The Problem of Darwin and DNA

[Coyote]

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Know personally or on this forum? Personally, I agree, but the subject doesn't come up in polite conversation. However, I've been to a few churches where people took the Bible literally. It didn't come up, but clearly one can't take the Bible literally and accept science at the same time.

A lot of religious people don't take it literally. If you take an extremely broad view of creation, God providing that unexplainable spark of life - then religion and science can fill in each others gaps and stroll arm in arm. But trying to pretend one is the other isn't going to work.

The Bible is not scientific.

 

[Coyote]

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.

All of what weatherman is saying is in 21st century versions of evolution. It is now accepted that mutation thru periods of intense cosmic ray bombardment, environmental chemical changes or even just normal stress on species can cause "spontaneous" spurts of evolutionary changes. These are stressors that can work MUCH FASTER then natural selection. And COULD account for a lot of the "MISSING" fossil records. Perhaps all these "missing links" existed for too short of a time to be discovered eons later.

Which leads to some interesting philosophical points about periods of "intense enviro change or rays from the cosmos" could be literally considered acts of God. I know that state farm defines "acts of God" in their policies.

It's fascinating to watch the sparring over Darwin. He has the same respect as ALL the 18th/19th century leaders of science do --- but the polititization of evolution sometimes keeps folks from realizing how little he actually knew about the MECHANISMS of evolution at the time he postulated all of that.

Agree. His theories were the foundation for modern evolution, but a lot has changed since then. The thing is - I keep seeing so-called "Intelligent Design" folks attacking Darwin as if we've never moved past those first explorations and ignoring subsequent discoveries. That's the politicization I tend to see. Evolutionary scientists squabble all the time (did it happen in spurts or over a long period or...what) - but the fundamental core theories are still upheld - change over time. Mutations still have to have a survival benefit or at least be neutral. Darwin holds a respected position in history, like many of the great scientists

Please tell me where evolutionists are arguing men did not evolve from apes.

You may wish to believe your family relative is broccoli but I don't see that evidence.

They don't argue men evolved from apes. They argue homosapiens and other ape species evolved from a common ape like ancestor.

 

[flacaltenn]

Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.

Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

I believe virus can add new information. Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making

A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.

Virus' add new dna to existing host dna thus naturally adding new information,

Uh, no. Viruses don't turn healthy cells into other viruses.

Actually, her article gave the example of an externally communicated virus INSERTING itself into a species' DNA. Where normally viruses just hijack random cells and insert their DNA into the host cells -- In remote cases this viral DNA can be passed at CONCEPTION and become essentially "added" to that person's DNA. That why so much of the "junk" in EVERY human's DNA appears to be old virus sequences. Moreso in our primate "ancestors".

 

[Weatherman2020]

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Know personally or on this forum? Personally, I agree, but the subject doesn't come up in polite conversation. However, I've been to a few churches where people took the Bible literally. It didn't come up, but clearly one can't take the Bible literally and accept science at the same time.

I take what the Bible says at 100% face value.
I also have a US Patent for a medical device that was used by thousands of hospitals, and helped design other medical devices as well as aerospace parts flying over your head right now.

Everything in the Bible dovetails science.

 

[Coyote]

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.

All of what weatherman is saying is in 21st century versions of evolution. It is now accepted that mutation thru periods of intense cosmic ray bombardment, environmental chemical changes or even just normal stress on species can cause "spontaneous" spurts of evolutionary changes. These are stressors that can work MUCH FASTER then natural selection. And COULD account for a lot of the "MISSING" fossil records. Perhaps all these "missing links" existed for too short of a time to be discovered eons later.

Which leads to some interesting philosophical points about periods of "intense enviro change or rays from the cosmos" could be literally considered acts of God. I know that state farm defines "acts of God" in their policies.

It's fascinating to watch the sparring over Darwin. He has the same respect as ALL the 18th/19th century leaders of science do --- but the polititization of evolution sometimes keeps folks from realizing how little he actually knew about the MECHANISMS of evolution at the time he postulated all of that.

Agree. His theories were the foundation for modern evolution, but a lot has changed since then. The thing is - I keep seeing so-called "Intelligent Design" folks attacking Darwin as if we've never moved past those first explorations and ignoring subsequent discoveries. That's the politicization I tend to see. Evolutionary scientists squabble all the time (did it happen in spurts or over a long period or...what) - but the fundamental core theories are still upheld - change over time. Mutations still have to have a survival benefit or at least be neutral. Darwin holds a respected position in history, like many of the great scientists

Please tell me where evolutionists are arguing men did not evolve from apes.

