J_B_ and loveofourlord discussion

[J_B_]

A thread where @J_B_ and @loveofourlord can discuss evolution and others can observe.

I'm OK with brief comments from the peanut gallery, but don't expect a reply from me and please give us some room, at least for awhile, to have a talk before the thread is derailed by extensive side conversations about how everyone is an idiot.

 

[loveofourlord]

probably a good place to start to avoid talking past each other, and getting into discussions/arguments over stuff we don't disagree with, what parts of evolution do you accept?

Are you a creationist, intelligent design proponent? young earth, old earth? From what I've read I would take you more as a young earth, but just want to be sure.

 

[J_B_]

probably a good place to start to avoid talking past each other, and getting into discussions/arguments over stuff we don't disagree with, what parts of evolution do you accept?

I agree this is a good place to start, so that's encouraging. I think we should also agree on a definition. Two of the most common definitions of evolution are 1) change in allele frequency in a population over time, and 2) descent with inherited modification. I'm OK with either. I consider the first the more technical version, and the second the more common language version. If you have a preference, or dislike them both, let me know what you would propose as an alternative.

Based on those definitions, I would further separate the specific occurrence of evolution from a discussion of its causes and effects. I would consider that a field of study: the Field of Biological Evolution. Those distinctions are for clarity only, and don't necessarily mean a physical separation.

With that preamble, I accept that evolution, within the purview of the above definition, occurs.

Something, then, that is not specifically evolution itself, but falls into the field of study, is the Universal Common Ancestor, and I disagree with that.

Are you a creationist, intelligent design proponent? young earth, old earth? From what I've read I would take you more as a young earth, but just want to be sure.

I call myself a 'timeless creationist', so I am neither YEC nor OEC. I think the age of the earth can be left out of the discussion, but you may disagree. Evolution occurs regardless of how much time has passed (within reasonable boundaries). For example, bacteria mutate very rapidly.

The simple answer would be to say no, I am not an ID proponent. However, if you want to dig further, I can explain further. I just want to be up front about my position because some of things I say probably sound like I support ID.

Your turn. What parts of biology/science do you agree with? Disagree with (if any)?

 

[loveofourlord]

I agree this is a good place to start, so that's encouraging. I think we should also agree on a definition. Two of the most common definitions of evolution are 1) change in allele frequency in a population over time, and 2) descent with inherited modification. I'm OK with either. I consider the first the more technical version, and the second the more common language version. If you have a preference, or dislike them both, let me know what you would propose as an alternative.

Based on those definitions, I would further separate the specific occurrence of evolution from a discussion of its causes and effects. I would consider that a field of study: the Field of Biological Evolution. Those distinctions are for clarity only, and don't necessarily mean a physical separation.

With that preamble, I accept that evolution, within the purview of the above definition, occurs.

Something, then, that is not specifically evolution itself, but falls into the field of study, is the Universal Common Ancestor, and I disagree with that.



I call myself a 'timeless creationist', so I am neither YEC nor OEC. I think the age of the earth can be left out of the discussion, but you may disagree. Evolution occurs regardless of how much time has passed (within reasonable boundaries). For example, bacteria mutate very rapidly.

The simple answer would be to say no, I am not an ID proponent. However, if you want to dig further, I can explain further. I just want to be up front about my position because some of things I say probably sound like I support ID.

Your turn. What parts of biology/science do you agree with? Disagree with (if any)?

probably the first, as that goes into more things, not everything is just a modification, some are changes in how what is already there gets treated. THough but should be good.

The common ancestor not being part of evolution I think I disagree with but at this point don't think it will be a bone of contention initself so can ignore/skip for now, and get back to it if it comes up.

no worries on overlap, there is a lot of overlap, but there are things that are different. It's akin to, someone debating christian doctorine with the belief your say catholic if your not, and talking about saints, it's not going to get us very far.

on definitions, lets also do theory, that tends to be a bit of a hicup in these debates, and can't remember if it was you or someone else in the previous topic that used theory as a pejorative so good to straighten this out.

You have any issue with theory having two defitions usually used in these talks?

