Chromosome challenge

[Terumo]

But you're using circular logic here to justify your views, Howard.

If the Earth is round, and if Galileo was right, then science XYZ is right too.

That wouldn't be a logical conclusion to assume XYZ discovery is some truth, since there's no picture or other physical evidence to show it's true (and 98% genetic similiarity leaves that 2% deviation -- which is huge in biology).

That's stretching a belief in trying to make it true, and that's bias in it's most innocent form.

Need more than educated guesses and beliefs, need concrete evidence. Anything doing with our origin to date is nothing but guesses and beliefs, no matter how many pages of links later.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Terumo
But you're using circular logic here to justify your views, Howard.

If the Earth is round, and if Galileo was right, then science XYZ is right too.

That wouldn't be a logical conclusion to assume XYZ discovery is some truth, since there's no picture or other physical evidence to show it's true (and 98% genetic similiarity leaves that 2% deviation -- which is huge in biology).

That's stretching a belief in trying to make it true, and that's bias in it's most innocent form.

Need more than educated guesses and beliefs, need concrete evidence. Anything doing with our origin to date is nothing but guesses and beliefs, no matter how many pages of links later.

That's not at all what he's trying to do, at least as far as I can see. Peter, who originally asked the question, was trying to make the point that Christianity held onto certain 'truths' until science proved otherwise. The religion then mended it's views to adapt to the current world-view. He was trying to get at the fact that just because the Bible says something doesn't make it true. He wasn't trying to prove evolution via the fact that the Earth is round. That's ridiculous.

And the idea that the 2% difference in dna is 'huge' is an idea that supports evolution. If I remember, don't many creationists say a 2% difference in DNA isn't enough to turn a chimpanzee into a human? That it has to be something more, like a divine touch?

 

[Peter]

Thank you for understanding the question, Jack. So, Terumo, do I get a plain, straightforward answer, or just more hot air about why you think the question is not to be asked? (Which appears to be your prime "discussion" tactics.)

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Peter
Thank you for understanding the question, Jack. So, Terumo, do I get a plain, straightforward answer, or just more hot air about why you think the question is not to be asked? (Which appears to be your prime "discussion" tactics.)

With you, Peter, you won't get an answer on purpose. You take board issues too personally (vendetta levels which you take over onto unrelated threads and forums, poisoning the well), which doesn't warrant an answer.

Act civily and you'll get an answer. Act like an buttwipe expect just some tissue.

Your choice.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
That's not at all what he's trying to do, at least as far as I can see. Peter, who originally asked the question, was trying to make the point that Christianity held onto certain 'truths' until science proved otherwise. The religion then mended it's views to adapt to the current world-view.

Which science does with it's theories. So the gripes aren't much different.

He was trying to get at the fact that just because the Bible says something doesn't make it true. He wasn't trying to prove evolution via the fact that the Earth is round. That's ridiculous.

Why is the bible even mentioned here? Because that's the scapegoat?

And the idea that the 2% difference in dna is 'huge' is an idea that supports evolution.

It can, it also can support creation (or any other idea how we got here, like with help from ETs...lololol).

If I remember, don't many creationists say a 2% difference in DNA isn't enough to turn a chimpanzee into a human? That it has to be something more, like a divine touch?

Wouldn't know since I'm not a Christian, let alone believe in creation as a Christian would. But I do believe in God and evolution can be just an extension of creation. Why this infighting about our origins aren't a big deal to me.

 

[Peter]

Still no answers, just more insults, and false accusations to top it off. Your mask is falling off ...

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Peter
Still no answers, just more insults, and false accusations to top it off. Your mask is falling off ...

No, Peter, you can stop your lying...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...50&threadid=1506115&messageid=17498854

You waltzed into a thread to pick another fight, so you can just drop the false accusation bit.

It's why you're not going to get an answer from me -- you're looking for anything to cause some trouble, including making this thread a vendetta thread (and Peter tech know how isn't going to answer the question for you here, you're as clueless as everyone else. Now eat your humble pie like everyone else).

 

[Gibsons]

Please please tell us more about DNA getting reprogrammed.

