Science vs. Creationism

[One Brow]

What a mess of a response.

If you are duplicating a paragraph, it ain't "randomly created."

It's not done deliberately. If you prefer, we can call it "accidentally created". Golden-dolphin-immortal-porpoise-it-means-the-same-thing-it's-synonymous.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "typo." If you are using it in typical fashion a "typo" only comes into play when an an outside intelligent force is involved (a typist), is initially creating a paragraph.

Incorrect. Typos can occur due to mistakes in the transmission/copying process with no human intervention. For example, when OCR readers are used, typos are common.

But we ain't talking about the initial creation of the paragraph, we are talking about the duplication of the paragraph. Typists ain't involved in duplication.

Yet, these duplications happen from time to time, without being designed, and increase information as a result.

 

[One Brow]

That is a bizarre interpretation of what creationism is.

You are the one who believes in the all-powerful being capable of anything. In particular, I'd lay money you believe that if God wants a dog to give birth to a cat, it would happen. In evolutionary theory, that can never happen.

 

[Stoked]

You are the one who believes in the all-powerful being capable of anything. In particular, I'd lay money you believe that if God wants a dog to give birth to a cat, it would happen. In evolutionary theory, that can never happen.

Usually the belief in God comes with the caveat that he is all powerful.. So if that is what God wanted to happen it would.

 

[PearlWatson]

You are the one who believes in the all-powerful being capable of anything. In particular, I'd lay money you believe that if God wants a dog to give birth to a cat, it would happen. In evolutionary theory, that can never happen.

Holy hell, I'm in Darwiniac Bizzaro World.

You believe fish begat frogs, but then say I am the one who believes a dog can begat a cat.

 

[PearlWatson]

"The adverse effects of gene duplication, such as Down’s syndrome, are well known. Although the methodology is available, evidence of functionally useful genes as a result of duplication is yet to be documented."

I posted two articles that refute this-- and you have yet to respond in pertinence to this.

There may be some semantic or actual conflicts between two of my sources.

Interpret your articles for me in terms of this question:

What are the two "new" functions you say are a result of "gene duplication" and what mechanism brought about the new function? Try to keep it as simple as possible...let's say a sentence for each "new" function.

 

[PearlWatson]

Exactly. If you're a water-breather and your descendants breath air, they are using the old ability in new conditions, making it a new ability.

IF a monkey flew out my butt it would be using the old ability in a new way, thus making a new ability.

Too bad neither of our scenarios ever happened.

 

[MVP]

Those bones are obviously part of the pelvic girdle, serve a supportive function, and are different in males and female whales.

False, false and false. Please post any links to these absurd claims.

I don't know what my beautifully designed tailbone has to do with this discussion, but it serves several valuable functions.

It is not designed. It is vestigial. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development - in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further. And variation of number of fused vertebrae ( 3 to 5) of the tailbone further proves its vestigiality.
But I am happy at least you are not calling tailbone ridiculous

 

[PearlWatson]

But I am happy at least you are not calling tailbone ridiculous

It didn't even occur to me since it is the vernacular. No one ever talks about the Dolphin or Whale "tibia" and "femur."

The design of all these mislabled parts you talk about is obvious to me, but go on believing in "vestigial" organs. I ain't going to talk you out of it, because you are extremely dogmatic in your beliefs, but I will present one part of the Creationism argument anyway because it goes along with the information theory I have been talking about.

"The notion of vestigial organs as an argument for evolution fails on a number of counts.
Firstly, vestigial organs provide no positive evidence for evolution. They are presented as negative evidence against a designer. And even if the vestigial organ argument were true, it at best presents examples of degeneration or information loss. This is the opposite of what evolution requires to explain the origin of the complexity and diversity of life."​

 

[VINYLONE]

Interesting read:

https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2014/mothers_diet.html

 

[MVP]

The design of all these mislabled parts you talk about is obvious to me, but go on believing in "vestigial" organs. I ain't going to talk you out of it, because you are extremely dogmatic in your beliefs, but I will present one part of the Creationism argument anyway because it goes along with the information theory I have been talking about.

"The notion of vestigial organs as an argument for evolution fails on a number of counts.
Firstly, vestigial organs provide no positive evidence for evolution. They are presented as negative evidence against a designer. And even if the vestigial organ argument were true, it at best presents examples of degeneration or information loss. This is the opposite of what evolution requires to explain the origin of the complexity and diversity of life."​

Ridiculous false statement ( from creationism website I guess) as always. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment.
Losing legs for the snake was positive. Losing hair on the skin for whale was positive same as their hind legs becoming vestigial. Losing ability to fly for some birds was positive, losing some toes for horses was positive - nature is full of positive examples of vestigiality. Whats so difficult to understand here and where the imaginary designer is coming from here?
And by the way I have not seen any reputable links supporting your previous false statements. You just throw out false claims from creationism websites and never provide any supporting information when they are dismissed. As I said bring up some more!
How about that Hoatzin bird? Sure those claws on wings look "designed" lol?

 

[One Brow]

Holy hell, I'm in Darwiniac Bizzaro World.

You believe fish begat frogs, but then say I am the one who believes a dog can begat a cat.

I accept frogs are a special type of fish based on the evidence, and I notice you have not denied my claim about your beliefs.

 

[One Brow]

IF a monkey flew out my butt it would be using the old ability in a new way, thus making a new ability.

Too bad neither of our scenarios ever happened.

Except,you have acknowledged a similar scenario did happen with Lenski's bacteria; an old ability being used in a new way.