tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post455319931461786497..comments2024-03-02T00:44:55.128-08:00Comments on Pleiotropy: Another creationist dentist expert on evolutionBjørn Østmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-27975101092910512212014-12-02T13:59:52.168-08:002014-12-02T13:59:52.168-08:00Evolution and creationism, good god what a mess. T...Evolution and creationism, good god what a mess. Those that are of the opinion that life is a product of the elements of matter. and under favorable environmental conditions, life can develop and evolve are rapidly finding answers based in science. Those that are of the opinion that life was created in its entire complexity, usually in 6 Earth days, by supernatural triumph have no such struggle. They have only to find the appropriate answer in ancient scriptures written long before we knew anything about the basic chemistry and biology of life. Both are based in “faith”, but different kinds of faith. For example, one can have faith that in a few minutes a bus will come to a certain bus stop as it has every day over past years. That is faith with a basis in reality. It is not a sure thing until the bus is there, but it is a reasonable faith. Or one can have faith that a supernatural force will create a bus and bring it to stop where a bus has never stopped before. That is a faith without basis and a faith that will never come to being, no matter how long the wait.<br /><br />Evolutionists observe facts and develop theories that depending on future findings may or may not be true whole or in part, but from the evidence comes new knowledge. Creationists develop theories based on religious beliefs as to why evolution is certainly not true, and know that only theories based on God’s word can be true, and if the facts do not agree with the ancient scriptures , of course they must false, developed by either the misunderstandings of human scrutiny or even worse, the fabrications of supernatural evil beings. Creationists live in an unreal world, a world where without a shred of evidence, except that found in ancient scripture, the natural laws that underlie the existence of matter are subject to change at the whim of supernatural beings. If one deeply believes that the universe and the Earth with all it’s current species (many of which become extinct every year) were supernaturally created as it exists today, and that a supernatural entity will return in the not too distant future (supposedly) to raise all humanity from the grave and change the biology and ecology of life to where the lion becomes a vegetation and animal (and I guess human) reproductive biology is either suspended or somehow over-population is not a problem. Well then your belief system greatly exceeds the science of geology and biology in head shaking incredulity. It is such a tragedy that the great potential of humanity is currently held captive by ancient religious beliefs.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00486379145990801675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-76568961048618245642013-03-24T13:11:00.946-07:002013-03-24T13:11:00.946-07:00A.L., thanks for your comments. Which holes in evo...A.L., thanks for your comments. Which holes in evolutionary theory are you talking about? What are holes? Are they areas or questions that have been pointed out but where evolutionary theory fails? Is it any question that any person may raise that evolutionary biologists have not yet worked on? People often talk about these holes, but I honestly don't know what they are. I work in evolution, on questions that are still open (of course), so it's not that I don't know they exist. But all areas of science are like this, having open questions. Is there a difference?Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-7426604712957109172013-03-24T04:22:24.651-07:002013-03-24T04:22:24.651-07:00I spent the time watching Mr. John Lennox's en...I spent the time watching Mr. John Lennox's entire speech. He puts out many good ideas that invites us to ponder about our world and our place in it. However, his speech, "God rendered irrelevant" is irrelevant to our topic in this post. <br /><br />In his speech, Mr. Lennox argued that God and science is compatible and God is relevant to science. On the other hand, the topic of this post is the flaws in people's objection to evolution, not that God is incompatible with science. In this post, the Bjorn is trying to explain why evolution currently stands as the best scientific theory on how people and other organisms come to be. Indeed the theory of evolution has plenty of holes, but I wonder how many holes does creationism has. Creationists love to point out the holes in evolution but they don't bother explaining theirs. Where are the evidences that God created the organisms we see today the way they are?