Creationist claims proof the Bible was right

[scowl]

Most mutations are random. Some are caused by direct influence, such as radiation.

Can you predict exactly what mutations will be caused by exposure to radiation?

Some are caused by environmental forces, such as changes in temperature.

Tell me how temperature alters DNA.

It's reproduced every semester in high school biology labs throughout the country. The evolution of the hawthorn fruit fly to the apple fruit fly is the papermache volcano of genetics.

That's natural selection, not evolution. Natural selection is not controversial. Most creationists accept natural selection.

It's not conscious, but it is directed. The theories of evolution basically address the processes through which random changes in the genomes are directed by chemical, biological, or environmental forces to either emphasize or suppress a given trait.

A random process cannot be directed. That's like saying someone who plays the lottery and wins it had won by a directed process.

[scowl]

Always a pleasure to read superior knowledge revolving round nothing, So living species don't evolve according to the changing conditions they find themselves in, you may well need to tell that to biologists, anthropologists and any other sane logical person, who can read and see the facts of just about every living thing and how it has adapted and evolved according to its local conditions.

WTF!!!! I was pointing out how hard it is to teach evolution. It's even more difficult to teach when people take condescending attitudes towards people who ask questions about it. No wonder Americans would rather believe what the church tells them!

Considering you believe everything on the planet was created in 6 days, it's perfectly understandable your lack of ability to grasp evolution, as your acceptable time line, can't grasp anything beyond 6000 years.

I never said that and don't believe it.

Of course viewing evolution in nature daily, would be way beyond religious clones, as reality just doesn't compute to such simple infantile minds.

That defensive condescending attitude my friends is why so many people would rather believe in Bible stories than science. And anything you see on a daily basis is certainly not evolution since it's a process that takes millions of years to observe.

Rocks revolve according to their situation, your rock started out as a bunch of molecules, forced together by gravity or compaction. From there it may have evolved through the earths crust, created in a volcano, mountain or as the result of water or other pressures and evolved to its present shape, state and consistency.

And you believe that's evolution. You might want to understand it before you go preaching about it.

[stormbay]

WTF!!!! I was pointing out how hard it is to teach evolution. It's even more difficult to teach when people take condescending attitudes towards people who ask questions about it. No wonder Americans would rather believe what the church tells them!

I never said that and don't believe it.

That defensive condescending attitude my friends is why so many people would rather believe in Bible stories than science. And anything you see on a daily basis is certainly not evolution since it's a process that takes millions of years to observe.

And you believe that's evolution. You might want to understand it before you go preaching about it.

It's understandable you'd react like that, denial and rejection of fact, are the hallmarks of believers.

Claiming evolution is hard to teach, is ample evidence of your evolutionary understanding. Evolution is one of the most viewable natural phenomena on the planet, young children who haven't had the fear of god forced into them, instantly see how it works when explained, by using the reality that surrounds us.

They also reject with laughter when they are first confronted by the god delusion and how ridiculous it sounds. When you explain easter, xmas, to them and point out the history of the belief in relation to our indigenous people, they quickly understand why the world is like it is and why believers are so negative and destructive in their lives.

That's another funny thing, believers clam their bible is real, but when confronted by the facts, understandably jump into their favorite mode, denial. Then bluster around trying to justify why on one hand they claim their bibles are infallible and all powerful, then on the other hand, try to distance themselves from the facts of their cults history and ridiculous stories, with more denials.

Those who believe in god, don't have the mental capacity to correlate reality, whether that's a genetic defect, psychological viral infection, or just plainly unevolved. That's why like they cling desperately to their fantasies, purely because they have no other option, reality is so frightening, confronting and just doesn't compute in their simple programmed minds.

You don't preach evolution, you view it in nature every moment of the day. You have to pathologically lie and force teach god idiocy, because it has nothing to support it other than the cults history of joyful ongoing violence and destruction of life.

This is completely viewable around the planet in every god cult society, your USA is a prime example of god driven gun totting violence, that has historically been the approach of the cult and continues today in every place you find believers.

I don't believe in anything, other than the reality of the future. Have no need for mental crutches, or pharmaceuticals interventions. That's the realm of believers, whose minds are so confused between what is and what their mind is programmed to demand. So they lash out at anything they can blame for their inadequacy, to suport their denial.

Edited June 20, 2014 by stormbay

[aquatus1]

Can you predict exactly what mutations will be caused by exposure to radiation?

