Evidence for macro-evolution

[sfs]

How does your expertise in DNA analysis lead you to believe in macro-evolution?

By telling me what patterns in DNA I should expect to see if common descent is true, patterns that I then look for and observe in real DNA. You know, science. Or just common sense. In real life, if your car sputters to a stop, you look at your gas gauge and it reads empty, what do you do? Do you sit there and say, 'Welp, I can't tell what the problem is since I haven't got a probe to look in the gas tank so I don't know what's in there, and I haven't taken apart the gas line and the fuel injection system, so I can only speculate that gasoline has something to do with the engine running, so what's the point of doing anything?" Or do you get out of the car and walk back to the gas station you just passed and buy some gas?

 

[sfs]

You do not seem to be aware of how your assumptions shape your conclusions.

I've seen many creationists say things like this. I've yet to encounter one who could show how making different assumptions would lead to conclusions consistent with creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Theology speaks of a God acting not much different from the Greek/Roman pagan God's.

Diabolical mimicry.

As Lucifer put it:

Isaiah 14:14b I will be like the most High.

 

[AV1611VET]

Being transformed into a Homo erectus would make him powerful and inhuman... not bowed down and crippled.

I'm going to disagree here.

Psalm 38:10 My heart panteth, my strength faileth me: as for the light of mine eyes, it also is gone from me.

And as far as "inhuman" is concerned, would you consider Thalidomide children "inhuman"?

I'm sure you wouldn't.

Thalidomide children are just as human as you and I are, yet genetically disfigured.

And I'm sure you wouldn't label them Homo thalidomus, or something else degrading.

 

[BCP1928]

The creation event was not a natural event and is therefore out of the scope of the methodology of science.

An assumption which you have not so far been able to justify with either theology or science.

We all have favorite tools but you do not use a screwdriver to read a witness statement. We have a primary eyewitness to the creation event in God Himself.

Presuming He exists, which I will be happy to stipulate, but the accessibility of His eyewitness account is an assumption which you have not so far been able to justify with either theology or science.

Theology is the only way we can talk about creation. Theology also supports the activity of legitimate science because it posits a rule-based universe.

Yet you, so far, have had little or no recourse to theology in your arguments.

 

[NxNW]

It is terrifying that some of the brightest minds of our generation could be so deeply deceived.

As one of them pointed out, "Einstein and Newton get great press, but Darwin was greater." They all nodded.

Why were they wrong, and why do you know more about how science works? Not trying to argue from authority here, because it surprised me to hear them say that, too. Then they went on to discuss why, and it became clear.

 

[NxNW]

Forensics is a cool tool that allows the identification of criminals so long as they leave DNA at the crime scene and this coheres with their actual DNA. Now please prove that Cain killed Abel using this tool.

There is no evidence that they even existed.

Identifying patterns and describing them is not the issue here. It is drawing links between these patterns that is impossible.

The theory of evolution correctly predicts the location and age of fossils. Creationism does not.

 

[AV1611VET]

The theory of evolution correctly predicts the location and age of fossils.

After how many tries?

Creationism does not.

Creationism is about as interested in fossils as Henry Ford was in junkyards.

 

[AV1611VET]

An assumption which you have not so far been able to justify with either theology or science.

What would justify the creation events scientifically?

Ion trails? plasma clouds? time crystals? time machines?

What should God have left behind for science to discover?

God didn't "Hansel & Gretel" His acts of creation by laying bread crumbs around to be discovered.

Instead, He documented what He did, how He did it, why He did it, where He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

And that's not good enough for scientists, is it?

Well ... science can take a hike.

 

[BCP1928]

What would justify the creation events scientifically?

Ion trails? plasma clouds? time crystals? time machines?

What should God have left behind for science to discover?

God didn't "Hansel & Gretel" His acts of creation by laying bread crumbs around to be discovered.

Instead, He documented what He did, how He did it, why He did it, where He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

And that's not good enough for scientists, is it?

Well ... science can take a hike.

What would justify the creation events scientifically?

Ion trails? plasma clouds? time crystals? time machines?

What should God have left behind for science to discover?

God didn't "Hansel & Gretel" His acts of creation by laying bread crumbs around to be discovered.

Instead, He documented what He did, how He did it, why He did it, where He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

And that's not good enough for scientists, is it?

Well ... science can take a hike.

The assumption was that the creation was not a natural event. Using science or theology, how would you justify that assumption?

 

[mindlight]

The assumption was that the creation was not a natural event. Using science or theology, how would you justify that assumption?

The majority of the world's population believes that God created ex nihilo and this is established Christian doctrine also. Science assumes a naturalistic methodology. How can science speak of the Creation Event before there was nature or senses to observe it? Since Science cannot be used to describe this event the only valid tool is theology and a reflection on the revelations of the only witness to the Event.

 

[AV1611VET]

Using science or theology, how would you justify that assumption?

Faith.

