One of the more laughable examples used to promote the evolution myth is the land animal turned whale story. By evolutionist logic, if your family hangs out in the water long enough sooner or later your children down the line may grow fins or scales....hahaha...talk about science fiction...
Well, whales do not have scales to start with. Next, essentially yes, given enough time and variation in a population and natural selection, we do see how whales evolved from land animals. You can see many of these animals today, such as otters and manatees that have evolved to spend large portions of time in the water.
Funny now whenever I read a science journal, a science textbook or talk to a professional scientist working in their fields, they always point out that there is no debate about evolution, big bang theory or the lack of evidence for a world wide flood.
It's almost as if the creationists are lying, which is totally unheard of. I mean creationists never distort science right?
No there is not. Here is a challenge, find a scientific paper published that disputes evolution or big bang theory. This would be a paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
You won't, but I encourage you to try.
The only people who claim there is a dispute are creationists who do book tours and public debates. Ask yourself, why do these people never publish a scientific paper? Because they are frauds and are not experts in their fields.
Peer review is done by scientists working in their fields submitting to established scientific journals. Nature, Science, RAS, etc.
What you want to avoid is creationist publications because, if you ask, they will tell you they will NOT accept any papers that contradict biblical literal interpretations. Even if the papers come from creationists.
This is not the kind of sources you want to trust when it comes to science.
@AtheistTalk99 I'm not sure how you view New Scientist, but they published a letter sent to them from various scientists about why they don't accept the big bang model. Please google cosmology statement, because I can't post a link.
Very poor evidence. Ask yourself, who are these people? How many are cosmologists with any kind of format training?
I completely agree that big bang should continue to get a thorough investigation, all scientists do. However, creationist love to post similar statements and get anyone, no matter what their credentials, so sign it.
If 3/4 of those people are not trained cosmologists or physicists, do their signatures matter?
@AtheistTalk99 It'd take a long time for me to and try and determine whether 3/4 of those people are trained cosmologists and I don't really have the time. I just wanted to show you that criticisms against the big bang model have been raised and published in a peer reviewed journal, but I understand the points you made. It would be more authoritative if 3/4 of the signers were cosmologists.
In addition, I'd ask you to go to your local university and ask a professor of biology and astronomy if evolution and the big bang models are being debated as being accurate. Again, I doubt you will as it's far easier to trust creationist websites then, say, talk to people working in the field.
What you will find is that while evolution and big bang models are always under development and testing, they are not in dispute. Don't be afraid.
@AtheistTalk99 Dr. Danny Faulkner teaches physics and astronomy at the University of South Carolina and would say that the big bang models are being debated. I could look for more examples if you'd like. What should I be afraid of?
And what papers on big bang theory has he published in peer reviewed scientific publications?
In this case we seem to have someone who has no published works disputing big bang theory except in creationist online journals. In fact he teaches big bang theory in his classes.
@AtheistTalk99 I can't seem to find any in Nature, Science, or RAS and I'm sure he presents the big bang model as one point of view. There's no reason it shouldn't be taught.
A quote for Dr. Faulkner "It is the overwhelmingly dominant model, and they’ve had a few impressive predictions, like the background radiation. But it has many problems—they keep changing the model to make it fit the data we have." (continued in next post)
"As a Christian, my biggest concern is that it doesn’t agree at all with the Genesis account of how the world came to be, and my big concern is that when you make that the fingerprint of God, as it were, then when the big bang is discarded, what does that do to Christianity? "
Notice he has a theological objection not a scientific one. He also does not point out any alternative testable model that provides better predictions then big bang theory.
@AtheistTalk99 That's only one quote and I'm sure he presents objections to the theory in articles that he has written. An alternative model would be one based on a straightforward understanding of the Bible.
The bible has no straight forward understanding. Some Christians think the genesis story is literal, some a metaphor and some as just a story that may or may not have any relevance to reality.
Again, if he doesn't present articles to scientific journals and sticks to creationist websites it's not worth reading from a scientific standpoint.
In fact you will notice many creationists never even try to publish in peer reviewed sources. Funny that.
@AtheistTalk99 The Hebrew language uses special grammatical forms for recording history, and Genesis 1-11 uses those. It has the same structure as Genesis 12 onwards and most of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc.(1)
(1) Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, "Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?" Creation Ministries International, Creation.com
@AtheistTalk99 Hebrew scholar Dr Stephen Boyd has shown, using a statistical comparison of verb type frequencies of historical and poetic Hebrew texts, that Genesis 1 was not written as poetry, but as history.(1)
(1) Steven W. Boyd (Ph.D.), "The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell The Story," Institute for Creation Research, ICR.org
@AtheistTalk99 You don't believe they're worth reading, even if the arguments are valid? People who take the Bible straight forwardly probably attempt to publish in journals like Journal of Creation or Creation Research Society Quarterly.
@AtheistTalk99 My reason for listing them was to suggest that maybe one of the reasons they don't publish in your peer reviewed journals is because they publish in the journals reviewed by people that they consider to be their peers. How would you define 'scientific'?
Scientific peer review is not just giving papers to their peers. It is a very impartial, very systematic and grueling process where other scientists go over your work and look for any possible mistake.
Creationist publications are masturbatory in nature, where any result that supports creation is taken and NO result that refutes literal interpretation will be reported (you can email them and ask yourself). That is not scientific at all.
Lastly, you should understand that not everyone's opinion is equally valid. Just because someone has a degree in science does not make them an expert in all fields.
A foot doctor is a doctor but I don't cred a foot doctor with being an expert on heart surgery.
So why not talk to a geologist about the age of the earth, a biologist about evolution and a cosmologist about big bang? Why rely on dishonest and unqualified creationist idiots?
Lastly, you should understand that not everyone's opinion is equally valid. Just because someone has a degree in science does not make them an expert in all fields.
A foot doctor is a doctor but I don't cred a foot doctor with being an expert on heart surgery.
So why not talk to a geologist about the age of the earth, a biologist about evolution and a cosmologist about big bang? Why rely on dishonest and unqualified creationist idiots?
@AtheistTalk99 There are many geologists, biologists, and astronomers that take the Bible straightforwardly and I do usually read their information when looking into one of those topics.
That is not an answer. I'm not asking for a scientists personal view on the bible, I'm asking about scientific papers published by these people. You may find a dentist that believes in the tooth fairy, that does not mean there is a debate among dentists about tooth fairies.