1. A well defined highest ideal in science, that is well supported by the facts? AKA the theory of gravity, or germ theory?
2. The more colloquial understanding wich is akin to a guess, "Conspiracy theory, I have a theory that the matrix is an allagory for Y."

Not saying you agree with evolution SHOULD fit under theory, just that when scientists and non scientists like myself and others talk about theory of evolution we mean more the first? Just trying to avoid the whole, "evolution is just a theory." argument we see so often as it ignoring what is meant.

 

[loveofourlord]

oh and can we agree to leave abiogenesis out of the discussion of evolution for now? God could have started the first life on the planet without needing abiogensis, or he started abiogensis himself so doesn't require a discussion of can life start from non life and such. And for now just focus on god created first life, and was it single celled organism that eventually became the last universal common ancestor, or god created like in kinds?

we can always swing back around to it later, but I think since we both believe in god, we can agree we don't need abiogensis to have happened to get to today.

 

[J_B_]

probably the first, as that goes into more things, not everything is just a modification, some are changes in how what is already there gets treated. THough but should be good.

The common ancestor not being part of evolution I think I disagree with but at this point don't think it will be a bone of contention initself so can ignore/skip for now, and get back to it if it comes up.

no worries on overlap, there is a lot of overlap, but there are things that are different. It's akin to, someone debating christian doctorine with the belief your say catholic if your not, and talking about saints, it's not going to get us very far.

on definitions, lets also do theory, that tends to be a bit of a hicup in these debates, and can't remember if it was you or someone else in the previous topic that used theory as a pejorative so good to straighten this out.

You have any issue with theory having two defitions usually used in these talks?

1. A well defined highest ideal in science, that is well supported by the facts? AKA the theory of gravity, or germ theory?
2. The more colloquial understanding wich is akin to a guess, "Conspiracy theory, I have a theory that the matrix is an allagory for Y."

Not saying you agree with evolution SHOULD fit under theory, just that when scientists and non scientists like myself and others talk about theory of evolution we mean more the first? Just trying to avoid the whole, "evolution is just a theory." argument we see so often as it ignoring what is meant.

I'm an engineer, so I understand your distinction between the scientific and colloquial uses of 'theory'. I am aware biologists are using the scientific version of the word.

And, sure, we can leave out abiogenesis.

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm an engineer, so I understand your distinction between the scientific and colloquial uses of 'theory'. I am aware biologists are using the scientific version of the word.

And, sure, we can leave out abiogenesis.

good :> Anything else we should get out of the way before we start? And how should we start, probably asking questions be a good place.

 

[J_B_]

good :> Anything else we should get out of the way before we start? And how should we start, probably asking questions be a good place.

There may be other things that come up along the way needing clarification, but it's a good start. Sure, we can ask some questions. Do you have any for me?

 

[loveofourlord]

There may be other things that come up along the way needing clarification, but it's a good start. Sure, we can ask some questions. Do you have any for me?

where are the objections for evolution, is it because it goes against your interpetation of the bible, or is it becuase you think it's impossible and can't work? Even assuming the earth was billions of years old?

 

[J_B_]

where are the objections for evolution, is it because it goes against your interpetation of the bible, or is it becuase you think it's impossible and can't work? Even assuming the earth was billions of years old?

As I mentioned, I don't accept UCA. I can already see how this is going to touch on many tangent issues, so it may be slow going at first despite my earlier optimism. Hopefully we make it through. I'll do my best to only touch on the immediate rather than producing a wall of text, but that means I may not answer every question immediately. I hope you're OK with that.

The essence of my position is that I don't dispute that UCA is a plausible hypothesis if one accepts the definition of evolution we gave. However, I find the arguments in favor of UCA extremely weak. Given that, and given I accept there are paths to knowledge other than science, I see no reason to accept a weak scientific argument over theology just because the argument is made by a scientist. The theology I refer to has nothing to do with evolution, but rather with the Lutheran doctrine on original sin. It may seem these have nothing to do with one another, and in a sense they don't. But if one accepts UCA, it might start a chain reaction that could end with a rejection of that doctrine.