You may wish to believe your family relative is broccoli but I don't see that evidence.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

I believe virus can add new information. Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making

A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.

Virus' add new dna to existing host dna thus naturally adding new information,

Uh, no. Viruses don't turn healthy cells into other viruses.

Actually, her article gave the example of an externally communicated virus INSERTING itself into a species' DNA. Where normally viruses just hijack random cells and insert their DNA into the host cells -- In remote cases this viral DNA can be passed at CONCEPTION and become essentially "added" to that person's DNA. That why so much of the "junk" in EVERY human's DNA appears to be old virus sequences. Moreso in our primate "ancestors".

But the information of the virus is not something that going to turn a soybean into a mouse.

 

[Coyote]

I believe virus can add new information. Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making

A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.

Virus' add new dna to existing host dna thus naturally adding new information,

Uh, no. Viruses don't turn healthy cells into other viruses.

Actually, her article gave the example of an externally communicated virus INSERTING itself into a species' DNA. Where normally viruses just hijack random cells and insert their DNA into the host cells -- In remote cases this viral DNA can be passed at CONCEPTION and become essentially "added" to that person's DNA. That why so much of the "junk" in EVERY human's DNA appears to be old virus sequences. Moreso in our primate "ancestors".

But the information of the virus is not something that going to turn a soybean into a mouse.

Could over time. How many mutations might have occurred this way?

 

[Weatherman2020]

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.

All of what weatherman is saying is in 21st century versions of evolution. It is now accepted that mutation thru periods of intense cosmic ray bombardment, environmental chemical changes or even just normal stress on species can cause "spontaneous" spurts of evolutionary changes. These are stressors that can work MUCH FASTER then natural selection. And COULD account for a lot of the "MISSING" fossil records. Perhaps all these "missing links" existed for too short of a time to be discovered eons later.

Which leads to some interesting philosophical points about periods of "intense enviro change or rays from the cosmos" could be literally considered acts of God. I know that state farm defines "acts of God" in their policies.

It's fascinating to watch the sparring over Darwin. He has the same respect as ALL the 18th/19th century leaders of science do --- but the polititization of evolution sometimes keeps folks from realizing how little he actually knew about the MECHANISMS of evolution at the time he postulated all of that.

Agree. His theories were the foundation for modern evolution, but a lot has changed since then. The thing is - I keep seeing so-called "Intelligent Design" folks attacking Darwin as if we've never moved past those first explorations and ignoring subsequent discoveries. That's the politicization I tend to see. Evolutionary scientists squabble all the time (did it happen in spurts or over a long period or...what) - but the fundamental core theories are still upheld - change over time. Mutations still have to have a survival benefit or at least be neutral. Darwin holds a respected position in history, like many of the great scientists

Please tell me where evolutionists are arguing men did not evolve from apes.

You may wish to believe your family relative is broccoli but I don't see that evidence.

They don't argue men evolved from apes. They argue homosapiens and other ape species evolved from a common ape like ancestor.

Symantecs. You get the point. Evolutionists have not evolved since Darwin.

 

[Coyote]

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Know personally or on this forum? Personally, I agree, but the subject doesn't come up in polite conversation. However, I've been to a few churches where people took the Bible literally. It didn't come up, but clearly one can't take the Bible literally and accept science at the same time.

I take what the Bible says at 100% face value.
I also have a US Patent for a medical device that was used by thousands of hospitals, and helped design other medical devices as well as aerospace parts flying over your head right now.

Everything in the Bible dovetails science.

The fossil record does not support that nor does the geology.

 

[Weatherman2020]

A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.

Virus' add new dna to existing host dna thus naturally adding new information,

Uh, no. Viruses don't turn healthy cells into other viruses.

Actually, her article gave the example of an externally communicated virus INSERTING itself into a species' DNA. Where normally viruses just hijack random cells and insert their DNA into the host cells -- In remote cases this viral DNA can be passed at CONCEPTION and become essentially "added" to that person's DNA. That why so much of the "junk" in EVERY human's DNA appears to be old virus sequences. Moreso in our primate "ancestors".

But the information of the virus is not something that going to turn a soybean into a mouse.

Could over time. How many mutations might have occurred this way?

A virus would have to have the information to make bone. The list goes on and on. No virus DNA has anything remotely close. Virus DNA strands are not that long.

 

[Weatherman2020]

.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Ummm, that's not what I got from it. Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life. Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth. Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Not really.

Nothing supports the creation of all creatures at one time.

Nothing supports the creation of information to take primordial goo into everything we see that has ever lived.