Many, MANY, creationists use people with scientific degrees who do not work in the field, do not publish papers as sources. Sound legit to you?
@AtheistTalk99 Sorry, I didn't realize you were asking me a question with this comment. I thought you were giving me advice. Could you to tell me what journals or who the peers should be, so I can look for you, but in any case, I try and decide whether an argument is legitimate based on the information presented. I would also do further research to try and verify the claims made.
My best recommendation is to get a high school or college level book on the subject that interest you. I've picked up books on biology, chemistry, geology and cosmology. What you will find is that these books lay out our best understanding of the world around us and there is no creationist view supported by science. That is why you will never see a creationist suggest talking to specialists, picking up science text books or publications, etc.
@AtheistTalk99 Thanks for the recommendation. When I get some money, I'd like to start purchasing two books about a specific subject, one based on the Bible and one by an author that does not believe the Bible is historically accurate, to compare the arguments.
Evolution is not a theory pulled out of stone-age mythology but a theory based on the actually evidence. It has never been shown to be wrong, every species has evolved. TO cliam DNA is comparable to computer language is dishonest, no language we know of is chemical in origin as in DNA.
It is sad that creationist have to lie to sell their nonsense.
@OWC2000 The Bible doesn't say that plants and animals can't change. It says they were created into distinct categories (kinds), with the implication being that they can't change into a different kind of plant or creature, but change and variation can occur within those categories. Why do you believe DNA is chemical in origin?
What the hell is a kind? That is creationist jargon and has no scientific meaning.
DNA is chemical in origin, where the hell do you think it comes from? Do you think when you were formed in your mother's womb it happened ex nihilo? DNA is chemistry.
@AtheistTalk99 I would try and define a kind as a category of plant or creature that could originally reproduce. I don't believe I was formed in my mother's womb ex nihilo. I thought he was talking about DNA coming into existence for the first time.
What do you mean 'originally' reproduce? Originally since when? What criteria would you use to test this concept scientifically? How would you falsify it?
Listen, I encourage you to buy a high school or college level book on biology because trusting creationists is a very very bad idea.
@AtheistTalk99 In many cases, but not all, a kind can be equated with the family level of classification and by originally, I mean when they were first created and for some amount of time after that. At some point, some of the animals within a kind, may have lost the ability to reproduce, due to changing environments, changing reproductive processes, or other factors.
@AtheistTalk99 I'd say that if two creatures can produce offspring, they're the same kind and you'd also expect most of the animals within a kind to look relatively similar. There may also be other ways to determine what animal belongs to what kind and I'm not sure how the concept could be falsified. Some people refer to the study of created kinds as baraminology and you can find a technical website for that if you google Creation Biology Society.
@AtheistTalk99 I know many people that use baraminology. Concerning geology, Nicolas Steno is considered by some to be the father of modern geology and stratigraphy.
"Steno's axioms provide the ultimate basis of practically all interpretation of earth history, so their importance can hardly be overemphasized." - Dott & Batten, Evolution of the Earth, p.24.
"Steno believed in the universal flood throughout his life ... " - Geology, (September 2006)
I could care less who uses baraminology, what scientific value does it have? What scientific predictions does it make? How does it stand up to genetic evidence and paleontology?
The problem here is you are talking about an idea that was given up centuries ago as evolutionary theory took hold and nobody has looked back.
@AtheistTalk99 It would predict that plants and animals would be found in categories that look relatively similar and are able to reproduce. You see that with canines, felines, and equines, to name a few. These would not be able to produce a different kind of plant or creature. The idea of created kinds has not been given up, because many people believe it today.
Many people may, but it's not science. It also does not account for the untold transitional forms we see, as well as the massive amount of fossils we find of creatures not described anywhere in the bible.
I'm sorry, but there is a reason this nonsense was given up long ago in favor of theories that make accurate predictions.
@AtheistTalk99 How would you define 'science'? What fossil do you believe is of a creature that was transitioning into a different kind of creature? The Bible isn't a zoology book and I don't think anyone would expect it to list every kind of creature that ever lived, but it does mention many. Why do you believe that the Bible does not make accurate predictions?
Science is the naturalistic inquiry into the world around us, simply put.
Next, the bible mentions no creatures that existed millions of years ago, it only mentions animals alive roughly 2000-4000 years ago. Why? Because it's a myth and these people had no idea of dinosaurs or ancient fossils.
Next, if you need a list of transitional fossils look them up or get a textbook.
@AtheistTalk99 Why can't baraminology be a naturalistic inquiry into the world around us? According to the Bible, there were no creatures that lived millions of years ago. I believe it does mention animals that we refer to as dinosaurs, which I'm sure you believe lived millions of years ago. You don't believe people in those times ever came across a fossil in the ground?
@AtheistTalk99 I don't actually believe they're fossils of creatures that were transitioning into a different kind of animal. I just wanted you to name one so we could discuss it. Could you give an example of a false prophecy? Also, according to the way you view the world, why would that be wrong?
@AtheistTalk99 This is how he interpreted most of the earth's strata and he understood it well enough, to write the rules that you still have to memorize if you want to pass stratigraphy today. Geologist John McCampbell did not believe in a global flood, but wrote the forward to the book, The Genesis Flood, saying that a global flood fit the observations. Who would you consider to be in an academic or professional field? How would you define science?
This does nothing to support biblical creation. As I pointed out, people are experts in various fields and subfields. What I look at is the scientific consensus and what has the most explanatory power.
To date, there is no evidence for a global flood or a young earth. Why is it that creationists publish books but never papers for peer review?
@AtheistTalk99 Why do you believe there is no evidence for a global flood or an earth that is about 6000 years old? People who take the Bible straightforwardly do send papers to their peers to be reviewed.
There is no evidence of either. Again, I'm not talking about creationist peers, I'm talking about scientific peer review which is far more then sending a paper to your peers.
There was no global flood, we know it was a local flood and a myth taken from older religions. We know the earth is 4.6 billion years old, not 6000.
@AtheistTalk99 You didn't really answer my question. How do you know it was a local flood and a myth taken from older religions? How do you know the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and not about 6000?
Radiometric dating and cosmology provide the age of the earth and universe. Next, we have the stories that the bible authors took the flood myth from. Archeology dates these stories as predating the OT. We can even see where the OT took different gods, how they went from polytheistic to monotheistic and even where they invent myths (like Exodus).