If we could, they wouldn't be called "random mutations" now, would they?

Which is not to say we can't use radiation to cause intentional mutations, but frankly, it is far easier and more exact to use chemical mutagens.

Tell me how temperature alters DNA.

Depends largely on the state of development. A few extra weeks of warm weather turns the Hawthorn fly larvae into the Apple fly larvae. Environmental stress results in above average mutations, even radical mutations. It's referred to as "Punctuated Equilibrium".

That's natural selection, not evolution. Natural selection is not controversial. Most creationists accept natural selection.

Don't really care what Creationists accept or not, as long as they don't try to pass off their beliefs as science. Natural Selection is an evolutionary theory, one of several. Punctuated Equilibrium is another. Neither Natural Selection, nor evolution, are controversial subjects. In the U.S., there is a handful of people who actually make a fuss about it. Most, even those who do believe God is involved somewhere, just shrug and go about their lives. In the rest of the world, it isn't even an issue.

A random process cannot be directed. That's like saying someone who plays the lottery and wins it had won by a directed process.

Random processes get directed all the time. Heck, it's one of the problem children of mathematics. There's very few processes that are truly random, and most of those actually turn out to be chaotic, which is pretty much unpredictable. And yes, the lottery is indeed directed. It has limitations and rules it follows.

Evolution, however, is most definitely directed. That is, in fact, the entire purpose of the academic study of it: to determine the means by which random mutations become established in the genetic bank of a given species. By far, Natural Selection is the most powerful selective force. It isn't, however, the only one. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with what causes the mutations in the first place. It really doesn't matter if a given mutation is cause by randomness, by radiation, by environmental forces, or by aliens playing Jenga with our genomes. Evolution is about how genetic mutation results in diversity of species, not about how mutations happen to begin with. That's just chemical biology.

Edited June 21, 2014 by aquatus1
Added the lottery bit

[scowl]

It's understandable you'd react like that, denial and rejection of fact, are the hallmarks of believers.

Dude, you still think I don't believe in evolution. Read what I wrote, buddy!

Claiming evolution is hard to teach, is ample evidence of your evolutionary understanding. Evolution is one of the most viewable natural phenomena on the planet, young children who haven't had the fear of god forced into them, instantly see how it works when explained, by using the reality that surrounds us.

If the process of evolution is so obvious then you should be able to give us one example that will convince anyone that evolution is the only possible explanation?

Got anything yet?

Didn't think so. That's the problem with teaching it.

That's another funny thing, believers clam their bible is real....

And you wander off into several rambling topics that have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

[scowl]

If we could, they wouldn't be called "random mutations" now, would they?

Exactly. You get it now.

Depends largely on the state of development. A few extra weeks of warm weather turns the Hawthorn fly larvae into the Apple fly larvae. Environmental stress results in above average mutations, even radical mutations. It's referred to as "Punctuated Equilibrium".

Please read more carefully. "Tell me how temperature alters DNA." These are not genetic mutations. These are products of existing DNA.

Don't really care what Creationists accept or not, as long as they don't try to pass off their beliefs as science.

And that is exactly why creationist beliefs dominate and are able to pass their beliefs as science.

Random processes get directed all the time. Heck, it's one of the problem children of mathematics. There's very few processes that are truly random, and most of those actually turn out to be chaotic, which is pretty much unpredictable. And yes, the lottery is indeed directed. It has limitations and rules it follows.

Again you don't read and you don't understand. Please read my words again: " That's like saying someone who plays the lottery and wins it had won by a directed process."

Did you see the word "winning" now? Winning the lottery is different from "the lottery" itself. Winning the lottery is not a directed process. In case you don't know how it works, you pick numbers.

Evolution, however, is most definitely directed. That is, in fact, the entire purpose of the academic study of it: to determine the means by which random mutations become established in the genetic bank of a given species.

However those mutations did not occur because the species needed them to avoid becoming extinct. It was a matter of chance that they received them and they turned out to be beneficial. Other species were not so lucky (and I use the word "lucky" literally) and they died off.

Your description of evolution as a "directed process" is why a majority of Americans who believe in evolution also believe that God Himself is in charge of evolution and is deciding which species will live and which will die. As you say, it's a "directed processes" so it must be controlled by God. Some will say it's proof that God exists. They will not accept that random chance can ever benefit anything.

[aquatus1]

Exactly. You get it now.