So, I'll ask questions that touch on 2 of the tangents I mentioned:
1) Do you think there are paths to knowledge other than science?
2) Have you ever encountered a scientific argument you thought weak? It could be from any scientific discipline, not just biology.

 

[loveofourlord]

As I mentioned, I don't accept UCA. I can already see how this is going to touch on many tangent issues, so it may be slow going at first despite my earlier optimism. Hopefully we make it through. I'll do my best to only touch on the immediate rather than producing a wall of text, but that means I may not answer every question immediately. I hope you're OK with that.

The essence of my position is that I don't dispute that UCA is a plausible hypothesis if one accepts the definition of evolution we gave. However, I find the arguments in favor of UCA extremely weak. Given that, and given I accept there are paths to knowledge other than science, I see no reason to accept a weak scientific argument over theology just because the argument is made by a scientist. The theology I refer to has nothing to do with evolution, but rather with the Lutheran doctrine on original sin. It may seem these have nothing to do with one another, and in a sense they don't. But if one accepts UCA, it might start a chain reaction that could end with a rejection of that doctrine.

So, I'll ask questions that touch on 2 of the tangents I mentioned:
1) Do you think there are paths to knowledge other than science?
2) Have you ever encountered a scientific argument you thought weak? It could be from any scientific discipline, not just biology.

Sorry wasn't trying to go on a tangent :> Was more trying to figure out where to go with the discussion. If you think evolution is possible but not enough time, that goes into why there isn't enough time, or evidence there is, vs the, "evolution has a barrier, or can't produce new information." wich is different arguments.

paths to knowledge is dificult one, I do think science is the best pathway to truth, because otherwise were relying on human interpetations of the bible, and revelation and such. Wich can be faulty and mistaken. Just as the idea the bible promotes flat earth is wrong, as the plain reading of the bible would say, it's easy to see where our understanding of how life formed could be wrong, especially if we stick to what we think the bible says.

We arn't god, we can be mistaken, and lied too, or tricked. I've spent a long time learning about evolution the evidence for it, and the way we know it's what the evidence best points too. I've seen too much evidence for evolution from fossil record, DNA, and such to accept it's wrong.

For evolution to be wrong, physics, biology, geography, genetics, and so on.

Why I bring this up is, lets presume for a second evolution is true, then what but science would you use to prove it? Same with creationism, there is a reason why creationists try to use science rather then the bible in itself to prove it. Because we can always be wrong in our interpetations. I want to be sure I'm correct and not just go with what I think is correct.

And yes there is weak arguments from science, and from theology. If we can't accept we could be wrong, then were lying to ourselves.

Here is the thing, science improves by realizing it's mistakes, and correting. Creationists still use arguments from 40 years ago that were wrong then and still wrong. How many times I've heard creationists still use the, "neanderthall was a man with rickets." or more comonly lucy's knee was found 3 miles away .


you make the argument of rejecting original sin leading to rejection of doctorine, but isn't that more likely to happen f evolution is true, and instead of accepting it, push on the it's bible or evolution narrative, thats going to lead people away? The more evidence we have for evolution the harder it is for even creationists to deny some evidence now, such as birds are dinosaurs and such. Or least some dinosaurs had feathers. Does holding onto the belief evolution is wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence going to help?

Again I believe in god and jesus because I know he's real, but I also accept evolution because the evidence is too strong for me to feel intelectually honest and reject it.

 

[J_B_]

paths to knowledge is dificult one, I do think science is the best pathway to truth, because otherwise were relying on human interpetations of the bible, and revelation and such. Wich can be faulty and mistaken. Just as the idea the bible promotes flat earth is wrong, as the plain reading of the bible would say, it's easy to see where our understanding of how life formed could be wrong, especially if we stick to what we think the bible says

I would say revelation by God is the best way to the truth. Note, though, that I talked about a pathway to knowledge, not a pathway to truth. The classical definition of knowledge is justified belief. This is a very important distinction. First, knowledge is not something that IS true, but something BELIEVED to be true (Modern secular thought seems to stumble all over that because they hate having to use the word 'belief'. It's interesting to watch Nietzsche destroy that secular position. I'm not a fan of Nietzsche, but I'll give him some applause in that one case). Second, belief must be justified. In science the belief is justified by evidence. In theology the belief is justified by God. And that gives us (at least) 2 different pathways to knowledge.