@AtheistTalk99 4. They assume some of the parent or daughter element wasn't leeched out of the sample before they could measure it.
"As much as 80% of the potassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours." - Rancitelli, L.A., and D.E. Fischer, "Potassium-Argon Ages of Iron Meteorites," Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, p.167, (1967).
@AtheistTalk99 If 80% of the potassium can be removed in 4.5 hours, how can you be confident that your sample hasn't been contaminated by distilled water over the course of millions or billions of years?
Could you name the flood stories and evidence from cosmology?
@ChrisCarlascio Why? Because everything in the universe is made up of chemicals our DNA included.
The implication is wrong, the fossil record disputes that. For there to be distinct categories part of an animal's DNA would have to be immune to random mutation and/or duplication. Down's syndrome and deformities are proof this not to be the case: There is no restriction on what DNA can be copied or mutate.
@OWC2000 I thought you were talking about DNA coming into existence for the first time. How does the fossil record dispute different kinds? If there are no restrictions on what DNA can be copied or mutated, I still don't believe mutations are a viable mechanism for changing one kind of plant or creature into a different kind. Why do you believe it is?
@ChrisCarlascio It is not about believing, it is about what the evidence shows. Which in this case it shows that evolution is a fact: This is indisputable.
Evolution is the only known process that fully explains, extinctions and new species. which is supported by the observable facts The concept of kinds does not explain new species or extinction.
@OWC2000 Could you give me an example of the evidence? Animals become extinct for many different reasons. Humans clearing the land or hunting, environmental changes, diseases, catastrophes, genetic mistakes, etc. The concept of kinds has no problem with new species or speciation. It just says that the new species will be the same kind of animal as it's parents, grandparents, etc. Zebras and donkeys are different species, but the same kind of animal.
@ChrisCarlascio So humans just popped in to existence 200,000 years ago? You have approximately 200 mutations from your parents, add this up over millions of years and you have a new species. Google 'e-coli evolution' this documents mutations.
New species do not come from parents, but from thousand of generations of parents. Cows and whales are the same kind as are all primates including us.
@OWC2000 Most mutation rate estimates are biased because of the assumption of deep-time evolution. How do you know we haven't aquired mutations at different rates in the past? Why do you believe we are the same kind of creature as whales and cows?
@OWC2000 In many cases, but not all, a kind can be equated with the family level of classification. I'd say that if two creatures can produce offspring, they're the same kind and you'd also expect most of the animals within a kind to look relatively similar. I would try and define a kind as a category of plant or creature that could originally reproduce.
@OWC2000 By originally, I mean when they were first created and for some amount of time after that. At some point, some of the animals within a kind, may have lost the ability to reproduce, due to changing environments, changing reproductive processes, or other factors.
@OWC2000 Pierre-Paul Grassé was a zoologist that believed all of the plants and creatures evolved from a common ancestor, but he said:
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." - Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 88, (Academic Press, New York, 1977).
@ChrisCarlascio Mutations is the foundation of evolution. So to say that mutations do not produce evolution is nonsense. To claim that mutations can only occur within a kind is not supported by the observable facts as there are no limitations on what DNA can mutate.
Again it is not about what you think, but what you can prove and evolution has been proven.
@OWC2000 Mutations can occur wherever they happen to occur. My point is that they are not able to change single celled organisms into birds, bees, and trees. This idea is not supported by the observable facts. No one has ever seen single cells change into trees, so you have faith that mutations produced this kind of change.
@ChrisCarlascio A single cell into a tree?????? That is 'creationist' science not reality and certainly not evolution. A single cell can divide/duplicate/mutate, but a tree? Only magic man can do that.
It seems clear that you have no understanding of the basics of evolution because it certainly does not require faith, just an open mind.
@OWC2000 I'm sorry I assumed that is what you believe, but I can tell you that no one who takes the Bible straightforwardly believes single cells changed into trees. Where do you believe trees came from?
@OWC2000 Right, but I believe most of them would say that trees evolved from cells which came from chemicals in the ocean, so I just wanted to know where you believe trees came from. I don't think it follows that if two different creatures have identical viruses DNA that proves we're related to those animals. There could be an alternative explanation.
@ChrisCarlascio Why don't you think it follows? Everyone else who has examined the evidence with an open mind has come to the inescapable conclusion that evolution through common descent is a fact.
The only reason you don't want to accept the truth, is not because those facts are wrong, but because it differs from your dogma. Please open your mind there is a wonderful natural world out there.
If you come up with an alternative explanation then there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
@OWC2000 I just don't believe it follows that two creatures having identical viruses DNA is proof of us evolving from fish which evolved from single celled organisms which evolved from chemicals floating around in the ocean which ultimately came from nowhere. That's a huge leap of logic in my opinion and like I said, there are other explanations. There are open minded people that have examined the evidence and have not come to that conclusion.
@OWC2000 I don't really know much in this area, but here's an article on ERVs that may have something to do with what we're talking about: creationDOTcom/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses
@ChrisCarlascio Yes that right ERV. But please creation science is not a path to truth, it is just lies. If all you do is look at sources that support your dogma then you will learn nothing.
There are some really great videos on ERV's start there.
@OWC2000 I don't care about "creation science". I care about the Bible and what it says and it says that humans were created as humans by God. I hope you read the article. The DNA similarities could have been the result of being programmed by the same designer. Evidence is showing that these sequences are not junk DNA and that they have a function. Here is another article about the topic: creationDOTcom/living-fossils-erv-function
@ChrisCarlascio Yes, many do have a function, they allow mammals to get pregnant for one, we would not exist without them. The 'same designer' argument is just ridiculous, viruses attack the body by opportunity not design.
The real problem here is that you can not accept anything, no matter how blindly obvious, that differs from your bible. That makes you close minded. So it really pointless for you to discuss evolution or science in general.
@OWC2000 Why do you refer to these DNA sequences as viruses? I don't think that by looking at these DNA sequences, it becomes blindingly obvious that all of the plants and creatures that ever lived evolved from a single cell. You don't seem to want to accept anything that differs from your interpretation of ERVs, but I still hope you'll talk to me and maybe we can discuss another topic. Thank you for wishing me well. I wish you well too.
@ChrisCarlascio Viruses add their DNA to our to our DNA it is all part of evolution.
Why is it obvious that all life did not evolve from a single cell? No one knows (yet) It is quite possible, although I might suggest that life started in more than one location.