<br /><br />I also watched on Netflix the first 15 minutes of Dr. Martin's DVD episode one. Every animal examples he gave, whenever he came upon a characteristic or physiology that he could not explain how was derived from a more primitive form, he always fall back to the same answer: "God designed it this way". He effectively blocked out all other possible explanations without trying to come up more hypothesis, testing them, and then denying them. Instead, he jumped straight to the conclusion that God designed all organisms. I find this approach in studying a subject very questionable. If every time we stumble upon a difficult scientific, philosophical, or theological question and we fall back on the same vague and abstract answer, we will not, as a species, advance.<br /><br />I agree with Bjorn's comment that Dr. Martin is not an expert in evolution. To be considered an expert, in my opinion, a person needs to study a subject extensively and deeply. Asking questions that challenge the current understanding of the subject. Just like a paleontologist studying prehistoric organisms and piece to gather a picture of the past with the remains of these organisms. Or like a priest studying the point of human existence in terms of theology. With Dr. Martin's credentials, he can be considered knowledgeable in theology, but I question how much he actually knows about evolution.<br /><br />In the process of pointing out the holes of evolution, attackers of evolutions give us plenty of ideas to test and challenge the theory of evolution. Some good, some bad. For this, we thank you. However, by citing the flaws in evolution, creationists have not built a compelling case nor answer the inconsistencies in creationism. This is one of the many reasons why I find evolution a better explanation for the forms that life currently takes on Earth.<br /><br />A.L.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00256960235662489994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-78366697125665885552013-03-03T13:23:33.045-08:002013-03-03T13:23:33.045-08:00No, Ryan, I am not scared. I am bored. There's...No, Ryan, I am not scared. I am bored. There's no way in hell I'm going to waste 51 minutes watching that video. I'm am extremely busy at work (which is why I blog so little these days), and am not very interested anymore in arguing with people like you. Also, you're so rude, and I am fed up with that.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-52381589635733103502013-02-06T20:35:18.298-08:002013-02-06T20:35:18.298-08:00Hey, Bjorn - I'm back!
Still wondering why ...Hey, Bjorn - I'm back! <br /><br />Still wondering why you're not posting this link:<br /><br />"God Rendered Irrelevant"<br />http://youtu.be/ch2xLGn-Dp4<br /><br />Scared or something? <br /><br />Maybe you could do the forum a favor and just let them know that you refuse to post any more links by me... especially this one, because it challenges you and your belief system. Apparently something troubles you about it... You posted it... then you deleted it... then you refused to post the next three times I tried to re-post it. <br /><br />Man up, Bjorn - let there be open dialogue and fairness in the debate at least! Haha! I can't believe you're so scared to post this! <br /><br />You're laughable... Oh, and so is your religion of evolution...<br /><br />In Christ<br />RyanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-26435136836690245472012-09-29T14:18:24.150-07:002012-09-29T14:18:24.150-07:00One could argue that there is a reason for that. ...One could argue that there is a reason for that. Watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-84278639509061191602012-09-20T11:36:42.360-07:002012-09-20T11:36:42.360-07:00 All of which means, that this is a tremendous a... All of which means, that this is a tremendous advantage for the orchid. It need not be an advantage for the wasp. Every form of parasitism, predation, and even the life cycles of diseases, have these trade offs of taking advantage of one organism by another. The interesting point here should have been, in how often this pressure influences the prey organism, very often to the point of being an actual benefit to that population. <br /><br /> I would invite anyone who has questions such as these, to seek out contact, if not with an actual biologist, then perhaps someone who has had some actual study with one. Schools are open, day and night, with access to people with this understanding. I would even venture that many college professors, by no means all - but many, will find a minute or two to field an email requesting directions to a resource that passes an academic and scholarly muster. Charles Coffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12105802094619039399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-20343698438735914822012-09-20T11:27:12.596-07:002012-09-20T11:27:12.596-07:00In fact, there has never been an example of an &qu... In fact, there has never been an example of an "irreducibly complex" system or organism. Every creature that evolves, does so in an environment shared with other organisms. This too, is an argument from ignorance, because given that it involves a food source shared by these organisms, there is a tremendous selection pressure to co-evolve. Your one example, merely demonstrates a single instance, of what may be the most common