Evolution is a true theory!

[Dannager]

IisJustMe, it is bad form to edit people's words when you are quoting them, and doubly so when you make a spelling mistake while doing so (in that country and time the spelling was "Favoured", not "Favored"). There's no need for that kind of deception to make your point.

How does it imply that it is a separate process? The book is about evolution, and it is demonstrating that evolution takes place by means of natural selection. This is in contrast to earlier forms of evolution that saw it happening due to the behaviour of animals during their life (such as giraffes stretching their necks). One could as easily separate the electromagnetic force from electromagnetism as separate natural selection from Darwin's theory of evolution.

Or, they know that the first races Darwin spoke of were races of cabbage (excepting the preface added in later editions). At that time, the word "race" was nearly synonymous with "species". To read racism into it is no more credible than reading homosexuality into a statement from the same era that someone felt rather gay.

Truth.

 

[gluadys]

Thank you for making mya rgument for me. it isn't evolution, not in the sense of "a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state," which is one of Meriam-Webster's entries for evolution.

That's a terrible definition of evolution. However, popular dictionaries, I suppose, feel compelled to include every usage of "evolution", including the creationist caricature. It is certainly not, and AFAIK, never was, the scientific description of evolution.

Many on the board want to take the focus off this aspect of evolution and talk about minor changes, which is the result of natural selection or speciation,...Darwin didn't define evolution that way.

Darwin defined evolution precisely that way. He insisted, even against some of his supporters, that evolutionary changes were always minor changes, small variations, slight gradations, etc. He contended that if it could be shown that a feature, even as complex a feature as the eye, could not have come about through a succession of minor variations, his thesis of natural selection was false.

Time has shown that on this point, Darwin was right.

Adaptation is nothing more than a mutation that is advantageous and is retained -- though there are no solid examples of that occurring in recent history, either.

Exactly, adaptation is the consequence of a mutation retained and spread through a population via natural selection because of its advantage to the species in its environment: the process as a whole being called evolution. This is precisely evolution as Darwin described it. Today we would include non-adaptive changes that accumulate through genetic drift, gene flow and founder effect.

Proponents of the theory, if they were honest, would admit that "evolution" has been redefined over the years, not to make adjustments for new evidence, because there is no evidencce to present.

The major new evidence which occasioned a re-definition of Darwin's theory was the re-discovery of Mendel's work in genetics and the discovery of mutations. Both of these expanded the view of evolution by natural selection and strengthened it by providing a more precise understanding of the genetics behind inheritance and variation. This understanding is often called neo-Darwinism, and AFAIK there has been no major shift in the definition of evolution since it was worked out in the 1930s-40s.

Thus, natural selection is now called "evolution," speciation is called "evolution," and the questionable concept of "genetic drift" is thrown in the mix too, and referred to as "evolution."

These have always been part of the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection and genetic drift are mechanisms of selecting variations. Speciation is a consequence of evolution occurring independently in separated populations.

Common ancestry within the genus, yes, but you cannot produce a single iota of evidence linking one plant or animal to a different type or kind of plant or animal.

I think we are butting up against another caricature of evolution. What do you mean by different "type" or "kind"?

Do you understand that evolution never removes a species from the clade in which its ancestor is found?
Speciation creates new clades, but these will always be found within ancestral clades. Therefore, if your concept of evolution requires a lineage to jump from one clade to another, it is a false concept of evolution

You talk about gulls of different types, but they are still gulls.

But the reason they are different is evolution.

Speciation is a vehicle for natural selection.

I think that should be worded the other way around. Speciation is a possible outcome of evolution (including both mutation and natural selection) when populations are separated. Evolution will not always produce speciation, but it can and has.

Genetic drift probably isn't valid.

It is quite valid and is known to be a stronger factor than adaptive selection when populations are small.

And evolution is a fairy tale that more and more scientists are rejecting as impossible.

Another creationist fabrication. Where are these scientists?

