• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Eureka! A silver bullet against creationists!

Dog Boots

Thinker
D
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
193
I'm trying to be carefully optimistic about this, but I really do believe I have experienced something new within the last week - new in relation to the creation-evolution debate that's been raging the Internet probably since it was born (though I've only been involved the last few years).

Most of you on this forum know this debate inside out, and know all the creationist arguments to the usual attacks from evolution. I don't think I've ever seen a creationist concede a lost argument, except for this last week, when I posted an excerpt from the somewhat Net-famous 2-hour Kenneth Miller lecture on ID vs. evolution on Richard Dawkins' forum in reply to the question: "Humans have 2 chromosomes less than the other primates - tell me how THAT happened, then..." (Well, they haven't actually conceded but as close as one can get...read on)

The clip is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

It's 4:22 long and it contains a very concise of how we "lost" a chromosome pair in our lineage, leaving only two options: Evolution or Deceptive Design.

I have tried numerous times, over the last week, to get the creationists on that board to reply, but they have dissappeared from the two threads in which I posted the clip. I've tried to make daily reminders that they have not answered, and still the two threads keep dropping to the bottom of the forum, even though they're both started by the creationists and were very much alive up until I posted the clip. It really does seem like a silver bullet so far....though that sounds a bit too good to be true.

Maybe the creationists and other people who don't like the idea of being apes on this site would like to chime in on this clip? :D
 
The question I have is Is there an advantage to having those chromosomes fused or is it just a benign event?

very cool finding. I wish I could believe that that would change the debate. At the very least, we know more.
 
Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/. There are a hell of a lot of these kinds of empirical proofs. I spent a number of days combing the site and couldn't believe what was there. I wanted to shout "why doesn't anyone know this"? It turns out that lots of people do know but those who know that evolution is wrong don't care about the facts.

Check out transcription errors. It was predicted before it was found and it is damn powerful stuff. In fact, there is a real life human equivalent. It's cool.

But it is a great video, thanks.
 
Miller is a theist. He is an intelectually honest guy. Cool.
 
I'd say more a silver cross - a silver bullet would kill them, a silver cross keeps the evil one's at bay (or - as you observed - away!!).
 
I think it's a powerful argument against creationism. On the other hand, there were already zillions of powerful arguments against creationism, especially the young earth variety.

You have to be careful saying it's a powerful argument against intelligent design. From experience, I know that people will insist they are the same thing. They might even cite Judge Jones to prove it. However, they aren't the same thing, and this argument doesn't address ID, although it claims to.

The obvious question an ID proponent would ask has already been asked, in a different form, in this fledgling thread. What is the probability that two chromosomes would fuse in such a way that the resulting organism had a biological advantage?

They would then describe how horribly unlikely the fusion was in the first place, and possibly say how incredibly unlikely it would be that the fused chromosomes would be functional at all, and how amazingly astoundingly unlikely it would be that it would actually be passed between generations in such a way that there would be a biological advantage. They would then conclude that there must have been some supernatural assistance to make it work.

And while you might think that's preposterous, I'm willing to bet you can't prove it.
 
Meadmaker said:
The obvious question an ID proponent would ask has already been asked, in a different form, in this fledgling thread. What is the probability that two chromosomes would fuse in such a way that the resulting organism had a biological advantage?

They would then describe how horribly unlikely the fusion was in the first place, and possibly say how incredibly unlikely it would be that the fused chromosomes would be functional at all, and how amazingly astoundingly unlikely it would be that it would actually be passed between generations in such a way that there would be a biological advantage. They would then conclude that there must have been some supernatural assistance to make it work.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing. Scientist saw a problem. They hypothesized a solution. If they were right then evolution would be strengthened. If they were wrong then there would be a serious problem for evolution. So, they predicted what exactly they would find. Low and behold they found it.

As Miller so eloquently put it, the only way you could explain away evolution by given the whole thing to god is to assume that god was trying to deceive humans.

If Christians believe that god was trying to deceive us then the theory is possible. But you have to assume a deceptive Deity.

Of course there is always the option for those who are against evolution to simply put their fingers in their ears and hum. I guess that is the only way to avoid the dichotomy.
 
RandFan said:
Here's the thing. Scientist saw a problem. They hypothesized a solution. If they were right then evolution would be strengthened. If they were wrong then there would be a serious problem for evolution. So, they predicted what exactly they would find. Low and behold they found it.

As Miller so eloquently put it, the only way you could explain away evolution by given the whole thing to god is to assume that god was trying to deceive humans.

If Christians believe that god was trying to deceive us then the theory is possible. But you have to assume a deceptive Deity.

Of course there is always the option for those who are against evolution to simply put their fingers in their ears and hum. I guess that is the only way to avoid the dichotomy.
Click to expand...
why does it have to be a deceptive god.
LAst I heard, fossils were the invention of the devil to test our faith.:rolleyes:
 
joobz said:
He puts temptation in us. Maybe that temptation is in that fused gene.
He's a tricksy one, that satan.
Click to expand...
You lost me. This fused gene isn't incidental. It is quite fundamental. To suppose this is to suppose that genes have no purpose in what we are as humans. Could you expand?
 
RandFan said:
You lost me. This fused gene isn't incidental. It is quite fundamental. To suppose this is to suppose that genes have no purpose in what we are as humans. Could you expand?
Click to expand...
expand on a view I don't believe? ok....
[creationist mindthink=on]
do we know that the fusion of this gene IS fundemental?
is this fusion what makes us human or is it just a benign happenstance?
we still don't know how fundemental any single gene is. Gene knockout studies have definitely demonstrated that some genes are more important than others. And it is possible that there is just a bunch of baggage in the code.

Maybe in that fused gene lies the "Mark" of the devil that everyone is supposed to have in the "end of days"
[/insanity]
 
RandFan said:
According to Miller who is an expert in his field and testified at trial it is.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's a valid argument. I'm just saying that if some one wants to deny something....they'll create whatever fiction is needed.

Anyway, I liked my mark of the beast thing. If i was a cheezy writer, i might try to do something with it.:)
 
joobz said:
I'm not saying it's a valid argument. I'm just saying that if some one wants to deny something....they'll create whatever fiction is needed.
Click to expand...
Of course and nothing really matters. If you choose not to believe in the moon then there is no evidence that could convince you otherwise. There is a point where denial becomes absurd.
 
joobz said:
He puts temptation in us. Maybe that temptation is in that fused gene.
He's a tricksy one, that satan.
Click to expand...

Well, isn't it one thing to assume Satan has put bones in the ground and another to say that he has had success in manipulating the pinnacle of God's creation? That God didn't have complete control over the very thing that is His center of attention? Will theists concede this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom