As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
Right ... just like Cupid and the Tooth Fairy evolved from common ancestors. Got it.
It's funny that you don't even realize you're contradicting yourself.
You have admitted that we are related to cows and pigs. Being related MEANS we have a common ancestor. It's the DEFINITION of the word "related". The fact that you don't understand that just confirms your low intelligence.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
Well, I can prove that Santa Claus evolved from my common ancestors.
They saw him like this:
Nowadays he is evolving as we speak.
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022
We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed
Well, I can prove that Santa Claus evolved from my common ancestors.
What the hell are you talking about? You've shown three different DRAWINGS of Santa Claus, nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
Dredge is confused enough already.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
Eliyahu's Proposed "God has won; evolution is dead!"
Eliyahu's latest since 19 Jan 2018 (not counting a mindless snark, Message 147) is to propose a new topic, God has won; evolution is dead!. Of course he will abandon this one as he did the previous proposal (Who is the messiah in Daniel 9?, 19 Jan 2018), but a few things in his latest do tie in with some new information.
Here's the first one, the one which prompted me to post this "reply":
The DNA, if you start reading at the first letter, you get a plan for making, say, an eye. But now it turns out, if you start reading at the second letter, you get a completely different code, e.g. a manual for making for instance an ear. And if, instead of reading from left to right, you read from right to left, you get another code for another part of the body. So codes run through codes. They are intertwined with each other.
This is data compression at the highest level, a level that computer programmers can only dream of. That this could have come about by dumb luck, by mutations, errors, and selection, is impossible. Because in the extremely unlikely event that one code is formed or improved in such a way, the codes running through it will be destroyed.
So the probability that this came about by chance is zero.
This is undeniably intelligent design.
And they don't even try to argue with this. The godless keep quiet about it.
Somebody mentions there in that article that "dual coding is nearly impossible by chance" or, in other words, "overlapping codes are nearly impossible by chance."
Exit evolutionary theory.
I first heard of that a few days ago in this Forest Valkai video where he reviews a 15-year-old video from the Discovery Institute which is filled with the worst of the worst of creationist "arguments" (which the high-faluttin' DI is supposed to be above, like the perennial idiocy, "Why are there still monkeys?"). Then he examines a video by Carl Baugh (of Paluxy River "man prints alongside dinosaur tracks" infamy) in which Baugh presents material by a "highly respected scientist" (actually a creationist cryptozoologist, basically a "bigfoot hunter"). Part of that material is precisely Eliyahu's claim about "overlapping codes" based on the exact same paper that Eliyahu not only cites but also links us to!And which actually refutes the creationist claim if you bother to actually read it.
Start watching at 29:00 timemark:
The citation through Carl Baugh was just a bibliographic reference to a paper by "Wen-Yu Chung, et al.", so Forrest had to track down the paper (whereas Eliyahu shot himself in the foot by linking us to the paper's abstract, the part which the creationists quote-mined). In case you don't want to follow the link, here's a copy-and-paste of that abstract:
quote:Coding of multiple proteins by overlapping reading frames is not a feature one would associate with eukaryotic genes. Indeed, codependency between codons of overlapping protein-coding regions imposes a unique set of evolutionary constraints, making it a costly arrangement. Yet in cases of tightly coexpressed interacting proteins, dual coding may be advantageous. Here we show that although dual coding is nearly impossible by chance, a number of human transcripts contain overlapping coding regions. Using newly developed statistical techniques, we identified 40 candidate genes with evolutionarily conserved overlapping coding regions. Because our approach is conservative, we expect mammals to possess more dual-coding genes. Our results emphasize that the skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding is unwarranted: rather than being artifacts, overlapping reading frames are often hallmarks of fascinating biology.
Elsewhere in his video, Forrest promotes a practice I learned decades ago in approaching a creationist claim that cites a source, only Forrest's is much more specific: "Look up the quoted sentence and then read the next sentence." -- my own statement of that approach would be to simply read the source, but indeed as per Forrest the refutation of the claim most often comes from the following sentence(s).
Both Baugh's creationist source and Eliyahu claim: "Somebody mentions there in that article that "dual coding is nearly impossible by chance" ". Here is what the authors actually wrote (taken from the abstract quoted above):
quote:Here we show that although dual coding is nearly impossible by chance, a number of human transcripts contain overlapping coding regions. Using newly developed statistical techniques, we identified 40 candidate genes with evolutionarily conserved overlapping coding regions. Because our approach is conservative, we expect mammals to possess more dual-coding genes. Our results emphasize that the skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding is unwarranted: rather than being artifacts, overlapping reading frames are often hallmarks of fascinating biology.
Now, Baugh's creationist source was obviously just repeating another creationist's false claim (extremely common creationist practice) without even trying to find the cited source (another extremely common creationist practice which I have discussed frequently, most recently in Message 1380). But here Eliyahu had access to the cited source so that he could easily read it himself, yet he couldn't be bothered to. Whether his willful ignorance kept him from knowing better, or else he did know better but decided to lie to us anyway, it still does not speak well for him and warns us from taking anything he says seriously.
When it turned out that every dinosaur carcass tests positive for C14, something which is impossible when anything is older than 100,000 years, then the die hard godless evolutionists started claiming that all those things were contaminated with external C14.
Same old stupid creationist BS based solely on their not knowing what they are talking about.
However, Aron Ra recently posted a new video discussing that question with two scientists who have expertise and experience in the subject (unlike creationists whose expertise is no more than Hovind-deep):
Those guest scientists are:
Dr Jonathan Baker who is a research fellow and FBR scholar in paleoclimatology and isotope geochemistry at the University of Innsbruck.
Dr Philip Center professor of zoology at Fayetteville State University.
Bachelor of Arts in biology at Wingate University
master of science in biology at Baylor University
Doctorate in biological science from Northern Illinois University
Master of Theology and applied Orthodox Christian theology from the University of Balamand
Research interests are in paleontology especially dinosaur biology, herpetology especially reptile behavior.
Dr. Center goes into detail about how bone continues to incorporate C-14 in groundwater long after the organism has died (and no longer incorporates C-14 into its tissues through metabolism, that being what radiocarbon dating is actually based on). He and Dr. Baker also discuss how scientists will also radiocarbon date fossils in order to learn how much contamination exists, how to identify the sources of radiocarbon, and how to compensate for it when doing dating -- report from elsewhere is that that's what the testing with diamonds, which do not themselves contain any radiocarbon, is about. Basically, it's impossible to find any specimen of anything that does not contain trace amounts of radiocarbon.
I'm presenting this here because it's good information to learn about. Information of which creationists are ignorant and are intent to remain ignorant.
The rest of his proposed topic is standard ignorant creationism.
Creationist lies about Dr. Mary Schweitzer's discoveries have already been discussed.
Even after a decade (when his first posts complained of the same thing), he has not learned that stasis does not negate evolution, but rather is the logical consequence of evolutionary processes acting in a stable environment. All he accomplishes here is to display his abject ignorance of what evolution is and how it works.
And his thesis, that "disproving evolution" somehow "proves God", exposes how clueless he is. Evolution exists and operates as long as life exists and does what life naturally does -- indeed, it is impossible for evolution to not happen given life; life and evolution are inseparable. That is true whether life had arisen through natural processes or was poofed into existence through Magick (AKA Divine Creation). There is no conflict between Divine Creation and evolution.
So like all other creationists, Eliyahu needs to explain why he thinks there is a conflict, and why he thinks that "disproving evolution" could possibly prove his god. That would include an explanation of what he thinks evolution is.
And, like all other creationists, Eliyahu will do everything in his power to avoid answering such questions. Like the perennial unanswerable questions (for creationists at least): "What are you talking about?"
PS
The strategy and tactics of most all creationists (including and especially those who deny this) are based on creationism's fundamental and foundational Two Model Approach (TMA) which divides "origins" into two and only two "mutually exclusive" "models": the "Creation Model" (described in public in very vague terms with a lot of hand-waving, but among the faithful as strict YEC (see here for the official ICR definition) ) and the "Evolution Model" (everything else, including "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" as per Dr. Henry Morris). Thus despite their claims of having "mountains of evidence for creation", all they ever offer are attacks against their strawman misrepresentations of "evolution" (whatever they mean by that word, which they refuse to tell us) since "disproving Evolution proves Creation." That is what Eliyahu is doing in his proposal by declaring his thesis statement: "There is now a great deal of evidence that God exists. The theory of evolution has been completely demolished."
Setting aside a long discussion of problems with the TMA, we'll just mention one. If the dichotomy is supposed to be between "God" and explanations that are "non-God" (eg, evolution, in their mind), then simply eliminating evolution does not prove "God" and especially not their own personal misunderstanding of "God". Besides there being many different gods to choose from (288,000 according to Google, plus the Christian god being manifested in 45,000 different forms world-wide (200 in the USA) -- I don't know how many versions of HaShem are to be found in Judaism), there are also a multitude of "non-God" explanations besides evolution, including ideas not yet discovered which would include the replacement for evolution. So in order for the TMA to work, the creationist must have complete knowledge of everything (which ironically is what they demand atheists to have in order to believe in the existence of any gods).
So creationists as represented here by Eliyahu not only don't understand evolution, but they don't even understand their own creationism:
Sun Tzu, Art of War:Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
Eliyahu and his fellow creationists are ignorant both of their enemy ("Evolution") and of themselves.
Edited by dwise1, : PS
Edited by dwise1, : Added link to "mindless snark" in first paragraph
™ Version 4.2