@OWC2000 How do we know these ERVs were added to our DNA? Single cells in different locations though, right? It's just difficult for me to believe that all of the complexity in living things could have come from random mutations working on a single cell. Just looking at something like birds, elephants and humans and trying to imagine a little speck forming into those creatures. Then to think that these cells came from chemicals. It seems like a reductionist type of philosophy.
It's not random mutations working on a single cell, evolution occurs in populations. Next ERVs only accumulate if they are inserted into cells that are used for reproduction.
Seriously, your scientific ignorance is what's getting you in the way of understanding what evolution is.
@AtheistTalk99 By what mechanism do you believe single cells evolved into all of the plants and creatures? I am ignorant in this department, which is why I'm asking questions. How do we know these ERVs are accumulating and how do we know they only accumulate if they are inserted into cells that are used for reproduction? I understand the basic idea that all of the plants and creatures had a common ancestor.
Well, single cells first went to multicell and only much later do we get plants and animal separation.
Next, ERV's are only be passed down if they are placed in cells used for reproduction, otherwise how would they be passed down? So, we can compare ERV's in our genome to other animals and if evolution is correct, we should see more ERV's in common with those animals closest to us, follow? And, you guessed it, that is exactly what we find.
@AtheistTalk99 I understand the single cell to multicell and so on, but isn't it believed that random mutations produced that kind of change? About ERVs, what I'm getting at is that they wouldn't have been passed down. That these DNA sequences called ERVs would have been created by God at the time he made the different kinds of creatures. Similarity between them would be just as significant as the similarity between the wings of birds, bats, and flying reptiles.
Mutations are random but natural selection is not.
ERV's do not produce anything, they are markers that's all. Why the hell would a divine being put in markers, that don't do anything but match common descent predictions? That's asinine.
Listen, you are grasping at straws here. Read up on evolution, ERV's and you will understand why they support evolutionary predictions.
@AtheistTalk99 ERVs do many things. God would put in ERVs because they allow mammals to get pregnant for one. They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enable different different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence.(1) Google "Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’".
(1) Conley, A.B., Piriyapongsa, J. and Jordan, I.K., Retroviral promoters in the human genome, Bioinformatics 24(14):1563–1567, 2008.
If you want to play make believe, feel free. If you want to get an eduction in science, then talk to actual scientists, read scientific literature and respect the scientific consensus.
@AtheistTalk99 I quoted someone who believes we came from single celled organisms, like you do. I don't want to play make believe. I do talk to scientists. You do realize that the consensus isn't always right? For 2000 years, the consensus used to be that different sized rocks fall at different speeds, but we now know they fall at the same speed. The majority used to believe that mice came from dirty underwear, but we now have the law of biogenesis. There are many other examples.
One last thing and this is something you find true of all creationists websites, noone there has read the full paper. None. You will ONLY get quotes, usually taken out of context, often quote mined in full denial of what the paper says.
@AtheistTalk99 Dr John Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, believes we evolved from single celled organisms and wrote:
‘The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information … may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.’
@AtheistTalk99 Similarity doesn't have to mean ancestry. The ERVs could be similar because the creatures have similar functions and/or morphology (to some degree).
No, you are not getting this. ERV's are inserted by viruses. If common descent is true, we should share more ERV's with our closest relatives and less with one's further away. Guess what? This is what we find. There is no other explanation for it. It also, funny enough, matches predictions between other species and how they relate via common descent.
@AtheistTalk99 I'm just not understanding how we know these ERVs were inserted by viruses. Why can't we share more ERVs with animals that are more similar to us than ones that are not (having nothing to do with ancestry), for the reasons I've mentioned (function, shape, etc.).
Because we observe viruses doing this today, in labratory conditions.
Listen, I'm done here. You are essentially asking everybody to do YOUR work for you. Get an education, pick up a book on biology, read actual PAPERS and figure then out.
If you rely on creationist bullshit websites, you will find exactly what you want, you won't have to do ANY work and all you have to do is believe a bunch of liars. Up to you.
@AtheistTalk99 We observe viruses inserting ERVs? Are they the same as the ERVs we're talking about? I thought the viruses we see being inserted into different creatures today have different DNA signatures, while the ERVs we're talking about have similar DNA signatures with other creatures that have them. Do viruses normally insert beneficial DNA sequences?
@AtheistTalk99 I'm not asking you to do any work. I'm just asking you questions. If you don't know the answers, just let me know. I have been reading actual papers and will continue to. I hope you continue to talk to me, but if not, I wish you well.
@OWC2000 Apparently those links aren't working, so if you'd like to read a more technical response from people who have more knowledge than me, then search 'Living Fossils ERV Function' or 'Large scale function for endogenous retroviruses' into the CreationDOTcom search engine. If you believe they're "liars" and don't want to read the articles, atleast check out their response and see if they're lieing. This website usually references peer reviewed science journals.
@ChrisCarlascio As for retro viruses, much of our DNA is made up by them, you can infect different animals with the same viruses, yet it will have a different DNA signature.
But for two different species to have identical viruses DNA means that at some point the ancestor of those species must have been the same species. We share unique retro viruses with primates, mammals, fish etc
@OWC2000 Now I don't doubt that mutations may cause various changes or evolution, if you like, to occur within a kind, but I don't think they're enough to change something into a different kind.
@ChrisCarlascio over millions of years absolutely.. The evidence for which is retro-viruses. We share identical DNA viruses with other mammals (and other species) that can only come from common descent.
@ChrisCarlascio The implication is wrong, the fossil record disputes that. For there to be distinct categories part of an animal's DNA would have to be immune to random mutation and/or duplication. Down's syndrome and deformities are proof this not to be the case: There is no restriction on what DNA can be copied or mutate.
The evolutionist cites what a cult like JWs, & what liberal denominations & the pope thinks. How is this relevant? Most of them don't really follow the Bible.
Then he brings up metaphors. Every Bible student knows the Word of God uses metaphors. Duh. But Genesis is written as a literal historical account.
One of the more laughable examples used to promote the evolution myth is the land animal turned whale story. By evolutionist logic, if your family hangs out in the water long enough sooner or later your children down the line may grow fins or scales....hahaha...talk about science fiction...
fellowservant34 1 month ago
@fellowservant34
Well, whales do not have scales to start with. Next, essentially yes, given enough time and variation in a population and natural selection, we do see how whales evolved from land animals. You can see many of these animals today, such as otters and manatees that have evolved to spend large portions of time in the water.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
Great upload!
fellowservant34 1 month ago
Eyes are doves .... strawman argument from the evolutionist
MrTmapp 1 month ago
Funny now whenever I read a science journal, a science textbook or talk to a professional scientist working in their fields, they always point out that there is no debate about evolution, big bang theory or the lack of evidence for a world wide flood.
