Evolution is a Fact #1 - Protein Functional Redundancy

by cofty 291 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  Something that most people are not aware of is the incredible flexibility of “evolutionary theory”.

  This is well documented in the book “The Biotic Message” by Walter ReMine.

  http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
  

  This “flexibility” should always be kept in mind.

  The goal of evolutionists is to “explain” everything found in nature naturalistically.

  This is really the “bottom line” for them (they will even go so far as to insist that science be defined as the search for “naturalistic explanations” Such a view excludes the possibility of creation a priori .
• 

  hooberus

  If you limit yourself only “naturalistic” explanations, then you are now committed to either random chance or some sort of evolutionary scheme (which can include random chance).

  There are many “naturalistic” options available for evolutionists to “select” from. ReMine called this ‘Natural’ selection.

  For example:

  -Separate Ancestry (multiple biogenesis)

  -Common Ancestry

  -Lateral Transposition (can move a character across lineages)

  -Convergence (The independent evolution of similar traits)

  -Loss of Character

  And many more!
  

  -So let’s say cytochrome c was “identical” in all species. Evolutionists could “select” either Common Ancestry or Lateral Transposition “explain” the pattern. (They would then tell us that if it was created by a creator that it “should be random”, and use the odds against random chance as evidence for evolution. See my earlier posts on this thread).

  -Let’s say instead that cytochrome c was “random” across all species. Evolutionists would have no problem. They would simply say it was randomized by mutations. (They would then say (as some already do that if it were created it “should be identical.”)

  -Let’s say that human cytochrome c was identical to yeast and that chimp cytochrome c was identical to a lizzard. Evolutionists would attribute it to Lateral Transposition.

  That evolutionists are willing to invoke such “explanations” is documented from their own writings (see the afore mentioned book).

  Keep in mind that the evolutionists commitment to “naturalistic explanations” is a total commitment. So for them it’s just a process of finding the most plausible (least unlikely) naturalistic “explanation” that they can come up with, no matter how unlikely.
• 

  Anders Andersen

  The goal of evolutionists is to “explain” everything found in nature naturalistically.
  

  That's the goal of all scientists in any field of science. Nature is what we can perceive, measure, detect, and try to understand. Anything supernatural is beyond investigation, and thus useless as a means to try and understand nature.
  

  
  Claiming "we are stuck to Earth by the power of Shiva" doesn't do anything useful towards our understanding of gravity. Claiming "Thor makes fire go" does not help us in any way to understand how or what fire works. Claiming "Jawheh created all species of life" does not do anything to help us understand how life came into existence.
  

  Furthermore, such claims cannot be proven or disproven*. "Zeus created us from his brother's excrements" is just as (in)valid and plausible as "We came into existence in Shiva's dream", which is just as plausible and (in)valid as "The Holy Trinity created us from dust"
  

  *) of course the more ridiculous details that contradict reality in many supernatural interpretations of nature can be disproven.
  

  This is really the “bottom line” for them (they will even go so far as to insist that science be defined as the search for “naturalistic explanations”

  Indeed. If anyone could probe or even interview their god(s) of choice reliably, scientists would be happy to use that source of knowledge too. Unfortunately any and all of the thousands of gods people believe in conveniently hide themselves in the minds of their believers only. It's almost as if they don't exist.

  Such a view excludes the possibility of creation a priori

  No, it does not. Scientists would be happy to conclude some things or all things were created, as soon as they find evidence that it is. But such evidence simply hasn't been found yet. There's stuff we don't understand yet. There's stuff we can't explain yet. But none of that is explained by saying "Surely we exist because Shiva or Thor created us"
  
• 

  cofty

  From this point forward on this thread I am minimizing direct dialogue with the poster cofty - Hooby

  Of course you are.

  Your intellectual cowardice is duly noted but that isn't how a discussion forum works. Will catch up with your latest offering shortly.
  
• 

  cofty

  they will even go so far as to insist that science be defined as the search for “naturalistic explanations” Such a view excludes the possibility of creation a priori - Hooby

  You are confusing 'methodological naturalism' and 'ontological naturalism'.

  Anders has explained to you above why resorting to supernatural explanations is the opposite of science. 'god-did-it' is a lazy non-answer to all questions. The task of science is to find naturalistic answers - this is 'methodological naturalism'. Scientists who are also committed christians also follow this principle.

  However this does not require that scientists presume 'ontological naturalism' - the position that supernatural explanations are impossible. The point is that no such explanations are necessary to explain any feature of biological evolution.

  I will get to your extremely muddled second post later this evening. So many scientific misunderstandings!
• 

  Perry

  Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time
• 

  cofty

  Perry - The article you linked is written misleadingly by a journalist who clearly doesn't understand the significance of the paper or who has wilfully misrepresented it. Why didn't you link to the original paper?

  Here it is here...

  It's only 30 pages and it's not too challenging. It is a very interesting report on comparisons between the mitochondrial DNA of a wide range of species.

  The paper does NOT suggest that life originated all at the same time but that the age of extant species can be traced back to founder populations around 200,000 years ago. Two possibilities are suggested for why that is the case. There is NOTHING in the paper that in any way undermines the fact of evolution. It is a discussion about the pace of speciation. Please read the original paper not the appallingly bad, sensationalist bullshit article in Tech Times.

  Do creationists get news alerts for this sort of crap or do you find the links on other creationist websites? Get out of your self-imposed ignorance bubble.
• 

  Perry

  Cofty,

  The study is published in the journal Human Evolution.... not a creationist source.

  I post this because it is favorable toward a worldview which I believe the evidence (that I can personally test or can reasonably subscribe to supports)...unlike you.

  The paper does NOT suggest that life originated all at the same time but that the age of extant species can be traced back to founder populations

  A perfect fit for a Noah's ark scenario. Bravo!

  1. What is your explanation for why dinosaur bones stink like rotting flesh? If they are old enough for the Rocky Mountains to have been worn down by rain water and wind and then rise again as evolutionists claim, how could they still have organic molecules decomposing... still stinking like a corpse?
  
  2. How can carbon dating of dinosaur soft tissue consistently show a date of thousands of years?

  3. How can dinosaur dna fragments last more that a few thousand years when DNA has been demonstrated to last at most a few thousand years?

  These are simple smell-test type observances that even the most uneducated amongst us (such as yourself with ZERO training in the biological sciences) can understand.

  What say you?
  
  

  
  
• 

  Esse quam videri

  The information in the OP of this thread should be enough to convince any rational person.

  Wow!
  

  That little bit of information should be enough. And I gather that any rational person must mean 'all rational people.'

  WOW !!!
  
• 

  cofty

  The study is in the journal Human Evolution.... not a creationist source. - Perry

  My question was why you posted a link to a ridiculous, dishonest article that totally misrepresented the paper rather than posting a link to the original paper. You avoid answering the question and pretend you did the opposite. Why?

  I post this because it is favorable toward a worldview which I believe

  Except that it isn't. The paper about mitochondrial DNA discusses the age of extant species. It points to a date of approx 200,000 years when most modern species emerged from pre-existing species. It presupposes common ancestry from an origin billions of years ago. It does nothing to support your creationist superstitions.

  The rest of your post about dinosaur DNA has been answered so many times on this forum it is risible that you keep raising it without acknowledging that. The mere fact that you are still linking carbon dating with dinosaur bones proves that you have no interest in learning anything.