Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

Will Genetics be the death of Creationism/ID?

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:20 am Post subject: Will Genetics be the death of Creationism/ID?

LINK The platypus is a living transitional. Aviarian, Mammalian, and Reptilian features all rolled into one. Someone asked to see a dog with wings. How about an egg laying rat with a snake's venom? And some fundy is going to claim this was the product of intelligent intent. (edit) (hid link to keep from stretching page) Nobby. _________________ ...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1 Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer "In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

RevJP
Moderator

Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6903

Location: USA

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:36 am Post subject:

Just makes me wonder how this 'aberration' stayed the same, and how it locked on to the variety of genetic differences and kept them rather than dumping some and keeping other as apparently all other animals in the world have done - according to TOE that is.

Quote:

And some fundy is going to claim this was the product of intelligent intent.

Maybe some 'evy' can tell me how this cannot be considered intelligent intent?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 7:34 am Post subject:

RevJP wrote:

So you think Evolution is a concious process? How do animals decide what to keep and what to dump then?

Quote:

And some fundy is going to claim this was the product of intelligent intent.

Maybe some 'evy' can tell me how this cannot be considered intelligent intent?

Guess it would depend on what one considers 'intelligent.'

You declare there are no species that can have features of another because it would require massive amounts of new "specified complex information". Yet here we have the platypus.

The mapping of it's genome proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the platypus not only has the features of other members of it's own species it has features from completely unrelated species as well. It's part mammal, part bird, part reptile.

As an engineer, I look at the construction of this creature and see a mishmash of unrelated parts thrown together with no specific design or purpose in mind.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject:

Bouncer wrote:

The mapping of it's genome proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the platypus not only has the features of other members of it's own species it has features from completely unrelated species as well. It's part mammal, part bird, part reptile.

So... it kept part of its reptilian genome... before it mutated parts to availian... then parts to mammalian? Funny… I always thought that mammals were evolved directly from reptiles. Seems to me that some bird evolution somehow got thrown into your evolutionary tree here. Could you point out where the birds diverged into the mammalian evolutionary chain… perhaps cite a transitional fossil or two?
Or…. Would you prefer a little help with your dogmatic assertions/assumptions?
Let me know.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

I have just presented you with a living transitional. One that meets the criteria demanded by you and your fellow fundies. This post is proof positive that fundies like you and the Rev are not interested in the evidence.

Quote:

Or…. Would you prefer a little help with your dogmatic assertions/assumptions?
Let me know.

What assumption? The mapping of the genome showed conclusively that the platypus has features not native to it's species.

You want to argue they did not find what they found in the genome? Take if up with Oxford University.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:23 am Post subject:

Bouncer wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

Quite contrary Sir... what you presented... either knowingly or otherwise... is a classic case of Darwinian Evolution failing to pass the sniff test. Birds evolved from Reptiles.... reptiles from fish... mammals evolved from fish. The evolutionary tree diverges from fish to reptile and fish to mammal... look HERE for a graphical representation of what I'm talking about.
This citation of yours actually demonstrates that evolutionary biology is nothing more than a fairy tale. If the Platypus has a genome with traces of Availian and Reptilian ancestory in it... it demonstrates design... not evolution, as evolution did not follow this pattern. If evolution is true then the platypus should not even exist or at least there should be no... nada... zero... zippo... zilch genetic information from availian or reptilian ancestry. This is not what evolution predicts. Evolution states that reptiles and birds evolved separately and there should be not indication of their ancestry in any mammal. Now, if you are going to provide transitionals demonstrating the convergence of these... I'd really like to see them as this does nothing but demonstrate design beyond any doubt… and is evidence for 'fundies'' to cite when refuting evolutionary dogma.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

FFT
Emperor of the Universe

Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6094

Location: Memphis

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:43 am Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Availian

Do you mean "avian"?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:10 am Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

Trinity1 wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

Wow the tree diverged what a concept. Common Descent. A common ancestor for all three, birds Reptiles and mammals.

Quote:

This citation of yours actually demonstrates that evolutionary biology is nothing more than a fairy tale. If the Platypus has a genome with traces of Availian and Reptilian ancestory in it... it demonstrates design...

So you think this mishmash of features was PLANNED????? IF every platypus was identical to every other platypus I would agree with you. They aren't and I don't.

Quote:

not evolution, as evolution did not follow this pattern. If evolution is true then the platypus should not even exist or at least there should be no... nada... zero... zippo... zilch genetic information from availian or reptilian ancestry. This is not what evolution predicts. Evolution states that reptiles and birds evolved separately and there should be not indication of their ancestry in any mammal. Now, if you are going to provide transitionals demonstrating the convergence of these... I'd really like to see them as this does nothing but demonstrate design beyond any doubt… and is evidence for 'fundies'' to cite when refuting evolutionary dogma.

Sure They like you just did won't go back far enough. What Oxford has presented is irrefutable evidence of common descent. It scares the crap out of you guys. Your grasping of straws here proves it.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject:

Bouncer wrote:

Wow the tree diverged what a concept. Common Descent. A common ancestor for all three, birds Reptiles and mammals.

Are you even paying attention here... or are you just hoping that be trying belittle someone they might not continue pointing out the falsely in your argument?

I provided you a graphical representation of the evolutionary tree so even the most ardent evolutionist could follow the train of thought here... or in this case... lack thereof.

The divergence occurs from the amphibian to reptile to bird and amphibian to mammal. That means that unless mammals started developing avian traits (thanks FFT Wink

), on their own then this is a complete unpredicted surprise and offers evidence contrary to the evolutionary tree. The fact is they should have none of these traits if you follow the ancestry.

