Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[BobRyan]

What is a "Real OPC Reconstructionist"??

 

[BobRyan]

Ah but I would ask if he had a stigma, or mental health issues. Is he reliable.

Ok - did you do some research on his "mental health"???

If so what did you find? Did you find that only baptists have mental health?


(I really hope that is not where your argument is going...)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok - did you do some research on his "mental health"???

If so what did you find? Did you find that only baptists have mental health?


(I really hope that is not where your argument is going...)

in Christ,

Bob

Sorry I've been busy the past couple of days both at home and work. So I haven't looked it up yet but will. I find the topic very interesting. And so will take a futher look at it. whats an opc reconstructionist? I have no idea. BTW Newton was weird. He had some nuggets of truth but had a lot of weird stuff as well. You have to disceminate whats good and not.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok - did you do some research on his "mental health"???

If so what did you find? Did you find that only baptists have mental health?


(I really hope that is not where your argument is going...)

in Christ,

Bob

What is this about? I've never made an assertion that says this! All I've said is that I've looked at the man to determine if I can rely on his information. Like I've mentioned before I think its fool hardy to jump on a band wagon just because someone has my point of view. That can only lead to trouble. Now. That I've seen the kind of man proposing the view now I can take a look at the view. Like I said previously he may have a point he may not. So far from what you said it sounds like he does. But since this isn't my area of expertise I'll have to research it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is actually a difficult thing to study. There are only a handful of papers and some in french that deal with this subject. Now I don't know your persons view. But this is what I'm to understand about the genome project and the study of static genomes. The problem is that we get static shots of the genome and have only a limited access to seeing "Darwinian" mutations over time. So most of their studies are reliant on bacteria. In order to determine how the evolutionary process works. The University of San Deigo submitted a report to Nature genetics discussing the observed rapid evolutionary changes in bacteria. Particularily the e-coli bacertia. They've determined that the genome is more of a moving target that prevously thought with the static model. Here is what the University of California San Deigo has said in their News Journal

In a paper scheduled for online publication Nov. 5 on Nature Genetics's Website, the researchers report that they grew E. coli in an environment that favored the emergence of mutants: the organism was fed a poorly metabolized carbon and energy source called glycerol. The researchers removed samples of cells from the culture and sequenced their entire genomes as a way to find mutations that enabled faster growth. After six days of growth, mutations appeared in the gene for an enzyme that initiates the process of enzymatically breaking down glycerol. Cells with mutations in the so-called glycerol kinase gene grew 20 to 60 percent faster than those without the mutation.

Mutations also appeared in a second, unrelated gene for an enzyme called RNA polymerase. “That was a surprise to almost everybody because RNA polymerase is involved in one of the core processes of any cell,” said Palsson. “You wouldn’t expect that gene to change because a wide variety of cellular process would be affected; it’s like replacing the wiring system in a building when a light bulb burns out. But we repeated the experiment more than 50 times and mutations in the RNA polymerase gene appeared again and again."

All the mutants arose in the experiments presumably as the result of naturally occurring errors in copying DNA into daughter cells during cell division. The precise changes in the sequence of DNA subunits were determined with comparative genomic sequencing technology from NimbleGen Systems, and further analyzed with technology from Sequenom Inc., a San Diego-based biotech company.

“This straightforward approach to the study of experimental evolution can be used as a tool for discovery and analysis, and could even be used to discover bacterial capabilities that would benefit humankind in a variety of ways,” said Herring. “There may be a number of biotech companies that want to use this new approach to help design bacteria to do useful jobs.”

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry I've been busy the past couple of days both at home and work. So I haven't looked it up yet but will. I find the topic very interesting. And so will take a futher look at it. whats an opc reconstructionist? I have no idea. BTW Newton was weird. He had some nuggets of truth but had a lot of weird stuff as well. You have to disceminate whats good and not.

Agreed. I am not suggesting that adopt Newton's religion or his alchemy -- but his classical physics model is still in use today and works well in most Macro models.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This is actually a difficult thing to study. There are only a handful of papers and some in french that deal with this subject. Now I don't know your persons view. But this is what I'm to understand about the genome project and the study of static genomes. The problem is that we get static shots of the genome and have only a limited access to seeing "Darwinian" mutations over time. So most of their studies are reliant on bacteria. In order to determine how the evolutionary process works. The University of San Deigo submitted a report to Nature genetics discussing the observed rapid evolutionary changes in bacteria. Particularily the e-coli bacertia. They've determined that the genome is more of a moving target that prevously thought with the static model. Here is what the University of California San Deigo has said in their News Journal

In the 11-second flummoxed response that Dawkins gave -- the question asked for even ONE example of new genetic information being added to a genome that is scientifically shown to be valid. He gave none.

Amoeba-to-man evolutionism simply can not take place without it.

New coding genes are not added to Chromosomes and neither are new Chromosomes being added to any Genome that we know of today.

