Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-10-2015, 01:09 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Now correct me if I am wrong but the last time I checked there were literally hundreds of different dog breeds today because of selective breeding. Why can't nature do it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 02:44 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-10-2015 01:09 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Now correct me if I am wrong but the last time I checked there were literally hundreds of different dog breeds today because of selective breeding. Why can't nature do it?

Why do you think it can't?
Why do you think it should?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-10-2015 01:09 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Now correct me if I am wrong but the last time I checked there were literally hundreds of different dog breeds today because of selective breeding. Why can't nature do it?

Because the selective pressures and prevention of genetic flow that lead to the different breeds don't exist in out in the natural habitat of wolves; we created the genetic isolation and enforced numerous selective pressures, leading to dogs of all sizes fitting our desires.

Of course, for most of the time humans and dogs have lived together, we didn't know what we were doing. There wasn't intention to make different dog breeds, we just only allowed the most appealing, or the fastest running, or most powerful to breed.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(13-10-2015 08:33 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution

we dont have to try anymore. Macro evolution has been disproven.

No, it hasn't

Quote:Thats a fact.

No, it isn't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 03:17 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-10-2015 01:09 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Now correct me if I am wrong but the last time I checked there were literally hundreds of different dog breeds today because of selective breeding. Why can't nature do it?

Nature did. There are multiple species of wolves, not to mention all the other canids.

Canis lupus (gray wolves)
Canis rufus (red wolves)
Canis lycaon

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 05:04 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...pigenetics

Darwins doubt pg 213:

NEO-DARWINISM AND THE CHALLENGE OF EPIGENETIC INFORMATION

These different sources of epigenetic information in embryonic cells pose an enormous challenge to the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. According to neo-Darwinism, new information, form, and structure arise from natural selection acting on random mutations arising at a very low level within the biological hierarchy—within the genetic text. Yet both body-plan formation during embryological development and major morphological innovation during the history of life depend upon a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. If DNA isn't wholly responsible for the way an embryo develops— for body-plan morphogenesis—then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely and still not produce a new body plan, regardless of the amount of time and the number of mutational trials available to the evolutionary process. Genetic mutations are simply the wrong tool for the job at hand.

Even in a best-case scenario—one that ignores the immense improbability of generating new genes by mutation and selection—mutations in DNA sequence would merely produce new genetic information. But building a new body plan requires more than just genetic information. It requires both genetic and epigenetic information—information by definition that is not stored in DNA and thus cannot be generated by mutations to the DNA. It follows that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot by itself generate novel body plans, such as those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion.

In at least the case of the sugar molecules on the cell surface, gene products play no direct role. Genetic information produces proteins and RNA molecules, not sugars and carbohydrates. Of course, important glycoproteins and glycolipids (sugar-protein and sugar-fat composite molecules) are modified as the result of biosynthetic pathways involving networks of proteins. Nevertheless, the genetic information that generates the proteins in these pathways only determines the function and structure of the individual proteins; it does not specify the coordinated interaction between the proteins in the pathways that result in the modification of sugars

Some biologists have noted that so-called helper proteins—which are gene products—called "microtubule associated proteins" (MAPs) help to assemble the tubulin subunits in the microtubule arrays. Yet MAPs, and indeed many other necessary proteins, are only part of the story. The locations of specified target sites on the interior of the cell membrane also help to determine the shape of the cytoskeleton. And, as noted, the gene products out of which these targets are made do not determine the location of these targets. Similarly, the position and structure of the centrosome—the microtubule- organizing center—also influences the structure of the cytoskeleton. Although centrosomes are made of proteins, the proteins that form these structures do not entirely determine their location and form.

As Mark McNiven, a molecular biologist at the Mayo Clinic, and cell biologist Keith Porter, formerly of the University of Colorado, have shown, centrosome structure and membrane patterns as a whole convey three-dimensional structural information that helps determine the structure of the cytoskeleton and the location of its subunits.

In each new generation, the form and structure of the cell arises as the result of both gene products and the preexisting three-dimensional structure and organization inherent in cells, cell membranes, and cyto-skeletons. Many cellular structures are built from proteins, but proteins find their way to correct locations in part because of preexisting three-dimensional patterns and organization inherent in cellular structures. Neither structural proteins nor the genes that code for them can alone determine the three-dimensional shape and structure of the entities they build. Gene products provide necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the development of three-dimensional structure within cells, organs, and body plans. 5 If this is so, then natural selection acting on genetic variation and mutations alone cannot produce the new forms that arise in the history of life.