"Now", huh? Well, at least you can be just as condescending as you accuse others of being. Nothing wrong with that; pretty much the standard for both sides. Anyhow:

You stated: "Mutations are random. Species do not mutate in reaction to changing conditions."

I stated: "Most mutations are random. Some are caused by direct influence, such as radiation. Some are caused by environmental forces, such as changes in temperature."

"Direct influence" does not mean "predict exactly what mutations will be caused". It means "directly causes random mutations."

Bad weather is a direct influence on traffic accidents. It directly causes (creates, makes some happen) traffic accidents. Whether or not you can predict exactly what accidents will be caused is irrelevant to the fact that it does influence the occurrence of accidents.

Please read more carefully. "Tell me how temperature alters DNA." These are not genetic mutations. These are products of existing DNA.

How are these not genetic mutations? How do they not specifically define what changes in existing DNA are?

Or are you just guessing, without really knowing and without bothering to read anything about it?

And that is exactly why creationist beliefs dominate and are able to pass their beliefs as science.

My caring when creationists try to pass of their beliefs as science allows creationists to pass of their beliefs as science? Am I truly so powerful?

Does my caring about someone claiming a given deity is scientific allow others to believe in that deity as a scientific deity? I would have thought it would be my lack of caring about it that would have done it.

Unless, of course, the above is simply a misunderstanding brought about by not reading carefully.

Again you don't read and you don't understand. Please read my words again: " That's like saying someone who plays the lottery and wins it had won by a directed process."

Yep, still looks exactly like it did when I first read it.

Did you see the word "winning" now?

Now, before, probably later. That's the beauty of a discussion forum. You can take as much time as you need to carefully read and make a considered response.

Winning the lottery is different from "the lottery" itself. Winning the lottery is not a directed process. In case you don't know how it works, you pick numbers.

Hmm, they have really simple lotteries where you live.

Around here, in order to win a lottery you have to go through a pretty specific process. Picking numbers is just one of the steps, heck, it is even one which you can skip. You have to do it within a specific time period, you have to use a limited set of numbers, you can't pick any of the same numbers twice, you have to pick a fixed set of numbers no more no less (unless you skip picking numbers altogether and just get a computer to do it, but we all know computers don't have things like scripts directing them or anything). And, of course, you have to register and pay for it.

And that's all aside from the actual lottery itself, which has its own rules and limits directing the results.

Very little is actually random.

However those mutations did not occur because the species needed them to avoid becoming extinct.

Probably not. Lamarckian evolution was disproved quite some time ago. Whether a species needs a particular mutation is not considered a contributing factor in actually developing that mutation. It's pretty much luck of the draw.

It was a matter of chance that they received them and they turned out to be beneficial. Other species were not so lucky (and I use the word "lucky" literally) and they died off.

Yep. That's why we call them "random mutations". We don't know who is going to get what, or when or if what they get is going to be useful.

During an environmental crisis, mutations are observed to increase, resulting in surprisingly rapid diversification (that's Punctuated Equilibrium). Whether or not a given mutation will be beneficial is a matter of luck. The mutations are random. Whether or not the mutation becomes established is directed by the environment it is in, like any other mutation (that's Natural Selection).

Your description of evolution as a "directed process" is why a majority of Americans who believe in evolution also believe that God Himself is in charge of evolution and is deciding which species will live and which will die.

Hmm, I would say that it is less my description of how evolution can be directed by specific influences such as radiation or temperature, that causes confusion, and more your attempts to completely and totally squash any arguments against what you think is important, that influences people. After all, your actions show that even people who believe in evolution don't fully understand the basics of it, to the point that they even argue based on faith that they know a given aspect of it sufficiently to refute it instead of determine what part of the argument is in conflict.

As you say, it's a "directed processes" so it must be controlled by God.

Well, that, or, you know, temperature or radiation, as actually stated right in the same sentence that said "Most are random. Some are caused by etc, etc" To say nothing of the sentence that actually addressed the statement: "It's not conscious, but it is directed." Unless we are talking about an unconscious God.

Lack of careful reading isn't merely a fault of the average creationists. It is a problem with any who are more enthusiastic than knowledgeable about a given argument.

Some will say it's proof that God exists. They will not accept that random chance can ever benefit anything.

Then the solution would be to educate them on what "randomness" truly means, not to pretend that randomness is what they think it means. You will get nowhere if you try to modify data and knowledge to fit the desires of those who wish to believe something else. All you are doing at that point is being an apologist for science.