Like a person would gain callouses working with their hands, our ancestors would've had a "red haired" callous that could've eventually be passed onto the gene pool over time. Considering the diet of the populations is varied, the areas with less protein sources could've been red heads originally not out of genetic mutation, but because of disease. If this continues on for generations, their bodies could've adapted to the limited protein source that it reprogrammed their very DNA (what is DNA after all)?

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Please please tell us more about DNA getting reprogrammed.

Please please tell us more about DNA can't[/b] be reprogrammed by God (or by His design).

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Please please tell us more about DNA getting reprogrammed.

Please please tell us more about DNA can't[/b] be reprogrammed by God (or by His design).

You've changed your argument.

The orginal quote:

their bodies could've adapted to the limited protein source that it reprogrammed their very DNA (what is DNA after all)

 

[Terumo]

Still waiting for an answer, Gibsons.

 

[Terumo]

Here to help some of you out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

And how far folks here have gone in trying to define our physical origin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Oh, no Peter, it's not a game. It's all about logic, perception and beliefs.

 

[Gibsons]

Here's what you said, again:

their bodies could've adapted to the limited protein source that it reprogrammed their very DNA (what is DNA after all)

You can't bring in god now, that's changing your argument. I'm asking you to support your original assertion.

as Howard said

I will say, though, that it seems to me that Terumo has a certain phobia of answering questions.

 

[Terumo]

Oh, I can bring God into the argument at anytime, Gibsons, I'm not stuck in that narrow belief box, remember.

HINT: wrong approach, Gibson, wrong approach.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Oh, I can bring God into the argument at anytime, Gibsons, I'm not stuck in that narrow belief box, remember.

HINT: wrong approach, Gibson, wrong approach.

My only goal is to get you to discuss DNA and genetics more.

What is the correct approach for that?

 

[Peter]

There are plenty of other people's questions that you've blatantly failed to answer, no need to distract into personal issues you seem to have with me. Your trying to push buttons with that kindergarden mom language isn't working either, in case you haven't noticed yet.

Over 12 pages, you still have failed to address any of the questions raised, even those specifically addressing your claimed field of expertise. All we hear is "you're not allowed to ask that, because you wouldn't like the answer". Maybe you should seek a career in kindergarden nursery ... but then, even a four-year-old can tell hot air from answers, so maybe you won't be too successful there either.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Peter
There are plenty of other people's questions that you've blatantly failed to answer, no need to distract into personal issues you seem to have with me.

With good reason.

Your trying to push buttons with that kindergarden mom language isn't working either, in case you haven't noticed yet.

It's better than a DI's language.

Dear Peter, I was a WM. Let's say I'm very good with diverting INCOMING!!

Over 12 pages, you still have failed to address any of the questions raised, even those specifically addressing your claimed field of expertise.

What page did I enter this thread? Let's do some kindergarden math, show we?

12-8 = 4

And the first couple of posts I thought was enough. Apparently the mutual circle jerking wasn't enough -- going solo isn't as fun, since Creationists aren't around here (or would've cared to respond) -- so let's assume I'm a Christian because I believe in God, and spend 8 pages on that assumption.

...Yawn...

All we hear is "you're not allowed to ask that, because you wouldn't like the answer".

Actually what you read is another assumption. Tell me Peter do you like the outcome of the scientific method as assumptions, too? Also, is scientism your bible?

Maybe you should seek a career in kindergarden nursery ... but then, even a four-year-old can tell hot air from answers, so maybe you won't be too successful there either.

Maybe you should seek a shrink since you seem to have issues with your kindergarden teacher and projecting. Maybe that's why you can't count, no?

Now, dear, if you care enough to continue normally? And no I'm not interested in your projections, nor care to date a Neandertal.

Thank you.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Terumo
Oh, I can bring God into the argument at anytime, Gibsons, I'm not stuck in that narrow belief box, remember.

HINT: wrong approach, Gibson, wrong approach.

My only goal is to get you to discuss DNA and genetics more.

What is the correct approach for that?