and compelling element of the science of evolution: that organisms that reproduce, respond to selection pressures in their environment. Likewise, there is nothing in that ubiquitous principle that suggests anything other than the likelihood that species can evolve together, in ways that are dependent on other organisms. All it does require is that the selection continues to bring an advantage in survival and reproduction. Charles Coffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12105802094619039399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-86085104047679015282012-09-20T11:18:02.450-07:002012-09-20T11:18:02.450-07:00This is where any study of evolution might have he... This is where any study of evolution might have helped him, because he only need realize that given the instance that a fin might aid a fish that swims in the water, there is no unnatural limit that evolution might select for only one fin. The more complex a call, or signal, the more information it may impart, and the more useful to the organism. This is seen most organisms with a social interaction. His premise is akin to asking, "If humans have pheromones to tell their tribe how they feel, what use would there be in developing speech?" Charles Coffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12105802094619039399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-24768965120905658472012-09-15T23:47:52.584-07:002012-09-15T23:47:52.584-07:00We do have evidence of "links", aka tran...We do have evidence of "links", aka transitional fossils, and they are unlike apes and humans. The ancestors of all apes and humans can still be termed apes, though they are now gone. Does that make sense?Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-53782831830056408242012-09-15T23:40:42.931-07:002012-09-15T23:40:42.931-07:00I don't know this case myself, but the answer ...I don't know this case myself, but the answer involves mutation and natural selection. I'm afraid that I can't say much more than that here, but obviously natural selection is part of the answer.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-34985072878713713422012-09-14T21:18:15.446-07:002012-09-14T21:18:15.446-07:00I am asking in my ignorance here, but according to...I am asking in my ignorance here, but according to evolution, how DOES the iris come to mimic the look and smell of the wasp? Is there an answer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-21701986868730183542012-09-14T21:12:22.809-07:002012-09-14T21:12:22.809-07:00"where are all the lost links between each on..."where are all the lost links between each one vanished to?<br />They evolved. Pretty basic stuff that you apparently don't know"<br /><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, (I may have mistaken what you were saying here) but are you saying that we don't have evidence of "links" because those animals that would be the links evolved into other animals? Then why are there still apes? If apes evolved, and eventually bacame humans, and yet we still have apes, doesn't logic say that there should still be "links" also?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-16291400725620158792012-08-30T14:13:57.387-07:002012-08-30T14:13:57.387-07:00Yeah, that would be neat. We could move the discus...Yeah, that would be neat. We could move the discussion to Carnival of Evolution's <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Carnival-of-Evolution/181930561831085" rel="nofollow">Facebook page</a>...Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-86785115563447092542012-08-30T12:21:53.154-07:002012-08-30T12:21:53.154-07:00i wish there was a like button for all of your com...i wish there was a like button for all of your commentsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-34427544436948110632012-08-30T12:08:33.234-07:002012-08-30T12:08:33.234-07:00Actually mutations result in a CHANGE of genetic m...Actually mutations result in a CHANGE of genetic material. One of the most common forms of genetic mutation is single nucleotide polymorphism. Nucleotides are the basis for DNA, and they code proteins which, in true, produce all the other things that your body needs to survive (enzyme, organelles, ect.) So when an SNP occurs it changes one nucleotide in the gene sequence, for example ACT changes to CCT. ACT would produce the Amino acid threonine, while CCT would produce proline, and since threonine and proline have completely different charges and chemical makeups, this would change the way the protein domain folds, changing the function of the protein. <br /><br />So in other words, yes simple things can be complex, and no you should not talk about things you don't understand. Go read a book<br /><br />Dr. Taylor PharmDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-64673944260476505932012-08-25T20:58:32.062-07:002012-08-25T20:58:32.062-07:00But instead basing on what Dr. Jobe is simply stat...<i>But instead basing on what Dr. Jobe is simply stating how did all these animals evolve?</i><br /><br />No, he is also stating that they could not have evolved.