I'm not suggesting God has revealed anything about the truth or falsity of evolutionary biology. That's not why I asked the question. I asked because of the very point you raised regarding attempts to validate religion with science. I think that's a pointless venture. Religion is not validated via evidence and science, but via revelation and God. That's what I wanted to know: Do you think religion needs science to be valid? I would say no.

But that doesn't mean science and religion never conflict. I was trying to give an example from my Lutheran perspective where science and religion conflict. When they do, the question is, how do we resolve the issue if they are justified by different paths to knowledge? You seem to be saying science is the superior path. Given God is involved in the religious path to knowledge, I would disagree. I would further disagree that only religion is susceptible to human error. I would say both science and religion are susceptible to human error.

Sorry wasn't trying to go on a tangent :> Was more trying to figure out where to go with the discussion. If you think evolution is possible but not enough time, that goes into why there isn't enough time, or evidence there is, vs the, "evolution has a barrier, or can't produce new information." wich is different arguments.

I'm not sure if I misunderstand you, or you misunderstand me. Time is not an issue for me. I accept that DNA changes - that there is enough time for it to change, and that if the change occurs in the gamete, it will be inherited by the children. Per the definition I gave, that is evolution.

So maybe we need to dig into the reasons I think the case for UCA is weak. To begin, my understanding is that, while it is accepted there could have been independent origin events, it is claimed all died out except for one. As such, UCA claims all known life came from one population. Why do they conclude that? Because all known life is carbon-based with DNA made of 4 nucleotides and ~20 codons. OK. So. The argument, then, comes down to similarity. Given all the known examples of analogous structure in biology, a similarity argument just doesn't hold water.

 

[loveofourlord]

I would say revelation by God is the best way to the truth. Note, though, that I talked about a pathway to knowledge, not a pathway to truth. The classical definition of knowledge is justified belief. This is a very important distinction. First, knowledge is not something that IS true, but something BELIEVED to be true (Modern secular thought seems to stumble all over that because they hate having to use the word 'belief'. It's interesting to watch Nietzsche destroy that secular position. I'm not a fan of Nietzsche, but I'll give him some applause in that one case). Second, belief must be justified. In science the belief is justified by evidence. In theology the belief is justified by God. And that gives us (at least) 2 different pathways to knowledge.

I'm not suggesting God has revealed anything about the truth or falsity of evolutionary biology. That's not why I asked the question. I asked because of the very point you raised regarding attempts to validate religion with science. I think that's a pointless venture. Religion is not validated via evidence and science, but via revelation and God. That's what I wanted to know: Do you think religion needs science to be valid? I would say no.

But that doesn't mean science and religion never conflict. I was trying to give an example from my Lutheran perspective where science and religion conflict. When they do, the question is, how do we resolve the issue if they are justified by different paths to knowledge? You seem to be saying science is the superior path. Given God is involved in the religious path to knowledge, I would disagree. I would further disagree that only religion is susceptible to human error. I would say both science and religion are susceptible to human error.



I'm not sure if I misunderstand you, or you misunderstand me. Time is not an issue for me. I accept that DNA changes - that there is enough time for it to change, and that if the change occurs in the gamete, it will be inherited by the children. Per the definition I gave, that is evolution.

So maybe we need to dig into the reasons I think the case for UCA is weak. To begin, my understanding is that, while it is accepted there could have been independent origin events, it is claimed all died out except for one. As such, UCA claims all known life came from one population. Why do they conclude that? Because all known life is carbon-based with DNA made of 4 nucleotides and ~20 codons. OK. So. The argument, then, comes down to similarity. Given all the known examples of analogous structure in biology, a similarity argument just doesn't hold water.

The problem with revelation from god, is that it can be false. Not true revelation, but your relying on your faulty brain and intuition to tell if something is truly from god and not from the devil.

Something I've wanted to ask presumpositionalists, not saying you are but similar argument they make, and the question is. how do you tell the difference from a revelation from god that you know can't be wrong, and satan making you just think it's that way? Thats the problem with relying on revelation and such, your not god I'm not god, we have no way to tell for 100% sure that what we think is true. You might say we rely then on the bible but again, the same thing you might use to rely on believing evolution is false, is the same thing that a flat earther will use to say globe earthism is false. If the method you use can result in a false idea elsewhere, then how is it reliable? Again it goes back to we are fallible humans, and we have no real way of verifying for 100% certainty that what we feel about evolution, science and such is truly right. Thats why with science you check, recheck, have others verify experiment, test your results.

We can't as creationists like ken ham and such like to say, "Were you there? No you can't repeat evolution to prove it's real." but what repetability means is. The test I did to determine something was 500 million years old, you can do the same test, we have multiple tests that each are compared to each other. 1 test might be wrong, 10 tests less likly.

if we want to know how old a tree is, we can check records for when it was planted if there are any, we can count the rings, we can carbon date the tree to cross reference with the tree rings to be sure they are reliable. Same with other methods.

Sorry on not enough time, it's not as in vogue but i've heard some creationists use the argument that, even if life on earth was here for the 200+ billion yeras there wouldn't be enough time to reach us as the amount of mutations required would be too high and require tons more time. So was just checking if that was one of yours.

on the UCA what do you mean all the analogues structures similarities isn't enough?

are you refering to bat wings vs bird wings, the many different times the eye has appeared and such? So because the eye of a squid, insect, vertebrate and others are there, that doesn't mean nescarily some animals having eyes means they came from a UCA that had such an eye?

If thats the case, and sorry if not what you mean :> it's as much the similarities and differences, both in DNA and the fossils that help tell the story. Fish shape is a rather common one that has shown up time and time again, cetaceans move differently from reptiles such as ichthyosaurus, or fish such a sharks and such, ignoring the fossil record for the moment that points to there being a UAC between land mammals and cetaceans and whales and such, because they move like mamals would in water. It's something we see elsewhere. Same with eyes the type of all in all vertibrates apper to be similar not just in structure but DNA and such.

If you have some examples or different meaning let me know.

On a similar note, how do you explain without evolution that dinosaurs had feathers, in particular the very ones that we long predicted descended to modern dinosaurs? Right down to that amber fossil with feathers and a dinosaur tail still in it.

 

[J_B_]

The problem with revelation from god, is that it can be false.

Well, the revelation itself wouldn't be false, but people can lie, misunderstand, etc. such that their claim about God is false. But the same is true about science. Science can be false.

Paths to knowledge have ways to deal with falsity. Science can deal with it. Religion can deal with it.

This is why I wanted examples, so we could work through the ways science and religion deal with these things. I was hoping you had an example of a specific scientific claim you thought was wrong - not just the general idea that you're willing to accept revisions in science, but a specific example. Then we could look at how you came to that conclusion.

So you've never questioned anything about science?

on the UCA what do you mean all the analogues structures similarities isn't enough?

are you refering to bat wings vs bird wings ...

Bird & bat wings are an example. An analogous structure is something with similar function that was not inherited. Wings have similar function, but the bat didn't inherit it from birds, and birds didn't inherit it from bats.

So, biology accepts that two independent species can evolve in a similar manner without inheritance. If biology accepts similarity can occur without inheritance, then how can that be used to justify UCA? Wings are far down the line, so let's back up to the moment immediately following biogenesis.

Biology accepts there could have been two independent events that produced a carbon-based organism with 4 DNA nucleotides and 20 amino acids. If one of those events occurred in the Kermadec trench, and the other occurred in the Japan trench, thousands of miles away, why is it more plausible that the population in the Japan trench died and the population from the Kermadec trench took over? Why is it not a good possibility that both survived and evolved separately, yet developed analogous structure?

