Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[Ortho_cat]

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.

I encourage you to check out these two links. Examples of beneficial mutations have been found (and induced) and are abundant. Also, speciation (transition from one species to another) has been observed in nature and in laboratory settings./

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

 

[Rufus]

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

This, as well as other genetic oddities such as endogenous retrovirus (ERV) remnants that show a history of virus infection which are in the exact same location in the humans as well as other higher primates. Common descent between humans other higher primates can be shown conclusively by DNA evidence alone.

I prefer simpler ways of disproving Biblical hyperliteralism, such as the fact that we can see stars more than 7500 lightyears away, or that Chinese history is older than the earth, but I guess this works too. Btw, who adds the "cheval mort" tags? I think it's hilarious.

 

[chrevbel]

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species...

But this isn't a problem, since we have observed the birth of new species.  There was a time when Mastodons did not exist, as we know from the fossil record.  But we observe them appear, as a new species.  And there is a later time when they no longer appear, having gone extinct.  This type of observation now numbers in the thousands.  Your stated lack is far from it.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive.

Not sure how you can say this.  Maybe you weren't paying attention in high school biology class.  The mutation which led to elongated giraffe necks, for example, is generally considered to be positive.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot,...

Well, we certainly agree that far.

 

[Jetavan]

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive.

The mutations that produced feathers from scales, well, that was pretty positive.

 

[Ortho_cat]

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive.

The mutations that produced feathers from scales, well, that was pretty positive.

since we're on the subject

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/13/uknews.taxonomy

 

[Heorhij]

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

But what IS a species? To observe emergence of a new species, one has first to establish some very exhaustive criteria that separate species A from species B. But this is very difficult to do. In the world of asexually reproducing microorganisms, for example, it is next to impossible. I stopped telling my students, for example, about what species are included into the genus Salmonella, because, depending on what your subjective take on the concept of species is, this number varies from 2 to more than 200. Strictly speaking, methycillin- or vancomycin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus can be characterized as new species that emerged within the last 10 years or so. Serovar E. coli O157:H7 is still described in all microbiology textbooks as belonging to the species Escherichia coli, but in fact it has some proteins that make it much closer to a species in the genus Shigella. Some 20 or 30 years ago, E. coli O157:H7 might have not existed... In large organisms, too, the concept of species is not all that crystal clear. There are, for example, populations of birds (let's call them population X and population Y), which look absolutely identical, and yet do not cross-breed. Formally, one CAN call them species X and species Y. And it well may be that within a population of, say, swallows or sparrows right now, as I type these words, a population W and a population Z are about to form, which do not interbreed and yet look identical. So who can guarantee that a species "sparrow W" and a species "sparrow Z" aren't forming right now?

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive.

There is no such thing as absolutely negative or absolutely positive mutation. The harm or the benefit that a mutant gets from acquiring a certain mutation depends on the environment in which this mutant lives. For example, a human who has the "s" mutation (sickle cell anemia) has all rights in the world to call it negative if he or she lives in the USA or Western Europe. This mutant receives no gain from it, only pain (hypoxia, physical weakness, cardiovascular complications, etc.). But the protozoan parasite called Plasmodium malariae does not replicate in red blood cells of people with sickle-cell anemia. So, a mutant who has s-hemoglonbin and lives in the jungle of the Amazon basin, has no right, strictly speaking, to complain on the "negativity" of this mutation, because he or she has a lesser chance to succumb to malaria and, therefore, is more likely to live longer and to beget more children.

 

[Azurestone]

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.

While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

 

[Azurestone]

The process of the theory of evolution isn't formalized, either. Much of the theory is based on constructs that fit the evidence/situation, but not truly dependent of physical representation.

But what IS a species? To observe emergence of a new species, one has first to establish some very exhaustive criteria that separate species A from species B. But this is very difficult to do. In the world of asexually reproducing microorganisms, for example, it is next to impossible. I stopped telling my students, for example, about what species are included into the genus Salmonella, because, depending on what your subjective take on the concept of species is, this number varies from 2 to more than 200. Strictly speaking, methycillin- or vancomycin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus can be characterized as new species that emerged within the last 10 years or so. Serovar E. coli O157:H7 is still described in all microbiology textbooks as belonging to the species Escherichia coli, but in fact it has some proteins that make it much closer to a species in the genus Shigella. Some 20 or 30 years ago, E. coli O157:H7 might have not existed... In large organisms, too, the concept of species is not all that crystal clear. There are, for example, populations of birds (let's call them population X and population Y), which look absolutely identical, and yet do not cross-breed. Formally, one CAN call them species X and species Y. And it well may be that within a population of, say, swallows or sparrows right now, as I type these words, a population W and a population Z are about to form, which do not interbreed and yet look identical. So who can guarantee that a species "sparrow W" and a species "sparrow Z" aren't forming right now?

Many people try to settle the theory through the concept of gradual evolution, however, recent studies are showing this to not be supported by the observable evidence, either.

"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."

Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes

 

[Jetavan]

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.

While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").

 

[laconicstudent]

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Or you could have a point mutation and end up substituting "zoo" for "park", or an insertion mutation during crossover that could add the words "and high-five'd Moses" to your sentence.

 

[Azurestone]

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Or you could have a point mutation and end up substituting "zoo" for "park", or an insertion mutation during crossover that could add the words "and high-five'd Moses" to your sentence.

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.

While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").

While the example wasn't supposed to be comprehensive, I mentioned sharing of information (in bold).

Also, a change in the information isn't new, it's a change. By new, I'm talking about the ground up build of a new command.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30429.0.html

 

[laconicstudent]

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Or you could have a point mutation and end up substituting "zoo" for "park", or an insertion mutation during crossover that could add the words "and high-five'd Moses" to your sentence.

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.

While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").

While the example wasn't supposed to be comprehensive, I mentioned sharing of information (in bold).

Also, a change in the information isn't new, it's a change. By new, I'm talking about the ground up build of a new command.

Like E. coli evolving a novel metabolic pathway in a laboratory?

 

[Marc1152]

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.

While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").

One theory is that evolutionary jumps are borne of necessity. For example, an ice age coming upon primitive humans could have forced them to select for alternative genetic features in order to survive. I think what is very clear is the evolution of Humaniods from one species to the next more advanced version.

When I was young, there was no such thing as  animals communicating to us with language. But, under stress, Apes can now use sign language and communicate their thoughts and desires. Perhaps they will teach their offspring.

 

[Azurestone]

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Or you could have a point mutation and end up substituting "zoo" for "park", or an insertion mutation during crossover that could add the words "and high-five'd Moses" to your sentence.

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.

While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").

While the example wasn't supposed to be comprehensive, I mentioned sharing of information (in bold).

Also, a change in the information isn't new, it's a change. By new, I'm talking about the ground up build of a new command.

Like E. coli evolving a novel metabolic pathway in a laboratory?

Exactly.


From the abstract:

Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population.

The process for how the change occurred wasn't mapped. What they did was show the ability for a species to adapt to a new environment. Which is the evidence that supports my previous article:

"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."

NOTE: I never said changes don't happen within a species.

 

[Azurestone]

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.

While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").

One theory is that evolutionary jumps are borne of necessity.

I mentioned this.

Many people try to settle the theory through the concept of gradual evolution, however, recent studies are showing this to not be supported by the observable evidence, either.

"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."

Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes

For example, an ice age coming upon primitive humans could have forced them to select for alternative genetic features in order to survive. I think what is very clear is the evolution of Humaniods from one species to the next more advanced version.

Without denying your example, you're using theory to support theory.

When I was young, there was no such thing as  animals communicating to us with language. But, under stress, Apes can now use sign language and communicate their thoughts and desires. Perhaps they will teach their offspring.

That's not evolution. The experiment just hadn't been tried. The Gorilla already had that capability.

 

[Rafa999]

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.

 

[Rufus]

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.

Yes, because we have that many similarities to bacteria. I am not kidding.

 

[Rafa999]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

 

[Rufus]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

 

[laconicstudent]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

I note the article uses the words "much of", not "all".

 

[Jetavan]

Not that Episcopalians have much cachet around here, but here goes:

Does this picture of human evolution conflict with the biblical statement that we humans are made in the image and likeness of God?

The phrase does not refer to a physical image and likeness, since God is spirit (John 4:24).  Theologians have sought to explain “image and likeness” in various ways: that it refers to those divine gifts of unconditional love and compassion, our reason and imagination, our moral and ethical capacities, our freedom, or our creativity.  To think that these gifts may have been bestowed through the evolutionary process does not conflict with biblical and theological notions that God acts in creation.  Scripture affirms that God was involved (Gen. 1:26-27).
....
If God creates through evolutionary processes, how may this awareness enhance my spiritual life?

The God of evolution is the biblical God, subtle and gracious, who interacts with and rejoices in the enormous variety, diversity, and beauty of this evolving creation.  When we contemplate the tremendous gift of freedom God has bestowed upon the creation, and how the Holy Spirit preserves in covenantal faithfulness the physical laws, powers and processes that enable such variety and beauty, these thoughts may move our hearts to a deeper admiration, awe and gratitude for God’s works.  They may inspire a curiosity to know God’s creation more deeply, celebrate it with thanksgiving, and devote ourselves to caring for it.