 

[Peter]

You're not really expecting an /answer/ from our self-declared world leading deflectionist, are you?

 

[pilgrimicron]

The wood pecker has small apendages in it brain that attach it to the skull. THese apendages act as tiny shock absorbers to allow the brain to move in a opposite direction as the beak strikes the tree. If a bird other than the woodpecker were to strike a tree with the same force it would die from blunt force trauma. Without these apendages the ability to hammer into the tree to get insects would be impossible.

Where did these highly specific apendages come from? Did they evolve? If this is true, how could they possibly evolve when the idea of evolution is that the individuals with the specific trait live and flourish while the weaker ones without the trait die out. If a bird without this trait strikes a tree he dies. There is not time to develop the apendages. Why don't all birds have these apendages? Is it specific to the region that the woodpecker lives in? Nope woodpecker species live all over the world in the same habitats as other birds.

This is just one example. The theory of evolution is just that. You cannot prove it no more than I can prove to you that God created the earth and the things living on it. You can argue this or that but you have no proof. All you can do is guess on what happened. You can say well this study says this or that but I could show you hundreds of studies and scientific "facts" that were completely false. It is stupid and pompous to say that a man living in the 1800's suddenly had all the answers to the origins of life. Or that evolution is right and creationism is false and those that believe in it are somehow stupid or backward. You believe that you are right just as a Christian believe he is right. That is his faith and he believes it in his heart. His proof? His conviction rooted in his being that the Bible is correct. What more do you have? Scientific studies and guesses by learned men. The same studies that were right yesterday that will be wrong tomorrow.

My point is this. I have read nearly all of this thread after much time. Some of you are dismissing of people who do not see it your way. Many of you assume evolution is fact and can be proven as the origin of life. Science is not absolute and man fails constantly. To be so closed minded is contrary to the ideals science espouses. You can explain the splitting of a cell but tell me where the life that is in that cell came from.

Personaly I believe that God created the Earth and all living things. I do also believe that animals evolve to adapt to their climate. I think survival the the fittest is a given. To say that way back when in some mud hole a piece of gunk suddenly came to life and from some slime all the complex animals that have ever roamed the earth were formed takes way more faith than I 've got.

 

[Peter]

It'd take more research than you're willing to invest.

Did you notice there are other birds that do pick worms and bugs from out of tree rinds, without dropping dead? They just don't reach as deep. Today's woodpeckers are the specialized RESULT of gradual evolution, natural selection occurring - for example - in dry periods when the worms bury themselves more deeply.

A certain "unique" feature in a species we see today doesn't automatically mean this creature cannot possibly have evolved from a common ancestor it shares with another current species that has specialized on other things.

Put your mindset onto the opposite challenge and see how far you get: Why do whales have hip bones? Why does a species so drastically different to anything else on the planet have such a completely useless feature?

You don't have to go back millions of years to watch gunk evolve. Just visit a local lab and watch bacteria through a microscope.

Christians root their faith in the assumption that the Bible is correct, despite it having been altered and even proven wrong many times through the centuries. Science puts a lot of hard work in trying to prove previous assumptions wrong - if it can, theories are disposed of; and if it can't, all the falsification attempts harden the existing theory. Evolution is pretty well hardened. Christians with their well-trained "la la I can't hear you" attitude fail to see that difference.

Question to you again: Is Galileo right?

 

[Jack31081]

pilgrimicon:

I'm a bit confused by your post. First off, your intial dismissal of evolution is only backed up by your lack of understanding of a certain phenomena (the woodpecker's ability to peck trees without incurring brain damage). You, like so many before you, ask questions such as, "How can this be?", realize you don't know the answer, and then write off the whole process because you don't know enough. Did you do research into the evolution of the woodpecker?

Second, you write off evolution because of the woodpecker (hint: the bombadier beetle would have been a better choice), but then you say at the end of your post that you believe animals do evolve to adapt to their climate. So you believe in evolution, but not speciation? That's called microevolution, and it's really a bogus idea, to think a species will adapt to its environment, but not to the point that it becomes a new species.