We have no evidence of the actual ancestor (the A in UCA), so positing one existed is only inference.

 

[loveofourlord]

Well, the revelation itself wouldn't be false, but people can lie, misunderstand, etc. such that their claim about God is false. But the same is true about science. Science can be false.

Paths to knowledge have ways to deal with falsity. Science can deal with it. Religion can deal with it.

This is why I wanted examples, so we could work through the ways science and religion deal with these things. I was hoping you had an example of a specific scientific claim you thought was wrong - not just the general idea that you're willing to accept revisions in science, but a specific example. Then we could look at how you came to that conclusion.

So you've never questioned anything about science?



Bird & bat wings are an example. An analogous structure is something with similar function that was not inherited. Wings have similar function, but the bat didn't inherit it from birds, and birds didn't inherit it from bats.

So, biology accepts that two independent species can evolve in a similar manner without inheritance. If biology accepts similarity can occur without inheritance, then how can that be used to justify UCA? Wings are far down the line, so let's back up to the moment immediately following biogenesis.

Biology accepts there could have been two independent events that produced a carbon-based organism with 4 DNA nucleotides and 20 amino acids. If one of those events occurred in the Kermadec trench, and the other occurred in the Japan trench, thousands of miles away, why is it more plausible that the population in the Japan trench died and the population from the Kermadec trench took over? Why is it not a good possibility that both survived and evolved separately, yet developed analogous structure?

We have no evidence of the actual ancestor (the A in UCA), so positing one existed is only inference.

I have questions about science, but the riggers of science and how it works are there for checks and balances, and yes it's not perfect, look at Komodo dragon venom, snake venom, and wolf packs. it makes mistakes, but usually when thigns are not questioned. And believe me if evolution could be debunked and proven truly false someone would get famous, but they would actually have to disprove it. Evolution has lasted 150 years because every attempt to break it down fails, and the evidence we have continues to grow.

Why do similarities betwen wings and such not create a problem? Because we can tell the differences between them and while they are analogous they are not actually the same thing, they are built differently and have no genetic comparisons. The same thing that you would use to tell kinds say between birds like ostritches, penguins, terror birds, eagles even though they all look different. Unless you put birds as having no LCA and they are like 20 different kinds...maybe a good place to bring this up. I would assume you feel that mammals have multiple LCA, what about birds insects, fish and such how many kinds in general do you have? 1, dozens, hundreds or what? What determines whre the kinds are?

Also we can tell when birds for instance have a different LCA then would appear. Best example vultures, north american and african vultures look related, but geneticly they are not, one comes from herons, others from a hawk like bird, we don't just have they look similarly we have geneticly they are or are not closly related. And before you say, "Same design same designer." it's also the differences in genetics that also matter. And the parts that shouldn't be there. Scent is an interesting examples, a huge part of our genes are devoted to scent along with other apes, but many of those no longer work but are similar to ones in other animals. Same with dolphins that no longer can smell using air molecules and have their own for under water. Things like this point to evolution and such.

on UCA, we should probably bring up that there is no real UCA, it's LUCA, due to the weirdness that happens when you get down to bacteria and MAYBE eukaryotes, where it's more a web due to gene transfers and such at that level. it's once we reach multicellular and maybe eukaryotes life that it becomes the tree of life.

and as for no evidence for LUCA, the point at where that is of course we wouldn't, this isn't an issue of science, it's an issue of how fossils work, it would have been likely just a clump of cells or a eukaryote, wich doesn't preserve, but once life does appear easily in the fossil record we do start to see evidence. Of course were never going to find the LCA of any species, because even if we do there is no way to tell if it's the LCA or if it's one of it's sister species. BUT what we can tell is that it's related. Funny how all the fossils we find that point towards evolution never contradict what we already knew about the fossil record. We never find any true chimera, we never find something that is outside of what we would expect. Why is that? Why is it that while many types of dinosaurs had feather like structures possibly going back as far as the sauropod/therapod split, the line that has the most bird like feathers and structures are in the line that we had already thought led to birds. Same with whales, fish to land animals, and so on?

