| Subject: You are the one who made the claims |
Author:
Brian
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/19/02 7:19am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "I disagree." on 04/18/02 1:46pm
>>>True, but one thing I should point out is that many
>of
>>>True, but one thing I should point out is that many of
>>>these adaptations are not due to genetic mutation, but
>>>to ordinary recombination of genes within type.
>>
>>Your carefully qualified statement is true, but the
>>way you have phrased it is well understood by
>>evolutionists. Now do you dare take the next step and
>>instead say “... ALL of these adaptations...”? If you
>>do, then you better be able to prove it.
>
>I do not make the claim that all the
>adaptations are result of ordinary recombination.
>
One of the favorite tactics of creationists is to make a statement that is “technically” correct, as yours was, and then let the unsuspecting reader make the final (but untrue) inference that it is an inclusive fact. Whether by design or accident, you are playing the crooked cards that the creationist like to deal.
>>>Bacteria that get immunity from mutations are
>>>“evolutionary cripples” because they experience
>>>harmful side effects from the mutation.
>>
>>Again, is this the norm, or an absolute rule?
>
>Probably just “the norm.” I’ve read that bacteria
>often do get harmful side effects from such mutations,
>whether or not these particular mutations always have
>harmful side effects is not something I’m aware of.
But read what you said. There was no inference of this being the norm. You made a blanket statement that you cannot substantiate. Again, a perfect creationist tactic.
>>>Because the resistances to antibiotics in bacteria
>>>(and other changes we see in life forms) result only
>>>in varied alleles in genes that already exist
>>
>>I challenge you to give documented proof of this
>>statement.
>
>Well, it is what we see in such mutations and
>that sort of thing was what I read in high school
>biology. Correct me if I’m wrong, but no new genes
>have been created from such mutations. I challenge
>you to give documented proof showing otherwise.
I hope your positions on the truthfulness or falsity of evolutionary ideas are based on something more advanced than high school classes.
It is not required that I give documented proof that new genes have been created, since my only response to your original statement was to ask for your proof of your position. Here again, you made an unqualified statement. So far, your proof is to ask me to show you are wrong. It is not called science when someone’s proof consists of making a blanket statement and then pretending it is true because no one has shown it false. By that criteria, I hereby declare that there is a McDonalds Hamburger outlet in full operation in the Alpha Centari star system, and until you can prove me wrong, I must be right.
>>>... one cannot simply extrapolate the directly observable
>>>changes we see in these organisms to obtain
>>>macroevolutionary changes.
>>
>>Are you familiar enough with the accumulated studies
>>in this field to be able to make such a definitive statement?
>I don’t have to be that qualified to read what I’ve
>read. Again, what I’ve read is that so far as all
>observations go, we haven’t seen any new genes being
>created. We’ve seen new alleles in
>pre-existing genes, duplications of
>pre-existing genes, etc. but not any new
>genes. I’ve also read that as far as all observations
>go, mutations have only produced variation within
>types (in the manner I’ve described earlier) and given
>those direct observations, one cannot extrapolate to
>produce new types. Perhaps macroevolution can be
>rationally supported, but merely pointing out these
>directly observable changes will not do the job.
>Other evidence is needed.
Before I will attempt to provide what you ask, I would like a clear definition of what you are calling a “gene”. Often the term is loosely used to refer to a sequence of DNA base pairs that collectively perform a specific function. But in its broader (and more complete) definition, the concept of a gene may involve the interplay between numerous parts of the DNA codes. In computer terminology, it may be something as simple a a few lines of code, or it may also be a call to a complex subroutine involving hundreds of functions controlled by smaller more specialized pieces of code. A “gene” that can be mutated to cause a leg to grow where one is normally not expected is of the complex kind, turning on all the functions necessary to grow new bones, flesh, nerves, and so on for the new leg.
And you employ a favorite creationist term that is used to hide behind, that of a “type”. You define type with enough precision to measure against, and then we can proceed.
>>>Creation can simply claim
>>>that these variations are only “horizontal” changes
>>>that will never result in creating a more complex life
>>>form because of this. More work needs to be done here
>>>if you wish to claim that evolution explains this set
>>>of data better creation.
>>
>>Creation can say anything it wants, since its basic
>>starting point is an omnipotent God.
>
>You appear to be very confused on what creation
>actually is in the context that I’ve used it in.
>Creation per se does not include an omnipotent God or
>any God for that matter, any more than evolution
>includes atheism. I strongly suggest you read Mere
>Creation to learn what the opposition is really
>about. Fighting a straw man is hardly very
>constructive.
I have not read “Mere Creation” (yet). But I am fully aware of a long-standing attempt by religious zealots to force their version of creation into schools. Having suffered some significant legal defeats, they have modified their gameplan just enough to try to hide the religious nature of their objectives. You have chosen to accept some of their sugar-coated ideas, and to assist them in promulgating them. Whether you do it because you feel the ideas are scientifically sound when divorced of all religious implications, or whether you carry an innate desire to see your own religious ideas validated by scince, I don’t know. But I see your ideas as being little different than some ideas being pushed by hard-core YECs, ideas which have been looked at and rejected by most of the main-stream scientific community.
>>Science doesn’t
>>have that ability to assign ad-hoc solutions, it must
>>work with what it can understand from the evidence.
>
>That’s what many scientists who accept creation try to
>do.
And many more scientists have looked at the ideas put forth by creationists and found them wanting.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 