 

[Rufus]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

I note the article uses the words "much of", not "all".

It's no use, Laconic. Those scientists are sweating beads from fear that they'll be exposed for the great conspiracy to invalidate some people's interpretation of the Bible. That's their life's work, down the toilet. Which is exactly the reason they appear calm and are making no effort to keep these results secret. That's ok, there are still other lies we can tell in the fields of biology, astronomy, history, and geology that haven't been exposed yet by the real scientists. (Where are they, anyway?)

 

[Rafa999]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

 

[laconicstudent]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, nipples in men, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

....So? You do realize that a podcast is not a scientific source?

 

[Rafa999]

Scientific american is though no ? Shoot the messenger, the poor podcast trying to unveil the conspiracy ahem...

 

[laconicstudent]

Scientific american is though no ?

Actually, no, it certainly isn't.

Shoot the messenger, the poor podcast trying to unveil the conspiracy ahem...

My pleasure.

 

[Rafa999]

Look the Journal cited by scientific American cited by the podcast is a good source and the research probably has been corroborated by other Journals. Makes perfect sense that the appendix is not vestigial if tons of other species have it and it hasn't gone away yet. It's used to store good bacteria while the surroundings are bad. Just like the Thyroid secretes hormones to control metabolism, and the pineal is part of the sleep cycle, and so forth, all denied by evolutionists some years ago...

 

[Jetavan]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?

Why do males have nipples? Seem pretty vestigial to me.

 

[Rafa999]

You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?

That's what "They" continue to say in their dishonest textbooks even though they already know for years the truth...

like when they put the feather dinosaur on display saying they had the fossil (when they had nothing) or when the used to teach "pilt down man" and have fabricated diagrams showing "embryonic recurrence" as proof of evolution, and how they will continue to teach lucy as the oldest "primate ancestor" of humans or whatever fable for years to come even though we now have fossils which show this is patently false...

 

[Jetavan]

You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?

That's what "They" continue to say in their dishonest textbooks even though they already know for years the truth...

And what is the truth?

 

[Rufus]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

Did you read the last line of the article?

 

[Rufus]

You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?

That's what "They" continue to say in their dishonest textbooks even though they already know for years the truth...

...which is?

 

[laconicstudent]

Look the Journal cited by scientific American cited by the pdocast is a good source

I should imagine so, but you aren't citing it, for some reason. You chose to cite Scientific American.

and the research probably has been corroborated by other Journals.

"Probably" isn't good enough.

Makes perfect sense that the appendix is not vestigial if tons of other species have it and it hasn't gone away yet. It's used to store good bacteria while the surroundings are bad. Just like the Throid secretes hormones to control metabolism, and the pineal is part of the sleep cycle, and so forth, all denied by evolutionists some years ago...

Do you know what "vestigial" means in this context?....

 

[Rafa999]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

Did you read the last line of the article?

Outrageous! Now they claim the Appendix was "evolved" by natural selection!!! Typical junk science, can never be falsified with evidence to the contrary, will always be right no matter the evidence presented.

 

[Rufus]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

Did you read the last line of the article?

Outrageous! Now they claim the Appendix was "evolved" by natural selection!!! Typical junk science, can never be falsified with evidence to the contrary, will always be right no matter the evidence presented.

No, they said it has not disappeared because of natural selection.

 

[Rafa999]

By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !

Did you read the last line of the article?

Outrageous! Now they claim the Appendix was "evolved" by natural selection!!! Typical junk science, can never be falsified with evidence to the contrary, will always be right no matter the evidence presented.

No, they said it has not disappeared because of natural selection.

They previously said it was about to disappear because of natural selection and claimed that since we are the only ones with one that it was vestigial, now they reversed argument.

 

[Ortho_cat]

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.

<citation needed>

 

[Rafa999]

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.

<citation needed>

Can't find for Bacteria species, but found platypus at least 82% human :

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/05/07/platypus.genome.explains.animals.peculiar.features.holds.clues.evolution.mammals

Behold the long lost missing link :

   

 

[Ortho_cat]

two words...sexy beast.

 

[Sleeper]

So, let me get this straight.  You cite the similar DNA we have with so many creatures, not as evidence that we descended from a common ancestor, but rather to take the, "Gosh! We don't look anything like those creatures!  It must mean nothing!" line of reasoning?  Interesting.