 

[mindlight]

By telling me what patterns in DNA I should expect to see if common descent is true, patterns that I then look for and observe in real DNA. You know, science. Or just common sense. In real life, if your car sputters to a stop, you look at your gas gauge and it reads empty, what do you do? Do you sit there and say, 'Welp, I can't tell what the problem is since I haven't got a probe to look in the gas tank so I don't know what's in there, and I haven't taken apart the gas line and the fuel injection system, so I can only speculate that gasoline has something to do with the engine running, so what's the point of doing anything?" Or do you get out of the car and walk back to the gas station you just passed and buy some gas?

It is not common sense to say you are related to an ape by your shared ancestry.

Your car analogy does not work because you can fully examine the 'genome' of your car and come to conclusions about it. A better analogy that makes my point is that a horse and carriage broke down 5000 years ago and we need to determine the cause of that, despite the fact the wooden axels have all rotted into dust and any metal elements have long been plundered or rusted away.

 

[mindlight]

As one of them pointed out, "Einstein and Newton get great press, but Darwin was greater." They all nodded.

Why were they wrong, and why do you know more about how science works? Not trying to argue from authority here, because it surprised me to hear them say that, too. Then they went on to discuss why, and it became clear.

They cannot know but pretend to know better than God. This smells like blind hubris.

 

[mindlight]

I've seen many creationists say things like this. I've yet to encounter one who could show how making different assumptions would lead to conclusions consistent with creationism.

Regarding your field, I do not see how macro-evolution is relevant at all in terms of any practical applications for forensic science. So maybe creationists simply ignore this request as unimportant and impossible.

 

[mindlight]

Theology speaks of a God acting not much different from the Greek/Roman pagan God's. And for myself, I wonder about the rationality of taking any of their Creation stories seriously. With science on the other hand, we do have something that is bringing to light what the Earth itself is showing us. There's no hocus pocus involved. An that to me is a way more rational direction to follow than theology. Now, if one were looking for a relationship with God, than go for the theology.

Science is a valuable tool when it can demonstrate its conclusions. There are a great many practical benefits to thinking scientifically but none of them relate to the theory of macro-evolution.

 

[mindlight]

Given that all we have is a story, then there really isn't evidence to convict Cain.

But you do understand that evidence exists to prove events that we didn't witness... like evolution.


Why? Describe the barrier... because what we have is multiple lines of evidence for events.

We have a historical report of the first murder. But I think we can agree that science is irrelevant to solving the crime. You suggest this is because it is just a story. But you cannot dismiss the story on scientific grounds either because there is no evidence at all pertinent to it. The evidence is revealed and historical only.

We can make educated guesses based on patterns. The car was traveling at 50mph when it was obscured by the traffic in between. If it carries on along the road and at the same speed then it will arrive at point x in approximately 8 seconds. But in reality, the car turned off, slowed down, skidded to a stop on the hard shoulder, crashed, blew up or whatever and so our assumptions were all wrong. Macro-evolution is just a collection of guesses at a supposed distance of hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Estrid]

You have no idea what you're talking about. You only get actual proof in math.

No, you only have evidence, but not proof. However, the evidence is very strong, just as it is for evolution.

A few years ago I sat in the same room with a whole panel of Nobel Prize winners. They unanimously agreed that Darwin is the greatest scientist of all time, and his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the greatest scientific achievement of all time.

Regardless of what they said, disproof of
TOE would blow a crater in the basics of
all the physical sciences, and proof af God.
The Nobel of Nobels awarded for the
discovery of all of all time would hardly
be a footnote in the vast intellectual /
spiritual revolution that would sweep the world.

It would reverb everywhere.

Curious it should be- if not to deniers-
that nobody can show ToE is false.
Not one contrary fact has ever been
detected.

"Not enough time" or "witnesses" is not facts.
Its not data. It cannot be demonstrated.

With God, Heaven, the angels and all of reality on the
creationist side, it should be child- simple to produce
the at least one little fact.

All we is the stunning arrogance of people who
not only " know" the one only possible readung of
Gods work, but, with zero study or understanding of
science, still claim to know more than any scientist
on earth.

 

[BCP1928]

The majority of the world's population believes that God created ex nihilo

I am not sure that is true. Ex materia is still very popular, especially in non-Abrahamic religions, as it was in the early days of Christianity. Even now, I don't believe that ex nihilo creation is universally considered an essential tenet of the faith.

Science assumes a naturalistic methodology. How can science speak of the Creation Event before there was nature or senses to observe it? Since Science cannot be used to describe this event the only valid tool is theology and a reflection on the revelations of the only witness to the Event.

Before you can reach that conclusion you must justify your first assumption. Otherwise your reasoning is circular.

 

[Estrid]

Science is a valuable tool when it can demonstrate its conclusions. There are a great many practical benefits to thinking scientifically but none of them relate to the theory of macro-evolution.

What academic training do
you have, that qualifies your
opinion?

There is no " theory of macro evolution" btw.

You evidently made that up.