 

[Smidlee]

Darwin defined evolution precisely that way. He insisted, even against some of his supporters, that evolutionary changes were always minor changes, small variations, slight gradations, etc. He contended that if it could be shown that a feature, even as complex a feature as the eye, could not have come about through a succession of minor variations, his thesis of natural selection was false.

Time has shown that on this point, Darwin was right.

The only thing Darwin was right on was natural selection. also Darwin was very clever in making those who oppose him idea had to show proof he was wrong. He stated "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

It's extreme hard if not impossible to proof something isn't possible by science since there could be some unknown law we haven't found yet. It's like trying to prove it will never be possibly for man to reach the stars. So Darwin made up a story called "the little eyeball that could" and lefted it up to the opposition to prove without a doubt he story didn't happen. This is the position I find most evolutionist take, they use the imagination as evidence and it's up to others to prove them wrong.

I guess I'm one person who disbelieve in the "the little eyeball that could" story and finds it silly, especially with today's knowledge, let along scienitific. So for me Darwinism has be proven false.

 

[steen]

....
I guess I'm one person who disbelieve in the "the little eyeball that could" story and finds it silly, especially with today's knowledge, let along scienitific. So for me Darwinism has be proven false.

Rather irrelevant. Evolution is the changes in alleles in a population over generations. That is directly observed all the time.

That aside, you claimed that "Darwinism" had been PROVEN false. Care to submit that proof?

 

[Mallon]

Still curious as to why creationists think God enabled tails within the "variation" of the human genome...

 

[IisJustMe]

Still curious as to why creationists think God enabled tails within the "variation" of the human genome...

More likely, wishful thinking on the part of an evolutionist identifying a birth defect as a latent prehistoric gene. Sheez!!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In the birth defect that allows human beings to be born with tails, what went wrong?

a hox gene regulatory sequence that was turned off is turned back on and the genes it controlled functioned to make the tail.

all the genes to build a tail are in everyone's genome, the control sequence in the cells that would give rise to it don't respond to the HOX signal.

so you are back to the same original question, why did God put all the genes into people to make a tail and then turn it off?

see:
http://www.fleshandbones.com/readingroom/pdf/1042.pdf
for an accessible discussion.

 

[Smidlee]

the Hox gene is universial. It been pretty well estabilished that big differences in forms are not due to genes. These Hox gene which controls the length of our verbrate could easily be the switch which gives a monkey it's tail . (I have yet to see someone swinging with his tail in the trees.) Just because man (or by defect) can cause fly have legs growing out of it's head doesn't prove God design it that way. On the boichemist level all life is pretty much the same.

So why did God created the hox gene so you can have a fly grow legs on it's head?

 

[Mallon]

More likely, wishful thinking on the part of an evolutionist identifying a birth defect as a latent prehistoric gene. Sheez!!

Your tone has become quite condescending lately, IisJustMe. Just FYI.

You seem to be missing my point on this issue, so I will try to explain it again. To my mind, you seem to be contradicting yourself. One the one hand, you argue that evolution cannot produce "new information" and that any seemingly new adaptation that appears in an organism simply represents a phenotype already encoded in the God-given genome (i.e., it is "variation within a kind").
On the other hand, you seem to be arguing that the tail produced via hox mutations, while defective, is not "new information." This implies to me, then, that such a tail must have been divinely encoded in the human genome, and that this is once again a simple expression of "variation within a kind." So again I ask, why would God give us a tail? This question follows directly from your line of reasoning.

 

[Dannager]

I guess I'm one person who disbelieve in the "the little eyeball that could" story and finds it silly, especially with today's knowledge, let along scienitific. So for me Darwinism has be proven false.

Wait, your argument is that Darwinism is very hard to prove false, but you don't believe it's true, therefore it has been proven false? Your post made about as little sense as posts can make.

 

[shernren]

I really have nothing much to add, except a minor quibble that I always thought the "favoured races" in the title of Origin of Species was referring to intraspecific varieties rather than to different species per se. I'll go back and check.

Oh, and pertaining to this:

It is specifically because of Genesis 1:1 that we reject evolution. The word translated "creation" is the Hebrew bara` and excludes the manipulation of pre-existing material for the creation, thereby excluding TE or OEC.

