Evolution? How?

RL has some interesting points. Snood was right on too..

I do believe in evolution but I like to revoke that belief because the evolutionists do need to be brought down a few notches even if evolution is highly plausible.

Even though I believe that evolution is actually BIBLICAL I still think you cannot have evolution until something is created first with which things will evolve from. What is the catalyst of change? Is it intelligence or chance? I say intelligence.

There is more to the story than meets the eye.

Automation.

Is the human being simply a machine that is automated, burning fuel and chugging it's pistons until it someday malfunctions and ends up on the junk heap.

A running automobile would be no more "alive" than a human. If we define the human as simply an engine/motor or automation running on energy then we are assuming there is no separate force of life aside from perpetual automation.

We slap a babies behind at birth and the engine starts and the microchips regulate the machines systems through it's life span.

Yet cars do not reproduce. They require a desigener to bring about change.

Automobiles are ALSO not generally made from tiny smaller forms of life all combined into one larger form of life.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
real life wrote:
How funny.

Your source cites a 5% difference.

But since , (as one of your sources states) , up to 97% of the genome has no known function, then we can just discount about 3/4 of that 5% difference and call it less than 2%

Hey, if we don't know what it does, then it probably doesn't do anything, right? Cause we would know, right? Seeing as how we know everything......right?.

Only an ID-iot could come up with that bit of twisted, straw man argument.

Quote:
Keep 'em comin' timber. You are doing great. I hope you never start reading these things before you post 'em.

My reading skills are not called into the least question, rl, whereas yours apparently are non existant.

OK, sorry, so maybe you read it.

I read the article, understood it, and have read and understood many of the relevant study monographs and a great deal of commentary thereon.

Quote:

Did you not understand how it left your argument on quicksand?

No, I understand why the overwhelming consensus of legitimate academic and scientific opinion supports no other argument or conclusion than that the theory of evolution withstands all tests to which it has been put.

Quote:

Do you agree with your source that we do not know the function of 97% of the genome?

Do you agree with your source's 5% figure?

Absolute ID-iocy - wholly irrelevant, straw man. Not knowing precisely the function of whatever portion of the genome doesn't change what we know of it - and what we know from genomic study is that all life on this planet evolved, over billions of years, through billions of steps and stages, from a common pre-biotic proto-ancestor.

0 Replies

Rex wrote:
"...even if evolution is highly plausible."

Even if? WOW! On that same vane, how plausable is the bible?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
real life wrote:
How funny.

Your source cites a 5% difference.

But since , (as one of your sources states) , up to 97% of the genome has no known function, then we can just discount about 3/4 of that 5% difference and call it less than 2%

Hey, if we don't know what it does, then it probably doesn't do anything, right? Cause we would know, right? Seeing as how we know everything......right?.

Only an ID-iot could come up with that bit of twisted, straw man argument.

Quote:
Keep 'em comin' timber. You are doing great. I hope you never start reading these things before you post 'em.

My reading skills are not called into the least question, rl, whereas yours apparently are non existant.

OK, sorry, so maybe you read it.

I read the article, understood it, and have read and understood many of the relevant study monographs and a great deal of commentary thereon.

Quote:
Did you not understand how it left your argument on quicksand?

No, I understand why the overwhelming consensus of legitimate academic and scientific opinion supports no other argument or conclusion than that the theory of evolution withstands all tests to which it has been put.

Quote:
Do you agree with your source that we do not know the function of 97% of the genome?

Do you agree with your source's 5% figure?

Absolute ID-iocy - wholly irrelevant, straw man. Not knowing precisely the function of whatever portion of the genome doesn't change what we know of it - and what we know from genomic study is that all life on this planet evolved, over billions of years, through billions of steps and stages, from a common pre-biotic proto-ancestor.

Is 'we don't understand the function of 97% of the human genome' the same as ' 97% of the human genome has no function' ?

As you can see, it's not irrelevant at all.

Your source was possbly uncomfortable, as you are, in dealing with this, so he brushed it aside as 'a technical matter'. But ignoring the numbers to focus in on what you think you know about cannot change the reality of it.

Do you agree with your source's 5% figure? And how do you justify ignoring it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Is 'we don't understand the function of 97% of the human genome' the same as ' 97% of the human genome has no function' ?

No.

Quote:

As you can see, it's not irrelevant at all.

I see just fine - no mythical-magical freind between me and what's out there to be seen.

Quote:

Your source was possbly uncomfortable, as you are, in dealing with this, so he brushed it aside as 'a technical matter'. But ignoring the numbers to focus in on what you think you know about cannot change the reality of it.

Its almost uncomfortable to see you continue with your ID-iotic obstinacy, persistently misinterpreting, misrepresenting, misconstruing, and outright fabricating as you thrash and splash around trying to keep your absurd proposition afloat; you've strapped yourself to a lead ballon and stepped off the edge. Almost uncomfortable to see; the entertainment value your posts provide is on a par with that which makes Wile E. Coyote's mishaps in Roadrunner cartoons work.

Quote:

Do you agree with your source's 5% figure? And how do you justify ignoring it?