This is heading into abiogenesis, and if required god there would only be the one event without needing multiple, there wouldn't be a second one.

but you do bring up a good question and I will answer but to avoid the abiogenesis question is it possible since not related, lets just presume abiogensis was possible. Since your not asking is it possible but asuming it's possible what would happen.

Well here we need to go into what the current ideas of abiogenesis are. It's not as simple as one day a cell fully formed with nothing before it and became life. We have where water forms lipid formations wich are circles naturaully, they would probably have sometimes formed around amino acids and such and over time once they started to form into RNA they would produce proteins of some kind that would effect these lipid membranes and such some would be more effective at absorbing others untill they reached a point where they could be called life where enough processes happened. So it's not like there wouldn't already be something there. So the first life could form many times from these protocells once they started replicating and taking over. so while the first life might be in one trench, the precursors for life would be also in the other vent too.

Also your thinking too two dimensionally. Your assuming that life A starts in one trench then shortly afterwards life B starts in the other close together, the events could very well have taken place millions of years apart allowing Life A to reach where life B is, and at that point, life B is just food. Thats the same issue now there could be a billion or even nearly infinite abiogenesis events happening every day now, but they would just become food to what already exists. yes, it could be lethal to life, but the life doesn't have to survive, it just has to try to eat what is already there.

Again this isn't wether abiogensis happened or if even possible, but just explaining why if it did the issue wouldn't matter.

you keep bringing up LUCA but what about dinosaurs to birds do you accept that? or land mamals to whales and such?

Sorry got a bit long and rambly and disjointed :> I answered one area first then your first question last so sorry if it's a mess :>

 

[loveofourlord]

Maybe keep abiogenesis to it's own topic that will make things get confusing here :> We can start that later after this debate/talk. Already getting into territory here responses are long :>

 

[The Barbarian]

Based on those definitions, I would further separate the specific occurrence of evolution from a discussion of its causes and effects. I would consider that a field of study: the Field of Biological Evolution. Those distinctions are for clarity only, and don't necessarily mean a physical separation.

With that preamble, I accept that evolution, within the purview of the above definition, occurs.

Something, then, that is not specifically evolution itself, but falls into the field of study, is the Universal Common Ancestor, and I disagree with that.

Well said. Too many YE creationists confuse evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. Common descent was not a finding of evolutionary science, but rather was confirmed by genetics. The first evidence for this was the tree of living things noted by Linnaeus, who thought that it represented God's logic rather than common descent. Even Darwin supposed that God might have created any number of original ancestors; he had no way of knowing otherwise.

Later geneticists noted that genes and DNA generally showed the same tree as that of Linnaeus to a very high precision.

 

[J_B_]

I am happy with how well this discussion has gone so far, so I don't have any problems with what you've chosen to discuss or how you've approached it.

on UCA, we should probably bring up that there is no real UCA, it's LUCA, due to the weirdness that happens when you get down to bacteria and MAYBE eukaryotes, where it's more a web due to gene transfers and such at that level. it's once we reach multicellular and maybe eukaryotes life that it becomes the tree of life.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Sorry for my sloppy use of terms. I'm not trying to trap biology into something it hasn't claimed. Further, I'm not a biologist, so I'm open to clarifications and corrections if I misunderstand the situation.

and as for no evidence for LUCA, the point at where that is of course we wouldn't, this isn't an issue of science, it's an issue of how fossils work, it would have been likely just a clump of cells or a eukaryote, wich doesn't preserve, but once life does appear easily in the fossil record we do start to see evidence. Of course were never going to find the LCA of any species, because even if we do there is no way to tell if it's the LCA or if it's one of it's sister species. BUT what we can tell is that it's related. Funny how all the fossils we find that point towards evolution never contradict what we already knew about the fossil record ... We never find any true chimera

It actually is a problem if the argument for LUCA includes fossils. At this point I suppose I should mention Elliott Sober and his book Philosophy of Biology. Sober is a strong supporter of evolution, which means I don't completely agree with him. Despite that, I really enjoy his writing. I admire the way he handles creation, even though he eventually dismisses it. I also admire that he is willing to criticize biology in ways that are rare - something I've seen only a few do. One of his criticisms is that, at times, biologists have gotten sloppy with their data, using the excuse, "This is true because - evolution." Another criticism I found very interesting comes from Ana Soto that biologists are no longer biologists. They're just statisticians (my paraphrase). None of these people are attacking evolution, but some of what they say does reflect on the way LUCA is inferred.

