitgeist" and other nice keywords like "hoax" or "debunk".

Zeitgeist (like a Dan Brown story) preys on the average persons ability to not see where the line between fact and fiction because not everyone is a scholar of comparative religion or (or in the case of the 911 garbage) structural engineering.

I should watch that one!

 

[sandmanz32]

That movie is sort of like a Dan Brown book. Because so many people have no idea about biblical or religious history, Dan Brown can take a mediocre detective story and turn it into a best seller (the davinci code).

Zeitgeist is a conspiracy movie and its riddled with errors. Its sort of like Loose Change but anti-religious too.

Where zeitgeist does present actual facts, they then draw people towards incorrect conclusions. Just google for "zeitgeist" and other nice keywords like "hoax" or "debunk".

Zeitgeist (like a Dan Brown story) preys on the average persons ability to not see where the line between fact and fiction because not everyone is a scholar of comparative religion or (or in the case of the 911 garbage) structural engineering.

yea, im not saying its factual 100 percent. theres some good stuff in there though. makes you think, well it does me anyway. not everyone knows how to "think". like i said, not a conspiracy theorist. most of the things about religion are fairly close to true though.

 

[coachpill]

Once again, natural selection and genetic drift are the primary drivers of evolution,

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See first sentence. Genetic drift allows already present genes to "be carried forward," or can cause other already present genes to "disappear." No new genes are added by natural selection and genetic drift alone.

not mutation. This has been explained several times.

Mutations would be the way to produce new genes.

I just posted the results of lab work showing evolution in the lab studied, peer reviewed, and in action. At the microscopic level in simple organisms it is of course easier to observe. In macro-organisms evolution is a much longer process considering the longer lifespan.

Except that those bacteria already had the ability to utilize citrate. Edit: they have the ability in low oxygen environments.
Lenski, I think, believes a different transporter could have been co-opted to now transport citrate. Edit: to now transport citrate in higher oxygen level environments
That is loss of functional specificity. Granted, it might even produce a new species down the road, but it doesn't seem anything novel was produced; just that something lost specificity.

 

[ce4jesus]

Warthaug,
In the case of Jesus, you have to look at his purpose first. He saw his path to the cross clearly from day 1. His ultimate goal was to make it happen. Satan's was to prevent it. Most of the Jews that thought he was the Messiah, thought he was there to throw out the Romans. They were ready to revolt. By speaking out against slavery and indentured servitude, he would have given reasons to those servants to revolt which might have lead to the their death and just as important, His own. Jesus was all about what was most important....salvation, life, then liberty.
I've seen better people than myself go through suffering. Yet I've seen them have a quiet confidence and reassurance duing these times that helps bring them through it. I've also seen them use the experience to minister to others going through the same thing. Even so, I've seen kids of wonderful godly people perish for no rhyme or reason. There is no Earthly explanation and to invent one would almost be criminal. We have a young girl named Kennedy at our church. She's almost 8 and has Lukemia. She's been battling for over 2 years. I can't imagine the suffering of multiple cemo sessions, operations and the like. But I do know she has a great body of people within the church who have helped them with bills, care, love and prayer. If she leaves this world there will not be a dry eye in the church. But, we believe with every fiber of our being that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Therefore, a peace that passes all understanding will also be there comforting the people she left behind. I'm sorry for the loss of the AIDS patients.

On genetics, I learned a great deal and I appreciate your time in that regard. It has been quite some time since I ran into such an intelligent individual. In any case, I think I'll go finish up the underwater shots I took in the Philippines...it'll be a better use of my time.

 

[deco_martini]

See first sentence. Genetic drift allows already present genes to "be carried forward," or can cause other already present genes to "disappear." No new genes are added by natural selection and genetic drift alone.

Genetic drift and natural selection are the primary drivers of evolution. Mutation is a driver. You are arguing against an argument I did not make (that mutation isn't important).

Regardless, I shall now enlighten you. The primary source for new genes is a process called Genetic Duplication.

Gene duplication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mutations would be the way to produce new genes.

Sort of... New genes through gene duplication is a sort of low level mutation but you mustn't confuse it with misprint mutation which is what the vernacular "mutation" refers to.

Except that those bacteria already had the ability to utilize citrate. Edit: they have the ability in low oxygen environments.
Lenski, I think, believes a different transporter could have been co-opted to now transport citrate. Edit: to now transport citrate in higher oxygen level environments
That is loss of functional specificity. Granted, it might even produce a new species down the road, but it doesn't seem anything novel was produced; just that something lost specificity.