You really DON'T have a clue, do you?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
Is 'we don't understand the function of 97% of the human genome' the same as ' 97% of the human genome has no function' ?

No.

Quote:
As you can see, it's not irrelevant at all.

I see just fine - no mythical-magical freind between me and what's out there to be seen.

Quote:
Your source was possbly uncomfortable, as you are, in dealing with this, so he brushed it aside as 'a technical matter'. But ignoring the numbers to focus in on what you think you know about cannot change the reality of it.

Its almost uncomfortable to see you continue with your ID-iotic obstinacy, persistently misinterpreting, misrepresenting, misconstruing, and outright fabricating as you thrash and splash around trying to keep your absurd proposition afloat; you've strapped yourself to a lead ballon and stepped off the edge. Almost uncomfortable to see; the entertainment value your posts provide is on a par with that which makes Wile E. Coyote's mishaps in Roadrunner cartoons work.

Quote:
Do you agree with your source's 5% figure? And how do you justify ignoring it?

You really DON'T have a clue, do you?

Your source admits there is 5% difference between the human and chimp genome, but brushes it off as a 'technical' difference and boldly asserts that less than 2% difference is all that matters since 'we don't know the function of 97% of the genome' anyway.

So give me a clue, why is something 'irrelevant' to you just because you don't know or understand the function of it?

0 Replies

RL, youre apparently trying to make some sort of convoluted point out of scientific findings and its not "taking".
I recall before te days of genome mapping (in the mid 90's)when we believed the genetic difference between chimps and humans was in the neighborhood of 95%,
Since our respective genomes are about 3 Billion base pairs and of these , ony a few percent actually do the coding, what scientists are trying to understand is the functions of those genes and base pair differences in the "controller" segments of the genome.
In my understanding since our genomes are about 3 billion base pairs, and 35 million are single base differences and 5 million are insertions or deletions, then much of the remaining differences (about 100 million bases ) are repeats and duplications of sequences that are already the same. Since we dont understand what the majority of the genome does, In that case what do you think we should do? stand there and argue it out from a pre-wrought belief system (sorta like you Creationists?) NO, we will study the hell out of it. Im always amazed at what we find like , in 2005 scientists discovered the genes that controlled speech and these differed in large part from the similar sequence in chimps. FOx-22

What I find most curious is how does your belief system compile and process all the growing batches of data that conclude the workings of evolution? I noted that in one of your recent answers you stated that "I love these DNA arguments where we see a similar group of animals and note that their genetics are also similar" ---How do you even get Creationist explanations out of this statement? Do you say that , perhaps a chimpanzee was used to Create a human by using it as a , sort of template? Even if you get some of us to accept your thinking, you have to accept that "Bauplans" of grand similariities occur in living species. Now if we go from chimpanzee to lemur, we find a similar genetic bauplan.The genetic information is only getting clearer and clearer. I am wondering how your Creationist beliefs are going to morph when the work is almost done?
___________
OH YEH
.

___________
and you still havent refuted the occurence of angiosperms in the early Mesozoic. Its an area that youre not going to touch because it constitutes a whoops on the Creation side. You have a bad hand there and I can understand why youd want to drop it

0 Replies

snood wrote:

The same question could be reversed and put to those who spend so much time in attempts at debunking and disproving God, or anything spiritual, or supernatural.

You see, therein lies your problem. in order to debunk or disprove something, there first must be something demonstrable to debunk or disprove.
No need to disprove something that doesn't even seem to exist.

This is not at all like what real life is doing. Evidence abounds for evolution, which he ignores or attempts to discredit or distort, in pursuit of his creationist agenda.. No such evidence exists for imaginary friends or things that go bump in the night, so there is no need for one who holds an atheistic position to disprove them.

0 Replies

...unless one considers our very existence as proof of a creator - but that's square one, isn't it?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

...unless one considers our very existence as proof of a creator - but that's square one, isn't it?

Not really; that proposition doesn't even come with a playing piece to put on the board - it belongs to a different game alltogether.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

...unless one considers our very existence as proof of a creator - but that's square one, isn't it?

Works for me; but I'm from New Jersey. . .

0 Replies

A watch implies a watchmaker therefore my dog blinked the universe into existence in its entirety 10 minutes ago.

0 Replies

Genetic engineering is Man's way to correct god's horrible horrible mistakes such as Christians.

0 Replies

Taking our existence as a whole, I'm pretty certain any mortal could have done a better job.

For instance, if it was all about us, why make the universe so large, and not even put us at the center of it?

I think I would have put in a few less wasting diseases, and more efficient digestive systems as well.

0 Replies

No use sitting around bellyachin' about it, greyfan - just do it!!

0 Replies

Quote:

No use sitting around bellyachin' about it, greyfan - just do it!!

Don't you think we're trying?

0 Replies

One of Snood's problems in governing his temper is that he thinks we're all very, very trying . . .

0 Replies

Moi? Temper? You evidently got me mixed up with some other body!!!! Laughing

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

A watch implies a watchmaker therefore my dog blinked the universe into existence in its entirety 10 minutes ago.

Existence requires an existence maker....

0 Replies

Nothing requires a nothing maker....

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know