Actually:

Gen 1:27 So God 0430 created 01254 man 0120 in his [own] image 06754, in the image 06754 of God 0430 created 01254 he him; male 02145 and female 05347 created 01254 he them.
(01254 = bara')

but,

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So what is it?

Did God create man without manipulating pre-existing matter? Then Genesis 2 is wrong.
Did God create man from dust which was pre-existing before the sixth day? Then Genesis 1 is wrong.
Or does bara' not always preclude forming something without pre-existing matter? Then you were wrong.

 

[IisJustMe]

So what is it? ... Did God create man without manipulating pre-existing matter? Then Genesis 2 is wrong.
Did God create man from dust which was pre-existing before the sixth day? Then Genesis 1 is wrong.
Or does bara' not always preclude forming something without pre-existing matter? Then you were wrong.

But they aren't. The word in Genesis 2:7 is yatsar, "to form, or fashion." The NASB translates it "formed" rather than created, as does the KJV, so the multiple mentions of these passages today on the board have been nothing more than a red herring.

Simple explanation: the earth was formed from nothing. After that, "nothing" was no longer there, having been replaced by the firmament spoken into existence. It was of this firmament (i.e., dust) that Adam was formed.

Questions?

 

[shernren]

They don't have to be the same word, since both words describe the same process with apparently different observations. You said:

It was of this firmament (i.e., dust) that Adam was formed.
and yet the Bible says,

Gen 1:27 So God 0430 created 01254 man 0120 in his [own] image 06754, in the image 06754 of God 0430 created 01254 he him; male 02145 and female 05347 created 01254 he them.
(01254 = bara')
Did God create man out of pre-existing matter, or not? Also:

Isa 43:1 But now thus saith 0559 the LORD 03068 that created 01254 thee, O Jacob 03290, and he that formed 03335 thee, O Israel 03478, Fear 03372 not: for I have redeemed 01350 thee, I have called 07121 [thee] by thy name 08034; thou [art] mine.
I'm quite sure that God didn't create Jacob ex nihilo, nor the nation of Israel descended from him. And finally:

Isa 45:7 I form 03335 the light 0216, and create 01254 darkness 02822: I make 06213 peace 07965, and create 01254 evil 07451: I the LORD 03068 do 06213 all these [things].

When during the creation week did God create evil?

I would say that bara' is a word which limits the creative activity being described to God. Only God can bara', humanity cannot. That does not prove however that anything which is created bara' has to be created without pre-existing matter from which to create it. Furthermore, the fact that the word bara' is used does not prove that the creative activity has to be exclusively supernatural.

 

[IisJustMe]

In chapter one, God has spoken everything into existence. Where there was nothing, now there is everything. In the overview, man was created from nothing, because when God started on day one, that is what was there -- nothing. In chapter two, the focus is on man as the centerpiece of God's creation, and God gives mention to the actual creation of Adam.

A specific blueprint and materials list isn't included, and the exactness of the creation isn't covered. We wouldn't understand it to begin with, and even if we did, we couldn't duplicate it.

So the answer to your question is "both." Man was created out of nothing, because on Day One, nothing existed. He was also created out of dust, because by the time God got to Adam, dust had been created -- in fact, on Day One.

 

[shernren]

But you said:

The word translated "creation" is the Hebrew bara` and excludes the manipulation of pre-existing material for the creation, thereby excluding TE or OEC.

(emphases added)

If you see no contradiction between man being
created out of "nothing", and
created out of "dust",

then why should I see any contradiction between man being
created out of "nothing", and
created out of pre-existing life, as God saw fit?

There is none, at least not with respect to the word "bara" used. As a matter of fact, I am very curious about the very specific way in which bara is used in the chapter. It is used in the very first verse, with respect to man - and with respect to the inhabitants of sea and sky. What is the theological significance of this, whatever framework you interpret it in?

Also, what do you mean by this?

A specific blueprint and materials list isn't included, and the exactness of the creation isn't covered.

This happens to be an important point for TEs, but that's probably not the sense in which you said it, right?