It's almost as if the creationists are lying, which is totally unheard of. I mean creationists never distort science right?
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 There is a debate. That's why you can find many videos of them on slaves4christ's channel.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
No there is not. Here is a challenge, find a scientific paper published that disputes evolution or big bang theory. This would be a paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
You won't, but I encourage you to try.
The only people who claim there is a dispute are creationists who do book tours and public debates. Ask yourself, why do these people never publish a scientific paper? Because they are frauds and are not experts in their fields.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 Who do you consider your peers and what journals would you accept as authoritative?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Peer review is done by scientists working in their fields submitting to established scientific journals. Nature, Science, RAS, etc.
What you want to avoid is creationist publications because, if you ask, they will tell you they will NOT accept any papers that contradict biblical literal interpretations. Even if the papers come from creationists.
This is not the kind of sources you want to trust when it comes to science.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 I'm not sure how you view New Scientist, but they published a letter sent to them from various scientists about why they don't accept the big bang model. Please google cosmology statement, because I can't post a link.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Very poor evidence. Ask yourself, who are these people? How many are cosmologists with any kind of format training?
I completely agree that big bang should continue to get a thorough investigation, all scientists do. However, creationist love to post similar statements and get anyone, no matter what their credentials, so sign it.
If 3/4 of those people are not trained cosmologists or physicists, do their signatures matter?
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 It'd take a long time for me to and try and determine whether 3/4 of those people are trained cosmologists and I don't really have the time. I just wanted to show you that criticisms against the big bang model have been raised and published in a peer reviewed journal, but I understand the points you made. It would be more authoritative if 3/4 of the signers were cosmologists.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
In addition, I'd ask you to go to your local university and ask a professor of biology and astronomy if evolution and the big bang models are being debated as being accurate. Again, I doubt you will as it's far easier to trust creationist websites then, say, talk to people working in the field.
What you will find is that while evolution and big bang models are always under development and testing, they are not in dispute. Don't be afraid.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 Dr. Danny Faulkner teaches physics and astronomy at the University of South Carolina and would say that the big bang models are being debated. I could look for more examples if you'd like. What should I be afraid of?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
And what papers on big bang theory has he published in peer reviewed scientific publications?
In this case we seem to have someone who has no published works disputing big bang theory except in creationist online journals. In fact he teaches big bang theory in his classes.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 I can't seem to find any in Nature, Science, or RAS and I'm sure he presents the big bang model as one point of view. There's no reason it shouldn't be taught.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
A quote for Dr. Faulkner "It is the overwhelmingly dominant model, and they’ve had a few impressive predictions, like the background radiation. But it has many problems—they keep changing the model to make it fit the data we have." (continued in next post)
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99
"As a Christian, my biggest concern is that it doesn’t agree at all with the Genesis account of how the world came to be, and my big concern is that when you make that the fingerprint of God, as it were, then when the big bang is discarded, what does that do to Christianity? "
Notice he has a theological objection not a scientific one. He also does not point out any alternative testable model that provides better predictions then big bang theory.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 That's only one quote and I'm sure he presents objections to the theory in articles that he has written. An alternative model would be one based on a straightforward understanding of the Bible.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
The bible has no straight forward understanding. Some Christians think the genesis story is literal, some a metaphor and some as just a story that may or may not have any relevance to reality.
Again, if he doesn't present articles to scientific journals and sticks to creationist websites it's not worth reading from a scientific standpoint.
In fact you will notice many creationists never even try to publish in peer reviewed sources. Funny that.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 The Hebrew language uses special grammatical forms for recording history, and Genesis 1-11 uses those. It has the same structure as Genesis 12 onwards and most of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc.(1)
(1) Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, "Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?" Creation Ministries International, Creation.com
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 Hebrew scholar Dr Stephen Boyd has shown, using a statistical comparison of verb type frequencies of historical and poetic Hebrew texts, that Genesis 1 was not written as poetry, but as history.(1)
(1) Steven W. Boyd (Ph.D.), "The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell The Story," Institute for Creation Research, ICR.org
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 You don't believe they're worth reading, even if the arguments are valid? People who take the Bible straight forwardly probably attempt to publish in journals like Journal of Creation or Creation Research Society Quarterly.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Those journals are not scientific journals for the reasons I listed. So I have no idea why you brought them up.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 My reason for listing them was to suggest that maybe one of the reasons they don't publish in your peer reviewed journals is because they publish in the journals reviewed by people that they consider to be their peers. How would you define 'scientific'?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Scientific peer review is not just giving papers to their peers. It is a very impartial, very systematic and grueling process where other scientists go over your work and look for any possible mistake.
Creationist publications are masturbatory in nature, where any result that supports creation is taken and NO result that refutes literal interpretation will be reported (you can email them and ask yourself). That is not scientific at all.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 I don't doubt that their presupposition is that the Bible is historically accurate, but what is your definition of 'scientific'?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Lastly, you should understand that not everyone's opinion is equally valid. Just because someone has a degree in science does not make them an expert in all fields.
A foot doctor is a doctor but I don't cred a foot doctor with being an expert on heart surgery.
So why not talk to a geologist about the age of the earth, a biologist about evolution and a cosmologist about big bang? Why rely on dishonest and unqualified creationist idiots?
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Lastly, you should understand that not everyone's opinion is equally valid. Just because someone has a degree in science does not make them an expert in all fields.
A foot doctor is a doctor but I don't cred a foot doctor with being an expert on heart surgery.
So why not talk to a geologist about the age of the earth, a biologist about evolution and a cosmologist about big bang? Why rely on dishonest and unqualified creationist idiots?
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 There are many geologists, biologists, and astronomers that take the Bible straightforwardly and I do usually read their information when looking into one of those topics.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
That is not an answer. I'm not asking for a scientists personal view on the bible, I'm asking about scientific papers published by these people. You may find a dentist that believes in the tooth fairy, that does not mean there is a debate among dentists about tooth fairies.
Many, MANY, creationists use people with scientific degrees who do not work in the field, do not publish papers as sources. Sound legit to you?