<br /><br /><i>Where is there a timeline that shows what animals came first?</i><br /><br />In college textbooks on evolution.<br /><br /><i>where are all the lost links between each one vanished to?</i><br /><br />They evolved. Pretty basic stuff that you apparently don't know.<br /><br /><i>I have a ton more that evolutionists won't give a time to day to consider because they completely go against scientific facts.</i><br /><br />That your questions are inane is more likely why evolutionary biologists won't give you the time of day. Read a textbook.<br /><br /><i>I don't mean to come across as a know it all</i><br /><br />You don't. You come across as a know-nothing.<br /><br /><i>Actually I'm one of the few that can admit that I don't know all of life's unanswered questions.</i><br /><br />You and every scientists in this world.<br /><br />*sigh*Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-23595118949321812832012-08-24T17:27:25.664-07:002012-08-24T17:27:25.664-07:00Your theory of evolution does have holes in it. A ...Your theory of evolution does have holes in it. A lot of them.<br /><br />All theories do, Ryan. That doesn't falsify the theory - it just means that it is work in progress.<br /> <br /><br />wasn't that you that said no holes still looking?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546963093943039070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-70707803508440606882012-08-24T17:25:25.723-07:002012-08-24T17:25:25.723-07:00LMFAO, you're not looking very hard.LMFAO, you're not looking very hard. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546963093943039070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-65239460806748214622012-08-24T16:44:14.976-07:002012-08-24T16:44:14.976-07:00You don't have to believe in a god to know tha...<br />You don't have to believe in a god to know that evolution is one of the dumbest theories out there. I can literally go on for hours on how it is dis-proven by facts we have known for years. But instead basing on what Dr. Jobe is simply stating how did all these animals evolve? What animal that we know for a fact existed evolved into a giraffe? Or really any animal for that matter? Where did all the half animals go? Where is there a timeline that shows what animals came first? Please consider all 8 millions of them. Do you any of you that believe in evolution take just a few minutes to consider how different each any is and where are all the lost links between each one vanished to? There hasn't been and will never be an answer for that. Please, please attempt to explain how this can be possible? You would be the first. This is just one of hundreds of facts that go against the evolution theory. If you would like to pass this question I would understand. I have a ton more that evolutionists won't give a time to day to consider because they completely go against scientific facts. I don't mean to come across as a know it all. Actually I'm one of the few that can admit that I don't know all of life's unanswered questions. The problem with creationist vs evolutionist is they both believe without a doubt that they're right. I know more about evolution (one of the main reasons i dont believe it) then most evolutionist I come across that I have to tell them what they believe. Is that not in its self show that people aren't thinking for themselves? That is all I won't both parties to do. The one thing creationist has is that they admit their beliefs are just that beliefs based on faith. Evolutions however won't go into the details that are addressed but still continue to believe it as fact. Arguing is pointless when you have people that believe their theory is fact vs people that have decided to have blind faith.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546963093943039070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-65983146087597075142012-08-24T16:43:27.796-07:002012-08-24T16:43:27.796-07:00You don't have to believe in a god to know tha...You don't have to believe in a god to know that evolution is one of the dumbest theories out there. I can literally go on for hours on how it is dis-proven by facts we have known for years. But instead basing on what Dr. Jobe is simply stating how did all these animals evolve? What animal that we know for a fact existed evolved into a giraffe? Or really any animal for that matter? Where did all the half animals go? Where is there a timeline that shows what animals came first? Please consider all 8 millions of them. Do you any of you that believe in evolution take just a few minutes to consider how different each any is and where are all the lost links between each one vanished to? There hasn't been and will never be an answer for that. Please, please attempt to explain how this can be possible? You would be the first. This is just one of hundreds of facts that go against the evolution theory. If you would like to pass this question I would understand. I have a ton more that evolutionists won't give a time to day to consider because they completely go against scientific facts. I don't mean to come across as a know it all. Actually I'm one of the few that can admit that I don't know all of life's unanswered questions. The problem with creationist vs evolutionist is they both believe without a doubt that they're right. I know more about evolution (one of the main reasons i dont believe it) then most evolutionist I come across that I have to tell them what they believe. Is that not in its self show that people aren't thinking for themselves? That is all I won't both parties to do. The one thing creationist has is that they admit their beliefs are just that beliefs based on faith. Evolutions however won't go into the details that are addressed but still continue to believe it as fact. Arguing is pointless when you have people that believe their theory is fact vs people that have decided to have blind faith.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546963093943039070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-39502912514038707682012-05-27T07:45:04.847-07:002012-05-27T07:45:04.847-07:00heh, heh. "In Christ, Ryan". Tells you e...heh, heh. "In Christ, Ryan". Tells you everything you need to know about why Ryan doesn't understand and will never accept that evolution occurs. <br />What a strange thing religion is, that reality must be denied to preserve it. A wasted life really, intellectually at least.Shawnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-17542346153515106882012-05-24T22:01:34.852-07:002012-05-24T22:01:34.852-07:00You are just as closed-minded, my friend, and dogm...You are just as closed-minded, my friend, and dogmatic in your system of belief as well. I appreciate your replies, and thank you for your time. Good luck with everything. I sincerely mean that.<br /><br />In Christ,<br />RyanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-9728401591521540032012-05-24T08:54:05.304-07:002012-05-24T08:54:05.304-07:00Yeah, I know Michael Ruse and Dick Lewontin and th...Yeah, I know Michael Ruse and Dick Lewontin and their views on these matters. I sincerely disagree both with Ruse's accomodationism and pandering to the religious, and with Lewontin's Marxist views that lead him to commit the moralistic fallacy. I don't know any of those other geezers (and don't care to ).<br /><br />Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory that could be overturned with evidence. That makes it not a religion. I know you don't understand that it can, but that is really neither here nor there to me. Evolution doesn't tell me what to believe. Naturalism (see definition below) leads me to conclude that evolution is true, not the other way around. (You are very arrogant when you tell me what I can and cannot say and believe.)<br /><br />I am an atheist (i.e., I do not believe in any of the gods I have heard about), and I am that because I see no evidence for gods, because there are lots of natural explanations for events that religious people claim to be evidence of their particular god(s), and because there is no good reason to choose one religion over any other, and they are all to some extent mutually exclusive. When I was ten I decided to get baptized (protestant, my parents chose not to have me baptized, as I should choose for myself), and I was confirmed when I was 14. However, at that time I realized I can never believe in any of these man-made fairytales. So I remain an atheist.<br /><br /><i>Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macro evolution) is not "minimal." It is as I have stated earlier: nonexistent!</i><br /><br />Well, at this point all I can say is that your mind is clearly closed off to the possibility that evolution occurs, so I see no further point in discussing this with you. I have already presented evidence, but you're too dogmatic to assess it, so this is futile.<br /><br />Peace.<br /><br />From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)</a><br />Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.[2]Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-10261279652271422682012-05-24T06:12:07.557-07:002012-05-24T06:12:07.557-07:00have not found one single instance where a complet...<i>have not found one single instance where a complete transition from one family of higher animals to another</i><br /><br />That would not be speciation. You're shifting the goalposts to something much more - something that we cannot expect to see on the short timescales that you are requiring. They are different species of lizard, and they are clearly very different both genetically, morphologically, and functionally. That is macroevolution. And then you say "changing into something other than a plant." I mean, seriously?<br /><br /><i>So, for you, or any, evolutionist to defeat creationism, you must show firm proof of a complete transitional series.</i><br /><br />Maybe for you to believe it, but most other people understand that this would be impossible, not because evolution is wrong, but because this takes waaaay to long compared to our lifetimes. And there is soooo much other evidence for evolution that you'd have to be in denial not to see it - which is what you are, of course.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.com