 

[Syriusly]

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Still waiting for those names.

I'll do better. Here is Dr Watsons story of his conversion to Christianity.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

Okay- so you are saying Collins is one of your 'discoverers' of the human genome- and here is what he said

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

Another quote from Collins:
“Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.

Do you agree or disagree with Collins?

He was a new Christian when he said that, I wonder what he thinks now.
Here is my conclusion.H]

What a hypocrite you are.

You cite Collins as someone who agrees with your bizarre anti-evolutionary stance.

When I point out that Collins flat out calls you on it- you throw Collins under the bus

Collins labeled you well in this sentence:
Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.

 

[Syriusly]

.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Ummm, that's not what I got from it. Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life. Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth. Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Not really.

Nothing supports the creation of all creatures at one time.

Nothing supports the creation of information to take primordial goo into everything we see that has ever lived.

Nothing supports your unsubstantiated claims.

You claim that science supports the infallible Bible- yet when challenged on that- you dance like Fred Astaire.

 

[Syriusly]

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Know personally or on this forum? Personally, I agree, but the subject doesn't come up in polite conversation. However, I've been to a few churches where people took the Bible literally. It didn't come up, but clearly one can't take the Bible literally and accept science at the same time.

I take what the Bible says at 100% face value..

Where is the evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth that killed all life except the pairs of animals on the ark?

 

[Coyote]

.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Ummm, that's not what I got from it. Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life. Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth. Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Not really.

Nothing supports the creation of all creatures at one time.

Nothing supports the creation of information to take primordial goo into everything we see that has ever lived.

Getting back to your claim - can you address that?

 

[flacaltenn]

I believe virus can add new information. Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making

A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.

Virus' add new dna to existing host dna thus naturally adding new information,

Uh, no. Viruses don't turn healthy cells into other viruses.

Actually, her article gave the example of an externally communicated virus INSERTING itself into a species' DNA. Where normally viruses just hijack random cells and insert their DNA into the host cells -- In remote cases this viral DNA can be passed at CONCEPTION and become essentially "added" to that person's DNA. That why so much of the "junk" in EVERY human's DNA appears to be old virus sequences. Moreso in our primate "ancestors".

But the information of the virus is not something that going to turn a soybean into a mouse.

No. Prob not. But a cancer might learn to use it. Or like antibiotic resistant bacteria, they might incorporate it to make cancers and other mutations resistant to attack.

All I know is after reading that Nat Geo article, I aint having any sex when I have the flu anymore. Don't want to be diapering one of these.

 

[Coyote]

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Know personally or on this forum? Personally, I agree, but the subject doesn't come up in polite conversation. However, I've been to a few churches where people took the Bible literally. It didn't come up, but clearly one can't take the Bible literally and accept science at the same time.

I take what the Bible says at 100% face value..

Where is the evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth that killed all life except the pairs of animals on the ark?

Interestingly - many ancient people's have myths involving severe floods, so there must have been catastrophic floods at different times in the ancient worlds. But the world was very small then - to ancient people. A catastrophic flood wouldn't have had to be that widespread.

The problem with the ark thing is - we'd have horrific genetic bottlenecks in every known species including our own if this was true. No evidence for that

 

[Coyote]

A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.

Virus' add new dna to existing host dna thus naturally adding new information,

Uh, no. Viruses don't turn healthy cells into other viruses.

Actually, her article gave the example of an externally communicated virus INSERTING itself into a species' DNA. Where normally viruses just hijack random cells and insert their DNA into the host cells -- In remote cases this viral DNA can be passed at CONCEPTION and become essentially "added" to that person's DNA. That why so much of the "junk" in EVERY human's DNA appears to be old virus sequences. Moreso in our primate "ancestors".

But the information of the virus is not something that going to turn a soybean into a mouse.

No. Prob not. But a cancer might learn to use it. Or like antibiotic resistant bacteria, they might incorporate it to make cancers and other mutations resistant to attack.

All I know is after reading that Nat Geo article, I aint having any sex when I have the flu anymore. Don't want to be diapering one of these.

 

[Divine Wind]

Please tell me where evolutionists are arguing men did not evolve from apes.

You may wish to believe your family relative is broccoli but I don't see that evidence.

Sorry for not understanding, but are you saying mankind and the apes do or don't have a common ancestor?

 

[flacaltenn]

.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Ummm, that's not what I got from it. Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life. Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth. Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Not really.

Nothing supports the creation of all creatures at one time.

Nothing supports the creation of information to take primordial goo into everything we see that has ever lived.

How about I show you your "tail" gene sequence??