jmog wrote: Science has many laws that are facts, the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Evolution is still a theory, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

jmog wrote: There is a difference between Newton's Law of Gravity and overall gravitational theory. Gravitational theory combines Newton's Law for macrophysics with Einstein's theory of relativity for microscale gravity.

bigmanbt wrote: Oh an jmog, I get what you are saying, but way to reference it in your first post. You stated gravity is a law, when part of gravity is a law, but the whole piece of gravity is a theory. That's a fact.

bigmanbt wrote:

Oh an jmog, I get what you are saying, but way to reference it in your first post. You stated gravity is a law, when part of gravity is a law, but the whole piece of gravity is a theory. That's a fact.

FatHobbit wrote:
In his first post Jmog was talking about scientific laws, so it makes sense that he was only talking about the law of gravity. He even addressed your point about the theory of gravity in a subsequent post.

bigmanbt wrote: I will say this though, you do know you're stuff about parts of science jmog, and your explanation of radioactive dating is interesting. I don't however think that discredits the science of it, just that some of the lead found might not be uranium that decayed. It's real tough to explain the existence of dinosaurs and the like if the Earth is only tens of thousands of years old and not the billions we know it as. Radioactive half-lives aren't the only thing that tell us how old the Earh is, though it is a major part.

FatHobbit wrote:

74Leps wrote:It is said that chimps and humans have 98% the same DNA. That is a VERY misleading statement. Even if it were that much the same, and it isn't if you include insertions and deletions (more like 95%), the differences are still huge. At allegedly 98% the same, there's still 40-60 MILLION differences.

If 2% = 40-60 MILLION, there must be 2000-3000 million in your selection, so there are 1960-2940 MILLION similarities.

74Leps wrote:Some more food for thought: humans have 50% the same DNA as bananas. That doesn't make man half banana or evolved from a banana.

Humans have 96% the same DNA as mice. That doesn't make us mostly mice, does it? NO, It doesn't.

We're not mostly apes either. We share a common ancestor with apes. And mice. And bananas. I don't understand why some people get hung up on man and apes having a common ancestor. Every living thing has a common ancestor...
- - -

EDIT: CORRECTION, EVERYTHING HAS THE SAME DESIGNER, THAT'S WHY THE SIMILARITIES. Makes more sense too.

Oh, and Darwin believed we descended from apes:

"Charles Darwin most definitely did state that humans evolved from apes. In chapter six (“On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man”) in his volume, The Descent of Man, Darwin concluded:

In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae [monkeys and apes]. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.
But that is not all that Darwin had to say on this matter. What organism was it from which Darwin said humans had evolved? He continued:

[A] naturalist would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey, an ancient form which possessed many characters common to the Catarhine [Old World] and Platyrhine [New World] monkeyÖ. There can, consequently, hardly be a doubt that man is an off-shoot from the Old World simian stem; and that under a genealogical point of view he must be classified with the Catarhine divisionÖ. We have seen that man appears to have diverged from the Catarhine or Old World division of the Simiadae, after these had diverged from the New World division (p. 521, emp. and bracketed items added)." - From Trueorigin website.


- - -

74Leps wrote:Something else to ponder: The DNA claims made about the similarities only involves some proteins in the DNA - ONLY THREE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL DNA! The rest is called 'junk' DNA because, well, because they don't know what it does. They are slowly finding out that the alleged 'junk' DNA does have functions, and this is ruining their fairy tale.

Part of that is true. We are learning more and more about DNA every day. I'm not sure how that ruins any fairy tale.
- - -
THE FAIRY TALE THAT WE EVOLVED UP FROM SLIME TO MAN

- - -

74Leps wrote:The mutations cited by evos are horizontal in nature: they might provide a survival benefit, but no increase in order, which Darwinian evolution requires. The survivial benefit from mutations often comes at the cost of LOSING information.

Often? But not always?

74Leps wrote:For example, a bacterial resistance to antibiotics. It's been shown that the bacteria REMOVES information that the antibiotic used to recognize the bacteria with, so it saw it as an 'enemy' to destroy.

Link?

- - -

HERE'S YOUR LINK and some short excerpts:
noincreaseininfo


ONE of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations. A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT.

However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.

Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realised that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful.

Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.

Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions."

. . .

The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.

Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species. 70

So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.

The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes: . . .
- - -

HERE'S ANOTHER LINK, from a site that operates to counter the claims made by talkorigins, on the subject:

bacterialresistance

THERE'S ALSO A NICE DEBATE between representatives of Talkorigins and Trueorigins on evolution/creation - the results were supposed to later be posted at Talkorigins as they were going to be at Trueorigins. Talkorigins never posted the results because THEY LOST THE DEBATE.

evolutionfail

- - -

74Leps wrote:Want a healthy dog? Get a mutt. They have more genetic information than any purebred. When animals are bred for particular traits, they REMOVE information to get the desired result.