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 Sorry, I didn't realize you were asking me a question with this comment. I thought you were giving me advice. Could you to tell me what journals or who the peers should be, so I can look for you, but in any case, I try and decide whether an argument is legitimate based on the information presented. I would also do further research to try and verify the claims made.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
My best recommendation is to get a high school or college level book on the subject that interest you. I've picked up books on biology, chemistry, geology and cosmology. What you will find is that these books lay out our best understanding of the world around us and there is no creationist view supported by science. That is why you will never see a creationist suggest talking to specialists, picking up science text books or publications, etc.
I encourage you to.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 Thanks for the recommendation. When I get some money, I'd like to start purchasing two books about a specific subject, one based on the Bible and one by an author that does not believe the Bible is historically accurate, to compare the arguments.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
Evolution is not a theory pulled out of stone-age mythology but a theory based on the actually evidence. It has never been shown to be wrong, every species has evolved. TO cliam DNA is comparable to computer language is dishonest, no language we know of is chemical in origin as in DNA.
It is sad that creationist have to lie to sell their nonsense.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 The Bible doesn't say that plants and animals can't change. It says they were created into distinct categories (kinds), with the implication being that they can't change into a different kind of plant or creature, but change and variation can occur within those categories. Why do you believe DNA is chemical in origin?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
What the hell is a kind? That is creationist jargon and has no scientific meaning.
DNA is chemical in origin, where the hell do you think it comes from? Do you think when you were formed in your mother's womb it happened ex nihilo? DNA is chemistry.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 I would try and define a kind as a category of plant or creature that could originally reproduce. I don't believe I was formed in my mother's womb ex nihilo. I thought he was talking about DNA coming into existence for the first time.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
What do you mean 'originally' reproduce? Originally since when? What criteria would you use to test this concept scientifically? How would you falsify it?
Listen, I encourage you to buy a high school or college level book on biology because trusting creationists is a very very bad idea.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 In many cases, but not all, a kind can be equated with the family level of classification and by originally, I mean when they were first created and for some amount of time after that. At some point, some of the animals within a kind, may have lost the ability to reproduce, due to changing environments, changing reproductive processes, or other factors.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 I'd say that if two creatures can produce offspring, they're the same kind and you'd also expect most of the animals within a kind to look relatively similar. There may also be other ways to determine what animal belongs to what kind and I'm not sure how the concept could be falsified. Some people refer to the study of created kinds as baraminology and you can find a technical website for that if you google Creation Biology Society.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Yes and it's nonsense, it's not backed up by taxonomy, biology, paleontology or genetics. Why do you think nobody uses it?
I mean do you really think it's a coincidence that noone uses creationist geology or biology or cosmology in any academic or professional field?
If something cannot be falsified it's not science, that should tell you alot right there.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 I know many people that use baraminology. Concerning geology, Nicolas Steno is considered by some to be the father of modern geology and stratigraphy.
"Steno's axioms provide the ultimate basis of practically all interpretation of earth history, so their importance can hardly be overemphasized." - Dott & Batten, Evolution of the Earth, p.24.
"Steno believed in the universal flood throughout his life ... " - Geology, (September 2006)
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
I could care less who uses baraminology, what scientific value does it have? What scientific predictions does it make? How does it stand up to genetic evidence and paleontology?
The problem here is you are talking about an idea that was given up centuries ago as evolutionary theory took hold and nobody has looked back.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 It would predict that plants and animals would be found in categories that look relatively similar and are able to reproduce. You see that with canines, felines, and equines, to name a few. These would not be able to produce a different kind of plant or creature. The idea of created kinds has not been given up, because many people believe it today.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Many people may, but it's not science. It also does not account for the untold transitional forms we see, as well as the massive amount of fossils we find of creatures not described anywhere in the bible.
I'm sorry, but there is a reason this nonsense was given up long ago in favor of theories that make accurate predictions.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 How would you define 'science'? What fossil do you believe is of a creature that was transitioning into a different kind of creature? The Bible isn't a zoology book and I don't think anyone would expect it to list every kind of creature that ever lived, but it does mention many. Why do you believe that the Bible does not make accurate predictions?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Science is the naturalistic inquiry into the world around us, simply put.
Next, the bible mentions no creatures that existed millions of years ago, it only mentions animals alive roughly 2000-4000 years ago. Why? Because it's a myth and these people had no idea of dinosaurs or ancient fossils.
Next, if you need a list of transitional fossils look them up or get a textbook.
Lastly the bible has false prophecies throughout.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 Why can't baraminology be a naturalistic inquiry into the world around us? According to the Bible, there were no creatures that lived millions of years ago. I believe it does mention animals that we refer to as dinosaurs, which I'm sure you believe lived millions of years ago. You don't believe people in those times ever came across a fossil in the ground?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 I don't actually believe they're fossils of creatures that were transitioning into a different kind of animal. I just wanted you to name one so we could discuss it. Could you give an example of a false prophecy? Also, according to the way you view the world, why would that be wrong?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 This is how he interpreted most of the earth's strata and he understood it well enough, to write the rules that you still have to memorize if you want to pass stratigraphy today. Geologist John McCampbell did not believe in a global flood, but wrote the forward to the book, The Genesis Flood, saying that a global flood fit the observations. Who would you consider to be in an academic or professional field? How would you define science?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
This does nothing to support biblical creation. As I pointed out, people are experts in various fields and subfields. What I look at is the scientific consensus and what has the most explanatory power.
To date, there is no evidence for a global flood or a young earth. Why is it that creationists publish books but never papers for peer review?
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 Why do you believe there is no evidence for a global flood or an earth that is about 6000 years old? People who take the Bible straightforwardly do send papers to their peers to be reviewed.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
There is no evidence of either. Again, I'm not talking about creationist peers, I'm talking about scientific peer review which is far more then sending a paper to your peers.
There was no global flood, we know it was a local flood and a myth taken from older religions. We know the earth is 4.6 billion years old, not 6000.
This kind of nonsense is ridiculous.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 You didn't really answer my question. How do you know it was a local flood and a myth taken from older religions? How do you know the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and not about 6000?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Radiometric dating and cosmology provide the age of the earth and universe. Next, we have the stories that the bible authors took the flood myth from. Archeology dates these stories as predating the OT. We can even see where the OT took different gods, how they went from polytheistic to monotheistic and even where they invent myths (like Exodus).
This has been known for quite a while.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 Several assumptions are made during the calculations concerning radioactive decay.