I have no doubt that you believe in evolution. The problem is that belief isn't enough. I don't want you arguing for evolution just because you believe in it. I want you to actually understand it. You are biting people who are explaining it to you, when you should be learning and expanding your understanding of it. You are acting like someone who is having their faith challenged, not like someone who wants to learn more about an academic subject. Science taken on faith defeats the purpose of science. Ignoring what science actually claims, to the point of actually mocking and attempting to dismiss the actual science portion of it in favor of incorrect simplicity for the sole purpose of appeasing someone's religious belief isn't a defense of science, nor is it education. It's nothing more than faith politics, your beliefs against the beliefs of the creationists, and, rather foolishly, against others who both believe in and understand evolution.

[Emma_Acid]

Actually the order of creation in the book of Genesis is a fairly accurst account of the scientific version of how life came and then evolved on Earth..

No it isn't. It is completely wrong, claiming that man came before woman, that water existed before the universe did, that the earth existed before the sun did, and that plants existed before the sun and the moon.

I have very little problem finding commonalities in a lot of the things in the Bible and science.

Because you don't understand the science.

Even the start is amazingly like you would describe the big bang theory to an uneducated person.

But to an educated person, it's nothing like it.

The problems start when you have people that don't really like to think and are offended by anyone that does running things. A fanatic creationist is no better or worse than a rabid evolutionist.

Except one has evidence behind them.

Sadly they both start with the ANSWER and then work back to the question.

You don't understand science.

Just as Creationists declare anything that they don't like as hoaxes or lies so do the Scientists that control the grants that go out to various fossil hunters. If you make a BAD discovery you had better just rebury it or they will ruin you. Progress only happens as the old die out and new people take over then THEIR theories are the only right ones!

You really don't understand science.

The difference between a Scientist that won't think or even accept the possibility that ANY theory might be incorrect and a Bible thumping Creationist is minute and now worth trying to figure out.

Jeez, you actually don't do you??

[Davros of Skaro]

I do not know how anyone with at least a 6th grade (being fair) education and think Genesis 1:1-31 nailed it?

[Omnaka]

Excelent post!

Actually the order of creation in the book of Genesis is a fairly accurst account of the scientific version of how life came and then evolved on Earth. I have very little problem finding commonalities in a lot of the things in the Bible and science. Even the start is amazingly like you would describe the big bang theory to an uneducated person.

The problems start when you have people that don't really like to think and are offended by anyone that does running things. A fanatic creationist is no better or worse than a rabid evolutionist. The way science works is basically just like the way creationists come up with answers. Sadly they both start with the ANSWER and then work back to the question.

When things seemed to show that man first evolved in Africa we got the Piltdown man. A hoax that stood for a long time because Good Englishmen just couldn't imagine having African ancestors. It was a 15,000 year old neanderthal skeleton with a 600 year old gorilla head on it. The Brontosaurus never existed. It was just another hoax. Now anytime someone finds a humanoid fossil in America it gets grabbed and destroyed and this is LAW. Any human remains that are over 600 or 700 years old are automatically Native American and must be handed over to them. They make unfortunate discoveries go away so that the old fossils that run the science departments in the universities don't have their pet theory that man did NOT come here until 15,000 years ago messed up.

Just as Creationists declare anything that they don't like as hoaxes or lies so do the Scientists that control the grants that go out to various fossil hunters. If you make a BAD discovery you had better just rebury it or they will ruin you. Progress only happens as the old die out and new people take over then THEIR theories are the only right ones!

I'm old enough to remember when Velikoysky's Worlds in Collision was treated as heresy by the scientific community. Evolution was a SLOOOOOW grinding process where survival of the fittest was the ONLY determining factor. The idea that sometimes it is more about the luck of the draw and what survives a disaster was looked upon as WORSE than Creationism! Now that all of the old guy that ran things in the 50s and 60s are dead everyone knows about the big rock that may have been the dinosaur killer. Now there are too many extinction points to count and the one that finished the dinosaurs isn't the worst one even!

The difference between a Scientist that won't think or even accept the possibility that ANY theory might be incorrect and a Bible thumping Creationist is minute and now worth trying to figure out.

By the way they have 50,000 year old human fossils from far South America that are likely to be most similar to the Aboriginal Australians. You won't hear much about it unless you are young enough to outlive the current batch of old fossils running things now.

Oops, Excelent post!

Edited June 27, 2014 by Omnaka