Which is an evolutionary process. We both agree then that evolution is nothing novel. In this case, it was just observed (yet again) in a controlled environment.

I think you could do with some time spent reading the talk origins faq. Especially index of creationist claims about biology:
An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[Sas]

On genetics, I learned a great deal and I appreciate your time in that regard. It has been quite some time since I ran into such an intelligent individual. In any case, I think I'll go finish up the underwater shots I took in the Philippines...it'll be a better use of my time.

Perhaps you should pay close attention to his and others' posts on evolution then. Given that you were so very mistaken about genetics, is it not possible you are very mistaken about evolution? Something for you to ponder

 

[Theunis]

That isn't fair. Why should I have to respect something I don't believe in? Even if the Christian God was real, he is a cruel, intolerant and vengeful God and I would in no way show any respect to a deity like that.

Christianity says all other Gods are false, so that is basically insulting all the other Gods that people around the world believe in. You can't have it both ways.

I think it is fair to ask not to defame or insult God. I am not asking any atheist to respect or praise God, but I'm sure if members insult or defame somebody or something that is dear to you, you won't stand for it! For me God is holy and sacred and I can't just stand by and say nothing if God is defamed or insulted. If I do it feels for me as if I'm supporting or sanctioning such acts.

 

[Theunis]

If you feel that strongly I'd suggest that you put those members and this thread on ignore. Without rational cause you show no respect my views, why should I show respect your belief in one mythology or another?

I don't want to put any member or this thread on ignore. I enjoy this thread and I'm astonished at the knowledge of some members here, including you. But it doesn't mean I agree with all the views and certainly it doesn't mean I disrespect the views I'm not agreeing with.

 

[Sas]

I think it is fair to ask not to defame or insult God. I am not asking any atheist to respect or praise God, but I'm sure if members insult or defame somebody or something that is dear to you, you won't stand for it! For me God is holy and sacred and I can't just stand by and say nothing if God is defamed or insulted. If I do it feels for me as if I'm supporting or sanctioning such acts.

I guess it depends on how you are defining 'insult' or 'defame'. Sorry but I am not really getting what you mean now, when you say that. I am wondering now what in particular you are referring to?

 

[coachpill]

Genetic drift and natural selection are the primary drivers of evolution. Mutation is a driver. You are arguing against an argument I did not make (that mutation isn't important).

Regardless, I shall now enlighten you. The primary source for new genes is a process called Genetic Duplication.

Gene duplication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sort of... New genes through gene duplication is a sort of low level mutation but you mustn't confuse it with misprint mutation which is what the vernacular "mutation" refers to.

My only point was to show the difference between natural selection/genetic drift, and mutations. It seems pretty clear that natural selection and genetic drift can only "play around" with already present genes...typically genes are lost. Mutations would be the way that new genes are formed; yes, gene duplication would have to come first.

I think many post-ers here, and dare I say others in the readership, don't really take issue with evolution as defined by "changes in genetic variation" (trying to keep this definition short and simple) or even the observances having to do with the aforementioned definition. However, as I said above, these kinds of changes, or evolution, seem to be under the genre of "losing information" or specificity. In the case of natural selection/genetic drift, we are losing complete genes. Then to turn around and state that this observed process is also what builds new genes and new categories of organisms seems quite counterintuitive because of the degenerative nature of what we just talked about. I can't remember where I read it, but it seems a sizable group of scientists even state that the only way new genes could arise would be through gene duplication followed by mutation.(?) Hence the reason I separated natural selection/genetic drift from mutation in my response to your post...just to make the distinction between the gene degenerating process and the gene "making" process.

Which is an evolutionary process. We both agree then that evolution is nothing novel. In this case, it was just observed (yet again) in a controlled environment.

Not that "evolution is nothing novel," but rather in the case of the E. coli, evolution produced nothing novel.

Again, E. coli already posses the ability to use citrate, but only under conditions lacking much oxygen. Under these conditions, the bacteria do not transport citrate into their cells. And I'm pretty sure even Lenski has suggested that the bacteria used a different transporter to bring the citrate in. In other words, if this is the case, the other transporter would have lost functional specificity.

So we have yet another example of evolution producing something beneficial, greater fitness, but because of the loss of functional specificity. And again, I don't take issue with this other than to say that continued losses in specificity couldn't produce novel genes and functions demanded by "larger scale" evolution. That's all.

Thanks!