1. They assume that the sample wasn't contaminated with an extra amount of the parent element from an external source.
2. They assume that all of the daughter element came from the decay of the parent element.
3. They assume that the rate at which the parent element decays into the daughter element has always been the same.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 4. They assume some of the parent or daughter element wasn't leeched out of the sample before they could measure it.
"As much as 80% of the potassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours." - Rancitelli, L.A., and D.E. Fischer, "Potassium-Argon Ages of Iron Meteorites," Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, p.167, (1967).
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 If 80% of the potassium can be removed in 4.5 hours, how can you be confident that your sample hasn't been contaminated by distilled water over the course of millions or billions of years?
Could you name the flood stories and evidence from cosmology?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio Why? Because everything in the universe is made up of chemicals our DNA included.
The implication is wrong, the fossil record disputes that. For there to be distinct categories part of an animal's DNA would have to be immune to random mutation and/or duplication. Down's syndrome and deformities are proof this not to be the case: There is no restriction on what DNA can be copied or mutate.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 I thought you were talking about DNA coming into existence for the first time. How does the fossil record dispute different kinds? If there are no restrictions on what DNA can be copied or mutated, I still don't believe mutations are a viable mechanism for changing one kind of plant or creature into a different kind. Why do you believe it is?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio It is not about believing, it is about what the evidence shows. Which in this case it shows that evolution is a fact: This is indisputable.
Evolution is the only known process that fully explains, extinctions and new species. which is supported by the observable facts The concept of kinds does not explain new species or extinction.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 Could you give me an example of the evidence? Animals become extinct for many different reasons. Humans clearing the land or hunting, environmental changes, diseases, catastrophes, genetic mistakes, etc. The concept of kinds has no problem with new species or speciation. It just says that the new species will be the same kind of animal as it's parents, grandparents, etc. Zebras and donkeys are different species, but the same kind of animal.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio So humans just popped in to existence 200,000 years ago? You have approximately 200 mutations from your parents, add this up over millions of years and you have a new species. Google 'e-coli evolution' this documents mutations.
New species do not come from parents, but from thousand of generations of parents. Cows and whales are the same kind as are all primates including us.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 Most mutation rate estimates are biased because of the assumption of deep-time evolution. How do you know we haven't aquired mutations at different rates in the past? Why do you believe we are the same kind of creature as whales and cows?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@OWC2000 In many cases, but not all, a kind can be equated with the family level of classification. I'd say that if two creatures can produce offspring, they're the same kind and you'd also expect most of the animals within a kind to look relatively similar. I would try and define a kind as a category of plant or creature that could originally reproduce.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OWC2000 By originally, I mean when they were first created and for some amount of time after that. At some point, some of the animals within a kind, may have lost the ability to reproduce, due to changing environments, changing reproductive processes, or other factors.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@OWC2000 Pierre-Paul Grassé was a zoologist that believed all of the plants and creatures evolved from a common ancestor, but he said:
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." - Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 88, (Academic Press, New York, 1977).
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio Mutations is the foundation of evolution. So to say that mutations do not produce evolution is nonsense. To claim that mutations can only occur within a kind is not supported by the observable facts as there are no limitations on what DNA can mutate.
Again it is not about what you think, but what you can prove and evolution has been proven.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 Mutations can occur wherever they happen to occur. My point is that they are not able to change single celled organisms into birds, bees, and trees. This idea is not supported by the observable facts. No one has ever seen single cells change into trees, so you have faith that mutations produced this kind of change.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio A single cell into a tree?????? That is 'creationist' science not reality and certainly not evolution. A single cell can divide/duplicate/mutate, but a tree? Only magic man can do that.
It seems clear that you have no understanding of the basics of evolution because it certainly does not require faith, just an open mind.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 I'm sorry I assumed that is what you believe, but I can tell you that no one who takes the Bible straightforwardly believes single cells changed into trees. Where do you believe trees came from?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio Trees evolved.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 What did trees evolve from?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio OK that is enough, There are many fine books and videos that explain evolution, seek them out.
As for retro viruses, if you ge
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 Right, but I believe most of them would say that trees evolved from cells which came from chemicals in the ocean, so I just wanted to know where you believe trees came from. I don't think it follows that if two different creatures have identical viruses DNA that proves we're related to those animals. There could be an alternative explanation.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio Why don't you think it follows? Everyone else who has examined the evidence with an open mind has come to the inescapable conclusion that evolution through common descent is a fact.
The only reason you don't want to accept the truth, is not because those facts are wrong, but because it differs from your dogma. Please open your mind there is a wonderful natural world out there.
If you come up with an alternative explanation then there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 I just don't believe it follows that two creatures having identical viruses DNA is proof of us evolving from fish which evolved from single celled organisms which evolved from chemicals floating around in the ocean which ultimately came from nowhere. That's a huge leap of logic in my opinion and like I said, there are other explanations. There are open minded people that have examined the evidence and have not come to that conclusion.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@OWC2000 I don't really know much in this area, but here's an article on ERVs that may have something to do with what we're talking about: creationDOTcom/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio Yes that right ERV. But please creation science is not a path to truth, it is just lies. If all you do is look at sources that support your dogma then you will learn nothing.
There are some really great videos on ERV's start there.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 I don't care about "creation science". I care about the Bible and what it says and it says that humans were created as humans by God. I hope you read the article. The DNA similarities could have been the result of being programmed by the same designer. Evidence is showing that these sequences are not junk DNA and that they have a function. Here is another article about the topic: creationDOTcom/living-fossils-erv-function
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio Yes, many do have a function, they allow mammals to get pregnant for one, we would not exist without them. The 'same designer' argument is just ridiculous, viruses attack the body by opportunity not design.
The real problem here is that you can not accept anything, no matter how blindly obvious, that differs from your bible. That makes you close minded. So it really pointless for you to discuss evolution or science in general.
I wish you well, take care.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 Why do you refer to these DNA sequences as viruses? I don't think that by looking at these DNA sequences, it becomes blindingly obvious that all of the plants and creatures that ever lived evolved from a single cell. You don't seem to want to accept anything that differs from your interpretation of ERVs, but I still hope you'll talk to me and maybe we can discuss another topic. Thank you for wishing me well. I wish you well too.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio Viruses add their DNA to our to our DNA it is all part of evolution.