The structures in which epigenetic information inheres—cytoskeletal arrays and membrane patterns, for example—are much larger than individual nucleotide bases or even stretches of DNA. For this reason, these structures are not vulnerable to alteration by many of the typical sources of mutation that affect genes such as radiation and chemical agent. To the extent that cell structures can be altered, these alterations are overwhelmingly likely to have harmful or catastrophic consequences.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 08:31 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Your hero Behe shows how Malaria was intelligently designed:


Behe’s (malevolent) intelligent designer is still at work


Quote:Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it. (p. 237)

Behe also admits that drug-resistant strains of Malaria are intelligently designed:

Quote:So if resistance to carbapenems (of which imipenem is an instance) should appear, according to Behe it must have been due to an intelligent agent. But even before Behe published that (“Edge of Evolution” was published in 2007), carbamenem-resistant gram negative bacteria were being detected in 2005. Again, in Behe’s fantasy world, a malevolent intelligent agent is hard at work right now, designing (and manufacturing) pathogens to kill people.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 09:38 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-10-2015 05:04 PM)Godexists Wrote:  http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...pigenetics

Darwins doubt pg 213:

NEO-DARWINISM AND THE CHALLENGE OF EPIGENETIC INFORMATION

These different sources of epigenetic information in embryonic cells pose an enormous challenge to the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. According to neo-Darwinism, new information, form, and structure arise from natural selection acting on random mutations arising at a very low level within the biological hierarchy—within the genetic text. Yet both body-plan formation during embryological development and major morphological innovation during the history of life depend upon a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. If DNA isn't wholly responsible for the way an embryo develops— for body-plan morphogenesis—then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely and still not produce a new body plan, regardless of the amount of time and the number of mutational trials available to the evolutionary process. Genetic mutations are simply the wrong tool for the job at hand.

Even in a best-case scenario—one that ignores the immense improbability of generating new genes by mutation and selection—mutations in DNA sequence would merely produce new genetic information. But building a new body plan requires more than just genetic information. It requires both genetic and epigenetic information—information by definition that is not stored in DNA and thus cannot be generated by mutations to the DNA. It follows that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot by itself generate novel body plans, such as those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion.

In at least the case of the sugar molecules on the cell surface, gene products play no direct role. Genetic information produces proteins and RNA molecules, not sugars and carbohydrates. Of course, important glycoproteins and glycolipids (sugar-protein and sugar-fat composite molecules) are modified as the result of biosynthetic pathways involving networks of proteins. Nevertheless, the genetic information that generates the proteins in these pathways only determines the function and structure of the individual proteins; it does not specify the coordinated interaction between the proteins in the pathways that result in the modification of sugars

Some biologists have noted that so-called helper proteins—which are gene products—called "microtubule associated proteins" (MAPs) help to assemble the tubulin subunits in the microtubule arrays. Yet MAPs, and indeed many other necessary proteins, are only part of the story. The locations of specified target sites on the interior of the cell membrane also help to determine the shape of the cytoskeleton. And, as noted, the gene products out of which these targets are made do not determine the location of these targets. Similarly, the position and structure of the centrosome—the microtubule- organizing center—also influences the structure of the cytoskeleton. Although centrosomes are made of proteins, the proteins that form these structures do not entirely determine their location and form.

As Mark McNiven, a molecular biologist at the Mayo Clinic, and cell biologist Keith Porter, formerly of the University of Colorado, have shown, centrosome structure and membrane patterns as a whole convey three-dimensional structural information that helps determine the structure of the cytoskeleton and the location of its subunits.

In each new generation, the form and structure of the cell arises as the result of both gene products and the preexisting three-dimensional structure and organization inherent in cells, cell membranes, and cyto-skeletons. Many cellular structures are built from proteins, but proteins find their way to correct locations in part because of preexisting three-dimensional patterns and organization inherent in cellular structures. Neither structural proteins nor the genes that code for them can alone determine the three-dimensional shape and structure of the entities they build. Gene products provide necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the development of three-dimensional structure within cells, organs, and body plans. 5 If this is so, then natural selection acting on genetic variation and mutations alone cannot produce the new forms that arise in the history of life.

The structures in which epigenetic information inheres—cytoskeletal arrays and membrane patterns, for example—are much larger than individual nucleotide bases or even stretches of DNA. For this reason, these structures are not vulnerable to alteration by many of the typical sources of mutation that affect genes such as radiation and chemical agent. To the extent that cell structures can be altered, these alterations are overwhelmingly likely to have harmful or catastrophic consequences.

[Image: 2170431-look_at_him_look_at_him_and_laugh.gif]

Way to get your bitch-ass banned.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-10-2015, 05:20 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Boy! That was long overdue!

Thank you mods!

Banana_zorroBanana_zorroBanana_zorro

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
15-10-2015, 07:59 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Thank goodness. You have finally banned the spamming jackass. I can come back, now.

Hi everybody! Big Grin

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: