- Jan 30, 2014
- 1,856
- 50
- 48
No, it is there for all to see in this thread. You started with one claim ("Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity") and after it was demonstrated to be false, you tried to move the goalposts to "cows becoming whales".Wormwood said:First, I think your assertions that I am being dishonest is more than bit overstated.
The fact remains, your original claim is wrong.
Yes, and your argument has been demonstrated to be wrong.We are exploring the understanding of "evolution/Darwinian evolution" and how that relates to modern medicine.
And thus you have moved the goalposts. We can talk about universal common ancestry if you like.My contention is that understanding how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is very different from the assertion that such a process can be reversed over millions of years to explain all forms of life by the same gradual process.
Again...so what? There are degreed cosmologists who don't agree that the earth orbits the sun. Do you find that to be a compelling argument for geocentrism?Again, there are microbiologists who are involved in such medical work that do not agree with such a theory...nor is it necessary for modern medicine.
I have not merely accused you of unethical behavior. I have demonstrated precisely how you did so. Your posts in this thread serve as documentation of how you tried to move the goalposts.There is nothing "dishonest" here. Again, the coding in DNA is so incredibly complex that even Bill Gates said it exceeds any type of computer programming we have today...on a nano scale. Programs infer a programmer and many microbiologists (whether in medicine or other fields) look at the same evidence you see and do not ascribe to Darwinian evolution. You should learn to accept disagreement without accusing people of lying.
And you persist in this unethical behavior. Your original argument ("There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation") was shown to be false by the presentation of observed examples of the evolution of novel genetic sequences that produced new traits, which conferred a selective advantage. Yet rather than concede this point, you instead try and dismiss the evidence because it's not an explanation of universal common descent.Yes you provided supposed examples that you THINK can be reversed and account for all life over millions of years. I responded with an article showing scholars who disagree with your belief on this matter. This is not at all about "moving the goalposts." This is about differing interpretations when various people look at the same information. I have been very clearly trying to exhibit that many scholars do not see your petri dish examples of bacteria as providing results that validate the Darwinian hypothesis.
Irrelevant to the fact that all your arguments against evolutionary theory in this thread have been shown to be false. We know for a fact that 1) mutation and the evolution of new traits are very important to modern medicine; 2) evolution produces novel genetic sequences that produce new traits, which confer a selective advantage; 3) the fossil record does include gradual transitions; and 4) natural selection is an important factor in the evolution of new species.As you may or may not know, this entire naturalistic debate began back with Friedrich Wohler's discovery that he could create urea with non-organic substances. Thus, it was assumed that because organic life did not carry any mysterious vitality to it, that all things could be explained through naturalistic means. This led to theories of life that were based in protoplasm and life just naturally arose from basic chemicals, to the idea that all that was needed was organic molecules which enclosed proteins. Naturalism has been ASSUMED ever since it was understood that the building blocks of life are based in common substances and new theories continually are derived (and proven false) as technology increases. Now we know cells are incredibly complex and DNA is essentially a ridiculously in-depth computer program. Yet because the theory has been assumed for so long, it is continually perpetuated...no matter how complex and unique cells and living organisms are discovered to be.
Those are all facts that directly contradict what you have tried to argue in this thread.
Again you persist in this unethical behavior. I would advise against doing such a thing, especially in a forum where your words are there for everyone to see.In sum, it is fine if you want to accept naturalism and see the bacteria in a petri dish dying because they aren't suited for an environment while the others reproduce as rationale for cows into whales. However, I am simply saying that one does not mandate the other. The petri dish does not say all you are claiming it says. You are inferring things that NOT ALL SCHOLARS infer. I am not lying and neither am I moving goal posts. I am disagreeing with you..and I think I have valid reasons to do so.