But for evolutionism to be even half true we should see zillions of failed attempts in all of these areas at every level with one-in-a-trillion of these additions of new genes and new chromosomes ever producing generation after generation of success that truly obsoletes the older model.

We don't see any of it -- in fact the coding genes of all genomes are static. Added coding Genes do not show up nor do new chromosomes appear with new coding genes.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In the 11-second flummoxed response that Dawkins gave -- the question asked for even ONE example of new genetic information being added to a genome that is scientifically shown to be valid. He gave none.

Amoeba-to-man evolutionism simply can not take place without it.

New coding genes are not added to Chromosomes and neither are new Chromosomes being added to any Genome that we know of today.

But for evolutionism to be even half true we should see zillions of failed attempts in all of these areas at every level with one-in-a-trillion of these additions of new genes and new chromosomes ever producing generation after generation of success that truly obsoletes the older model.

We don't see any of it -- in fact the coding genes of all genomes are static. Added coding Genes do not show up nor do new chromosomes appear with new coding genes.

in Christ,

Bob

but what about the article I posted from the University of California specifically speaking of the RNA polymerace. Could it then be possible if a rewire-ing taking place in the RNA is nonsustainable that the mutation may add a mutation to make it so? Thus given enough time you can add levels of mutations that add coding genes? It seems the e-coli are doing more than just turning on/off coding sequences but mutating the coding gene to make life sustainable.

 

[BobRyan]

Your article deals with an existing coding gene for the RNA polymerase enzyme. The article does not say that they see a new coding gene added or that they see a new chromosome added. They say in effect that the allele for that same coding gene experienced a variation. But we see variations in the allele of coding genes all the time (for example the coding gene for eye color) and the allele "instance form" may show darker eye color or green or brown or blue or ...

The point however is that while you may be able to find variation in allele for the same coding gene - you do not get new coding genes added or new chromosomes added.

In the amoeba-to-man genome storytelling you need to add coding genes and you need to add chromosomes.

There is just no way to ignore that glaring non-starter in the story. Hence this goes right down to evolutionism 101 trying to get "off the dime" with the amoeba on our way to "man". Thus when Dawkins is asked this evolutionism-101 question he SHOULD have viewed this as a wonderful open door to explaining the well documented and researched science of evolutionism "getting us off the dime". Instead he simply looked up into space for 11 seconds of painful silence then said "turn off the tape".

How telling.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Hi thinkingstuff, it's been years since I dabbled in the evolution/creation debate...in my opinion, there's more important pressing issues facing the Church today, than evolution/creation...

But any way you mention the following...

The University of San Deigo submitted a report to Nature genetics discussing the observed rapid evolutionary changes in bacteria. Particularily the e-coli bacertia.

I think we have to be careful here and distinguish between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution", the fact of the matter is that the researchers started with e-coli, and in a controlled environment, forced mutations upon the e-coli...but at the end of the day, if I read the article correctly, the end result was still e-coli.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hi thinkingstuff, it's been years since I dabbled in the evolution/creation debate...in my opinion, there's more important pressing issues facing the Church today, than evolution/creation...

But any way you mention the following...

I think we have to be careful here and distinguish between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution", the fact of the matter is that the researchers started with e-coli, and in a controlled environment, forced mutations upon the e-coli...but at the end of the day, if I read the article correctly, the end result was still e-coli.

In XC
-

Thats true.

 

[Johnv]

A couple of things:

1 - Evolutionary theory is not a core scriptural doctrine, and Christians are not required to discard it as a prerequisite for being a Christian, bible believer, evangelical, baptist, or conservative. In fact, the Baptist Distinctive of individual soul liberty allows a person to accept the concept if reason so dictates.

2 - Intelligent Design is not a matter of science, it is a matter of philosophy.

3 - Intelligent Design is a completely different concept than hyperliteral creationism. One does not equate to the other, yet you frequently see people using the terms interchangeably.

4 - Intelligent Design does not in any way state that the evolutionary process is impossible. It only states that the complexity of living things suggests a design behind them.

 

[BobRyan]

As the link below demonstrates - intelligent design is a matter of science.

I hope that all Christian college students will have a chance to see the case for intelligent design presented by the Amazing Discoveries group

Amazing Discoveries exposes Darwin's flaw

Dr Walter Veith is a former professor of evolutionary biology that has become a Christian and now teaches that intelligent design is "science" whereas evolutionism is simply wishful-thinking.

His argument for static genomes is impressive.

The principle of intelligent design soooo scientifically verifiable and tested that you can now see it at work every day -- just be setting your radio to "scan". There you will see the principle of intelligent design applied to one of the four forces of nature - the EM force.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A couple of things:

4 - Intelligent Design does not in any way state that the evolutionary process is impossible. It only states that the complexity of living things suggests a design behind them.

THat is like saying "Science does not indicate that we will never get a self-assembled 46 room fully functional log cabin simply by blowing up trees in the forrest". In fact science tells us that such wishful story telling would be mythology - not science.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Back to Dr Veith's point - all coding genes for a given genome reside at the same location on the same chromosome for each individual in that genome -- and they have the same function.

What is "necessary" in the amoeba-to-man storytelling is to "add coding genes" to existing chromosomes as well as adding NEW chromosomes. And the problem with that story telling is that genomes are static when it comes to coding genes.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Revmitchell]

A couple of things:

1 - Evolutionary theory is not a core scriptural doctrine, and Christians are not required to discard it as a prerequisite for being a Christian, bible believer, evangelical, baptist, or conservative. In fact, the Baptist Distinctive of individual soul liberty allows a person to accept the concept if reason so dictates.

Conservatives do not under any circumstances hold to any form of the liberal evolution.

2 - Intelligent Design is not a matter of science, it is a matter of philosophy.

This could not be more wrong and I would suggest some more research before making such comments.

3 - Intelligent Design is a completely different concept than hyperliteral creationism. One does not equate to the other, yet you frequently see people using the terms interchangeably.

No such thing as "hyperliteral creationsism

4 - Intelligent Design does not in any way state that the evolutionary process is impossible. It only states that the complexity of living things suggests a design behind them.

Again more research is needed before making such comments.

 

[Johnv]

THat is like saying "Science does not indicate that we will never get a self-assembled 46 room fully functional log cabin simply by blowing up trees in the forrest".

On the contrary. Whether we like it or not, the theory of evolution is frequently subjected to the scientific method, and consistently passes.

Conservatives do not under any circumstances hold to any form of the liberal evolution.

Abandoning he theory of evolution is not a prerequisite for being a theological conservative.

This (Intelligent Design not beng a matter of science) could not be more wrong and I would suggest some more research before making such comments.

ID doesn't adhere to the scientific methhod.

No such thing as "hyperliteral creationsism

There are numerous forms of creationist beliefs. Hyperliteral creationism is the belief that the universe was created circa 4004 bc in six literal 24 hours days.

Again more research is needed before making such comments.

That's actually how the Discovery Institute defines ID. It defines it as certain features of the universe and of living things being best explained by an intelligent cause. It does not state that natural selection is impossible, it simply makes the implication that natural selection, if shown to exist, is directed by a designer.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

On the contrary. Whether we like it or not, the theory of evolution is frequently subjected to the scientific method, and consistently passes.

Not true. Nobody has ever been able to show one species becoming another.

Abandoning he theory of evolution is not a prerequisite for being a theological conservative.

It is required to be a bible believer.

ID doesn't adhere to the scientific methhod.

There is enough science in the first chapter of Genesis to keep one busy for a lifetime.

There are numerous forms of creationist beliefs. Hyperliteral creationism is the belief that the universe was created circa 4004 bc in six literal 24 hours days.
That's actually how the Discovery Institute defines ID. It defines it as certain features of the universe and of living things being best explained by an intelligent cause. It does not state that natural selection is impossible, it simply makes the implication that natural selection, if shown to exist, is directed by a designer.

I forgot how you liked to consider yourself the resident contrarian before you left. But your answers are as vague as they always were. Welcome back, but I was hoping you'd be out getting discipled.

 

[Allan]

On the contrary. Whether we like it or not, the theory of evolution is frequently subjected to the scientific method, and consistently passes.

This is an entirely false statement. Evolution has never met any of the requirements for the scientic method. It is not even osbservable and therefore impossible to facilitate the requirement necessary to use the scientic method. Evolution is a atheistic system of belief and nothing more. Many scientist who were 'once' evolutionist now claim it is an impossible theory (and many are not even christians). And a fair portion who are still in the scientific community, because they will not openly stand against it for fear of losing their jobs, will not give staunch support for it either.

Abandoning he theory of evolution is not a prerequisite for being a theological conservative.

Actaully it is. 2 Peter describes in the later days scoffers will come saying certian things. One of them is ..:

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Their 'ignorance' stems from the fact they do not believe God created in the literal manner given in Gen 1-2. If we are to take the creation of the heavens and the earth at face value then we must take the rest in the same manner. Those who deny such, scripture states they are 'willingly' ignorant of this truth.

ID doesn't adhere to the scientific methhod.

Neither does evolution :thumbs: - If it does , then where is the observable evidence? There is absolutely -none! Evolution has never been observed, duplicated, nor tested. It has been 'presumed' and 'assumed' and theorized but never, not once has it been observed, nor it is even said to 'be' obserable. Therefore neither does it adhere to the scientific method.


Editted to add - Let me qualify the "Evolution" I am speaking of is not micro-evolution but specifically macro-evolution. The term micro-evolution is a play by evolutionist to confuse the truth. Micro-evolution is nothing more than adaptation. Understand that evolution is not a matter of science but philosophy, period.

 

[Jedi Knight]

John 8:47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God. Evolution is not scriptural and Jesus knows the reason why men do not believe Gods testimony about creation.