[EDIT] Maybe I read you wrong, but you seem to be taking the inferences that organisms are connected through inheritance as given - that since changes in allele frequency are true, then it follows that inheritance must be true. I don't accept that. Let me put it this way. If you believe no organisms remain today from parallel biogenesis events, then I take that to mean you would know how to identify one if you saw it. So, describe to me how organisms coming from distinct biogenesis events would be identified in a scientifically rigorous manner.

but you do bring up a good question and I will answer but to avoid the abiogenesis question is it possible since not related, lets just presume abiogensis was possible. Since your not asking is it possible but asuming it's possible what would happen.

Well here we need to go into what the current ideas of abiogenesis are. It's not as simple as one day a cell fully formed with nothing before it and became life. We have where water forms lipid formations wich are circles naturaully, they would probably have sometimes formed around amino acids and such and over time once they started to form into RNA they would produce proteins of some kind that would effect these lipid membranes and such some would be more effective at absorbing others untill they reached a point where they could be called life where enough processes happened. So it's not like there wouldn't already be something there. So the first life could form many times from these protocells once they started replicating and taking over. so while the first life might be in one trench, the precursors for life would be also in the other vent too.

Also your thinking too two dimensionally. Your assuming that life A starts in one trench then shortly afterwards life B starts in the other close together, the events could very well have taken place millions of years apart allowing Life A to reach where life B is, and at that point, life B is just food. Thats the same issue now there could be a billion or even nearly infinite abiogenesis events happening every day now, but they would just become food to what already exists. yes, it could be lethal to life, but the life doesn't have to survive, it just has to try to eat what is already there.

All of what you have said is possible. But possible is not proof. It's just supposition. Unless it can be established that origin events were only millions of years apart (or probabilities can be affixed to them) - unless it can be established that events happening closer together is highly unlikely - this is all supposition.

you keep bringing up LUCA but what about dinosaurs to birds do you accept that? or land mamals to whales and such?

In answering this, I'll first say that I'm not really interested in biology per se. Never have been. I took a biology class in high school and hated it. As such, my only interest in this topic is cases where theories from the field of biology intersect with my theology. Dinosaurs and birds, mammals and whales, those have no bearing on my theology so I don't spend any time on them.

I will say the most convincing argument I've seen for related species is ERVs. So, if those two examples don't involve ERVs, I'd not feel any compulsion to accept them. We'd also have to discuss the whole concept of species to be sure we're clear on it. Even then, it's not like I haven't considered an answer to ERVs, but that answer would again go back to the issue of parallel origins.

I once asked a biologist why biology is so stubbornly set on LUCA given it's willingness to admit multiple origins is very possible (even if they think they didn't survive). He gave me an answer about its affect on current research - even current medical research. However, given that similarity obviously exists whether or not LUCA is true, I didn't find the answer very compelling.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, describe to me how a chimera would be identified in a scientifically rigorous manner.

Cells from different parts of the chimera would be genetically distinct. There's an interesting story about how a mother was once indicted for welfare fraud, since her supposed kids were genetically distinct from her. But her doctor confirmed they were born to her. Turns out, she was a chimera, and her ovaries (among other things) were genetically different than other parts of her body.

And while (as knowledgeable YE creationists admit) that the large number of fossil transitionals is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", even more convincing is that we never find any transitionals that shouldn't exist, according to the theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

Another criticism I found very interesting comes from Ana Soto that biologists are no longer biologists. They're just statisticians (my paraphrase).

Population genetics and information theory are so mathematical that the accusation is kinda understandable for some fields of biology. However, mathematical analysis is a very useful and common process in science; biology is no different. There is, for example, mathematical chemistry.