Why is it obvious that all life did not evolve from a single cell? No one knows (yet) It is quite possible, although I might suggest that life started in more than one location.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 How do we know these ERVs were added to our DNA? Single cells in different locations though, right? It's just difficult for me to believe that all of the complexity in living things could have come from random mutations working on a single cell. Just looking at something like birds, elephants and humans and trying to imagine a little speck forming into those creatures. Then to think that these cells came from chemicals. It seems like a reductionist type of philosophy.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
It's not random mutations working on a single cell, evolution occurs in populations. Next ERVs only accumulate if they are inserted into cells that are used for reproduction.
Seriously, your scientific ignorance is what's getting you in the way of understanding what evolution is.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 By what mechanism do you believe single cells evolved into all of the plants and creatures? I am ignorant in this department, which is why I'm asking questions. How do we know these ERVs are accumulating and how do we know they only accumulate if they are inserted into cells that are used for reproduction? I understand the basic idea that all of the plants and creatures had a common ancestor.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Well, single cells first went to multicell and only much later do we get plants and animal separation.
Next, ERV's are only be passed down if they are placed in cells used for reproduction, otherwise how would they be passed down? So, we can compare ERV's in our genome to other animals and if evolution is correct, we should see more ERV's in common with those animals closest to us, follow? And, you guessed it, that is exactly what we find.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 I understand the single cell to multicell and so on, but isn't it believed that random mutations produced that kind of change? About ERVs, what I'm getting at is that they wouldn't have been passed down. That these DNA sequences called ERVs would have been created by God at the time he made the different kinds of creatures. Similarity between them would be just as significant as the similarity between the wings of birds, bats, and flying reptiles.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Mutations are random but natural selection is not.
ERV's do not produce anything, they are markers that's all. Why the hell would a divine being put in markers, that don't do anything but match common descent predictions? That's asinine.
Listen, you are grasping at straws here. Read up on evolution, ERV's and you will understand why they support evolutionary predictions.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 ERVs do many things. God would put in ERVs because they allow mammals to get pregnant for one. They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enable different different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence.(1) Google "Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’".
(1) Conley, A.B., Piriyapongsa, J. and Jordan, I.K., Retroviral promoters in the human genome, Bioinformatics 24(14):1563–1567, 2008.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
*facepalm*
You are now quoting from creationist websites.
I give up.
If you want to play make believe, feel free. If you want to get an eduction in science, then talk to actual scientists, read scientific literature and respect the scientific consensus.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 I quoted someone who believes we came from single celled organisms, like you do. I don't want to play make believe. I do talk to scientists. You do realize that the consensus isn't always right? For 2000 years, the consensus used to be that different sized rocks fall at different speeds, but we now know they fall at the same speed. The majority used to believe that mice came from dirty underwear, but we now have the law of biogenesis. There are many other examples.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
One last thing and this is something you find true of all creationists websites, noone there has read the full paper. None. You will ONLY get quotes, usually taken out of context, often quote mined in full denial of what the paper says.
Have fun with that.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 Dr John Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, believes we evolved from single celled organisms and wrote:
‘The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information … may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.’
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 Similarity doesn't have to mean ancestry. The ERVs could be similar because the creatures have similar functions and/or morphology (to some degree).
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
No, you are not getting this. ERV's are inserted by viruses. If common descent is true, we should share more ERV's with our closest relatives and less with one's further away. Guess what? This is what we find. There is no other explanation for it. It also, funny enough, matches predictions between other species and how they relate via common descent.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 I'm just not understanding how we know these ERVs were inserted by viruses. Why can't we share more ERVs with animals that are more similar to us than ones that are not (having nothing to do with ancestry), for the reasons I've mentioned (function, shape, etc.).
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio
Because we observe viruses doing this today, in labratory conditions.
Listen, I'm done here. You are essentially asking everybody to do YOUR work for you. Get an education, pick up a book on biology, read actual PAPERS and figure then out.
If you rely on creationist bullshit websites, you will find exactly what you want, you won't have to do ANY work and all you have to do is believe a bunch of liars. Up to you.
AtheistTalk99 1 month ago
@AtheistTalk99 We observe viruses inserting ERVs? Are they the same as the ERVs we're talking about? I thought the viruses we see being inserted into different creatures today have different DNA signatures, while the ERVs we're talking about have similar DNA signatures with other creatures that have them. Do viruses normally insert beneficial DNA sequences?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChrisCarlascio
Why would they inser detrimental DNA sequences?
odinata 2 weeks ago
@AtheistTalk99 I'm not asking you to do any work. I'm just asking you questions. If you don't know the answers, just let me know. I have been reading actual papers and will continue to. I hope you continue to talk to me, but if not, I wish you well.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@OWC2000 I also believe there are compelling reasons to believe that the Bible is from God and tells the truth about history.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@OWC2000 Apparently those links aren't working, so if you'd like to read a more technical response from people who have more knowledge than me, then search 'Living Fossils ERV Function' or 'Large scale function for endogenous retroviruses' into the CreationDOTcom search engine. If you believe they're "liars" and don't want to read the articles, atleast check out their response and see if they're lieing. This website usually references peer reviewed science journals.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio As for retro viruses, much of our DNA is made up by them, you can infect different animals with the same viruses, yet it will have a different DNA signature.
But for two different species to have identical viruses DNA means that at some point the ancestor of those species must have been the same species. We share unique retro viruses with primates, mammals, fish etc
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 Now I don't doubt that mutations may cause various changes or evolution, if you like, to occur within a kind, but I don't think they're enough to change something into a different kind.
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio over millions of years absolutely.. The evidence for which is retro-viruses. We share identical DNA viruses with other mammals (and other species) that can only come from common descent.
OWC2000 1 month ago
@OWC2000 How about over about 6000 years? Why can these retro-viruses only come from common descent?
ChrisCarlascio 1 month ago
@ChrisCarlascio The implication is wrong, the fossil record disputes that. For there to be distinct categories part of an animal's DNA would have to be immune to random mutation and/or duplication. Down's syndrome and deformities are proof this not to be the case: There is no restriction on what DNA can be copied or mutate.
OWC2000 1 month ago
The evolutionist cites what a cult like JWs, & what liberal denominations & the pope thinks. How is this relevant? Most of them don't really follow the Bible.
Then he brings up metaphors. Every Bible student knows the Word of God uses metaphors. Duh. But Genesis is written as a literal historical account.
slaves4christ 1 month ago
To you slave for Christ godbless you keep the uploads coming.
Penguins95268771 1 month ago