People need to stop using their lack of understanding as justification for discrediting an entire scientific theory. We're all just lay people here. Of course we don't understand all the fine points of evolution. That's why we have scientists working on it. To say, "Hey, how'd the woodpecker evolve it's brain like that? Huh, I don't know, so evolution must be wrong" is a bit ridiculous.

 

[Gilby]

It is stupid and pompous to say that a man living in the 1800's suddenly had all the answers to the origins of life. Or that evolution is right and creationism is false and those that believe in it are somehow stupid or backward.

No, it's quite logical and reasonable to assume--rather be quite sure--that those believing in creationism are, well, I wouldn't use stupid, but certainly ignorant, quite probably amazingly and willingly so.

 

[dgevert]

The scenario you've given has already been explained. Evolution has no difficulty accounting for complex features and organisms.

It is stupid and pompous to say that a man living in the 1800's suddenly had all the answers to the origins of life.

It's even more stupid to say that a bunch of goathearders dating back a few thousand years ago had all the answers to the origins of life...it is also dishonest to claim that we say that, since #1, Darwin wasn't even DEALING with the origins of life, and #2, no one thinks he had all the answers.

Or that evolution is right and creationism is false and those that believe in it are somehow stupid or backward.

How else should we label those who have decided they would rather believe in the creation myth of a civilization dating back a few thousand years ago over scientific knowledge from the last hundred and fifty years?

 

[Aieget]

First off, those who say that creationists are stupid and backward are themselves ignorant. It all depends on your original viewpoint. Anyone who starts with the presumption that an all powerful God exists can explain anything without even thinking by saying "God caused it to happen so", whereas anyone who starts with the presumption that there is no God because he cannot be proven by means of standard scientific procedure must accept evolution.

I think you will all agree that there are only two reasonable theories for how the Earth came to be in its present state; Evolution, and Creation by means of a Creator (God). Therefore it is possible to prove that some form of Creator exists by disproving Evolution. It is impossible to disprove that a Creator exists as any Creator is necessarily outside the bounds of science. Therefore the situation that we have is one where Creationists can be proved right by disproving Evolution while Evolutionists must accept the fact that no matter what they prove about Evolution there is always a chance that there is actually a Creator. In this case I would say that Terumo is correct in stating that it is folly to believe in either extreme as there is currently insufficient evidence to support either viewpoint, although there are other factors which I have not yet taken into account.

I for one am a Young Earth Creationist, for the simple fact that for me it takes a far smaller leap of imagination to propose that a God created everything as it says in the Bible than it does for me to fill the gaping holes in Evolutionary theory. If you have heard of the idea of irreducible complexity then you would realize that it would take a mind boggling array of mutations occuring in more than one animal in a single generation to create such a complex structure as an eye, otherwise natural selection would surely have long ago dictated that this extra growth was of no use and discarded it, and we know now that it would not have been of any use until the last precise piece was in place. This is but one of the problems of Evolution.

The assertation that I am stupid and backward is a rediculous statement for the simple fact that stupidity and backwardness have nothing to do with believing in myths, which is in fact merely ignorance of truth. If I was stupid and backward then I would not be in University or posting this from a computer that I put together myself. You forget that intelligence and ignorance (or refusal to accept "facts") are not mutually exclusive. When someone conclusively proves to me that the events in the Bible could not possibly have taken place even considering that I believe there to be an all powerful God, and that therefore none of the Bible can be true, then I will accept that I was ignorant. When someone patches the holes in Evolution sufficiently enough for me then I will consider it a viable ulternative. Until then it seems to me that the Bible offers a better explanation for the way things are than Evolution does. (Besides, if an Evolutionist is wrong, then he gets to go to hell. If a Creationist is wrong, then he will have lived his life to a good set of moral codes).

note: In the above rant I refer to an Evolutionist as one who believes in Evolution to the exclusion of a God, and a Creationist as a Young Earth Christian. I accept that there is a middle ground, however I do not believe this to be the case for reasons stated above. Also, how can you be a Christian you don't believe in Genesis which contains the reason for Christianity anyway?