Quote:

Sure They like you just did won't go back far enough. What Oxford has presented is irrefutable evidence of common descent. It scares the crap out of you guys. Your grasping of straws here proves it.

What in heaven are you talking about? Oxford falsified evolution... or at least what the evolutionary tree represents.
If you are going to try to be so bold in light of the evidence here, perhaps you can try to explain how a mammal displays avian traits when they supposedly evolved from reptiles and dinosaurs and mammals evolved directly from amphibians. Granted, I don't expect you to actually address or provide the evidence supporting your dogma... but I would at least expect you would have the courtesy to admit that the birds didn't evolve into mammals... instead of pretending they did... when everyone reading or following this thread can tell that the clearly didn't. Rolling Eyes

_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

daviddale3
Kitten

Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 143

Location: georgia

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: Re: Will Genetics be the death of Creationism/ID?

Bouncer wrote:

LINK

The platypus is a living transitional. Aviarian, Mammalian, and Reptilian features all rolled into one. Someone asked to see a dog with wings.

How about an egg laying rat with a snake's venom?

And some fundy is going to claim this was the product of intelligent intent.

(edit) (hid link to keep from stretching page) Nobby.

Just how do you know that it is a transitional?

If you determine it by the fact of similar features, I would have to say that you error. The fact is we do not know from whence it came. You infer evolution, I infer design. Which is right? Since we do not have anything that actually leads up to the platypus (I mean fossils showing us the gradual changes that took place), it could be either option. You have made a positive knowledge statement in you OP. The burden of showing the evidence to support this statement is squarely on your shoulders.

You have one of two choices, 1) show the fossil evidence that shows the gradual (or even rapid as per punctuated equalibrium) changes, 2) Travel back in time, collect the data, and then present your conclusion. Unfortunately you are unable to do either.

admin
Beloved Admin

Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1749

Location: Macau, China

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject:

Is this the "Fill The Gap" game? _________________ Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin) Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:03 am Post subject:

admin wrote:

Is this the "Fill The Gap" game?

No... it is actually explain how a mammal develops traits from the the other side of the tree game when it obviously shouldn't.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith

daviddale3
Kitten

Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 143

Location: georgia

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:22 am Post subject:

admin wrote:

Is this the "Fill The Gap" game?

No, I am just trying to show that the evidence just is not there to show it as fact. It is only an inference based upon a paradigm that does not stack up to scrutiny.

Besides this, it is important to realize that the statement which was made was a POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE STATEMENT. Being such, the person making the statement has the burden to show that the statement is in fact truth. It is not up to the other party to either offer other explanations or to give evidence of some other explanation.

This is what is required. As is evident, there are really only two ways to give the proper evidence. Either show that the organism has in fact evolved from the fossil evidence or to travel back in time and collect the data.

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: Re: Will Genetics be the death of Creationism/ID?

daviddale3 wrote:

If you determine it by the fact of similar features, I would have to say that you error. The fact is we do not know from whence it came. You infer evolution, I infer design.

Oh so you believe this mishmash of features from three was intentionally put together? Why?

Quote:

Which is right?

I don't infer squat. I stated that Evolutionary processes certainly explain the platypus.

I don't see a real designer planning this creature. I see no evidence of design. I am qualified to make that statement. I have been a design engineer for years. How long have you done design?

Quote:

Since we do not have anything that actually leads up to the platypus (I mean fossils showing us the gradual changes that took place), it could be either option. You have made a positive knowledge statement in you OP. The burden of showing the evidence to support this statement is squarely on your shoulders.

Oh but we do. Oxford University has mapped the platypus genome. That's the subject of the article I referenced. Surely you didn't launch into this diatribe without even reading the link I posted? (and Nobby corrected, Thanks Nobby)

Quote:

You have one of two choices, 1) show the fossil evidence that shows the gradual (or even rapid as per punctuated equalibrium) changes, 2) Travel back in time, collect the data, and then present your conclusion. Unfortunately you are unable to do either.

Congratulations. You hit on the reason for this post's title. Genetics is teaching us so much more about Evolution and how we evolved than could ever be garnered from the fossil record. Yet another bone of contention for the Creationists is going away.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 11:00 am Post subject:

Trinity1 wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

Wow the tree diverged what a concept. Common Descent. A common ancestor for all three, birds Reptiles and mammals.

), on their own then this is a complete unpredicted surprise and offers evidence contrary to the evolutionary tree. The fact is they should have none of these traits if you follow the ancestry.

Did you read the article I linked to?

All the Evolutionary trees every created are incomplete and probably grossly inaccurate in many places. The Genome though is a whole different ball game. You obviously didn't read the article, or ignored/couldn't grasp what it said.

The features found in the platypus are not surprising in any way. All your blathering about mammals descending from fish and birds from reptiles etc... is so much bluster. Mammal, Bird, and Reptile all share a common ancestor. It should not be surprising that this one creature has features of all three. The mapping of the genome simply confirmed it.

Quote:

Sure They like you just did won't go back far enough. What Oxford has presented is irrefutable evidence of common descent. It scares the crap out of you guys. Your grasping of straws here proves it.

All those evolved from a common ancestor. You know that. You just won't admit it cause it destroys your argument. Apparently winning an argument on these boards is more important to you than learning what the other side has to say.

Don't argue with me. Talk to the researchers at Oxford. Show them your bush. Point out where their research into the platypus's genome is in error.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 1 of 8