The corn we eat and enjoy today has been bred for particular traits. To make it that way, information was REMOVED.

Are you seeing a pattern yet?

Animals and Corn that are bred for selective traits have less variance in their DNA. (They don't have less DNA or information. They just don't have the DNA combination that did not meet the standard that the breeder was looking for.) Is that the pattern you're looking for? When is anything bred for selective traits in nature? I'm not sure how that even applies.

- - -

YOU'RE JOKING, RIGHT? There is no increase in information. Darwinian evolution requires an increase in info, there is none.

74Leps wrote:But if you want to believe otherwise, fine. But ugly facts are against you. And evolution is more religious than ID or Creationism,

Evolution is more religious than creationism? So does that mean that you aren't very religious?
- - -
I'M NOT VERY religious at all. Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship.

- - -

74Leps wrote:So then, can anyone give me a single example of a mutation that brought about an increase in genetic complexity, not just a selection from a subset of what was already present? "New" information brought from outside a system into the system to make it more complex? (More qualitatively sophisticated)

NO, you can't, because there aren't any.

Any mutation will bring about an increase in genetic complexity. Most are not beneficial. Sickle cell is a mutation that increases genetic complexity.

jmog wrote:

HitsRus wrote: I.D. cannot be proven scientifically except thru intellectual intuitivty. It's proper place is in a religion or philosophy class. Science class should be confined to scientific study of facts and theories.

I agree with this, but the same statement can be said about the beginning of life in the theory of evolution.

74Leps wrote: If you can read this, I can prove God exists. So says Perry Marshall.

http://www.evolution2100.com/

Check out the above website, sign up for free. Perry Marshall is well versed in information theory. He believes information itself proves God. Want to debate with him? He's game, try him.

BCSbunk wrote:

So you are a biologist? Just because someone is a scientist does not make them well versed in all the sciences. I have a friend who is a geologist and knows little about biology it is not his expertise.

The theory of evolution is fact it has been witnessed and documented. Abiogenesis which is a completely seperate theory is still very much in the beginnings and is not established as fact.

TO THE OP.

It is religious rewording. ID is much closer to Abiogenesis which to my knowledge abiogenesis theories are not taught in HS.

Evolution is the theory of how living things change which they do and it has been witnessed and documented. Abiogenesis or biopoesis has not been witnessed or documented. Though they have now created RNA in the lab and creating life will not be that far away IMO.

I would even go so far as to say that abiogenesis is still in the hypothesis stage, but I could be wrong.

jmog wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

So you are a biologist? Just because someone is a scientist does not make them well versed in all the sciences. I have a friend who is a geologist and knows little about biology it is not his expertise.

The theory of evolution is fact it has been witnessed and documented. Abiogenesis which is a completely seperate theory is still very much in the beginnings and is not established as fact.

TO THE OP.

It is religious rewording. ID is much closer to Abiogenesis which to my knowledge abiogenesis theories are not taught in HS.

Evolution is the theory of how living things change which they do and it has been witnessed and documented. Abiogenesis or biopoesis has not been witnessed or documented. Though they have now created RNA in the lab and creating life will not be that far away IMO.

I would even go so far as to say that abiogenesis is still in the hypothesis stage, but I could be wrong.

Depends on what you are calling evolution.

Species adapting through mutations to their surroundings, you are right, it has been "observed".

Species changing to another species, has not been observed, period...anyone who says it has is either ignorant of the facts or is lying through their teeth.

There is a huge difference.

Paladin wrote: Excellent point. I believe in an Old Earth, evolution, the Big Bang and respect the discoveries of science that have advanced mankind and his understandings of the world. None of this interferes with the idea of a god. Whether a god still exists or not is another question, but the insanity of religions and their dogmas convinces many that fools are on an errand of brainwashing. The concept of if there is or was a god is blurred by the zealots who promote their religion and the rules & regs imposed on believing in their god .

bigmanbt wrote: The so-called athiest "zealots" you are referring to are different, because we aren't trying to force anything upon anyone. We just don't want an unproven, scientific theory imposed on anyone, like teaching intelligent design would do.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: The so-called athiest "zealots" you are referring to are different, because we aren't trying to force anything upon anyone. We just don't want an unproven, scientific theory imposed on anyone, like teaching intelligent design would do.

What? What is the Big Bang Theory? Proven fact?