The Gospel and Theistic Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I've often used faith like so: Examining evidence of a historic event can increase one's confidence in a historic event actually happening, but it will never "prove" the event occured (100% confidence). Thus, in order to say that the historic event actually occured, one must bridge that gap of confidence to assurance with faith. Prove that George Washington was a real person. Based on the evidence, I have faith that he was a real person. I believe he was a real person. George Washington was a real person. If that's not faith, then I'm not sure what that is, but perhaps there is a better word....

But James says that faith without works is dead. Christian belief which produces good works is therefore faith. If a belief is not able to inform and transform my life habits, then it is not faith. That is the Christian notion of faith, and that is why it seems strange to us to say things such as that evolution requires faith or that evolutionists have faith. There is an interesting thread on this which has started up here: http://www.christianforums.com/t308...ory-of-evolution-have-faith-in-evolution.html

Is Genesis 1-2 just mostly the end result (with a little bit of the beginning)?

Why not? Just look at the pattern of Genesis 1:

God said, Let there be X. (where X is something fully-existent in the world today)
And X was created.

That is all. As a technical description it is completely inadequate, don't you think? But as a theological description it establishes without doubt that it was God, not Marduk or Baal or Allah or anybody else, and it establishes that X is a created and therefore cannot be worshiped as a creator. Theologically efficient and sufficient.

But what about the dinosaurs? They came and went before man came about. This isn't "very good." Hmm...

Which is why dinosaurs are not real and never really existed. Dinosaur fossils are Satanic deceptions designed to trick the world into believing that the earth is old. These deceptions are also trying to make us believe that life could have gone extinct in the past. But if God designed the species, why would He have ever let even a single of His designs go extinct - is He so incompetent a designer that He cannot maintain what He designed? Furthermore, these deceptions make people think that Noah's ark had to have dinosaurs on it, which makes people think that it was implausible, another one of Satan's deceptions to make people lose confidence in the Bible.

I kid you not. Remember that for centuries these were widely-held Christian beliefs. In fact, I don't see any reason why they cannot hold today. After all, nobody has ever seen a dinosaur, so anybody who believes that dinosaurs ever existed has to believe it on (as creationists call it ;)) "faith". And there is just one word to describe why popular creationism accepts that dinosaurs existed ... compromise.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Buho said:
I've often used faith like so: Examining evidence of a historic event can increase one's confidence in a historic event actually happening, but it will never "prove" the event occured (100% confidence). Thus, in order to say that the historic event actually occured, one must bridge that gap of confidence to assurance with faith. Prove that George Washington was a real person. Based on the evidence, I have faith that he was a real person. I believe he was a real person. George Washington was a real person. If that's not faith, then I'm not sure what that is, but perhaps there is a better word....

No, I don't think that's the way "faith" ought to be used in a Christian context. Faith is much more like trust. It's not equivalent to trust, but I think a Christian would do much better thinking of it as trust than what is typically thought by the laity.

Buho said:
Noted. I might. You should spend some more time in the Word. Yes, it is infallable, and I think you will find it quite enlightening. I'm finding that to be so.

You've made a problematic assumption regarding my habits.

---

Also, my name isn't MrWilliams. :)
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Buho said:
I've often used faith like so: Examining evidence of a historic event can increase one's confidence in a historic event actually happening, but it will never "prove" the event occured (100% confidence). Thus, in order to say that the historic event actually occured, one must bridge that gap of confidence to assurance with faith. Prove that George Washington was a real person. Based on the evidence, I have faith that he was a real person. I believe he was a real person. George Washington was a real person. If that's not faith, then I'm not sure what that is, but perhaps there is a better word....

No, in my book, that is not faith. That is making a logical conclusion from observable evidence. And believing that a proposition is true without evidence is not faith either. James makes this distinction when he notes even the demons believe God exists. But this cannot be described as faith.

Faith, to me, always implies commitment. Faith in God is not just believing God exists; it is committing oneself to God as Creator and Lord, to Christ as Saviour and Lord, to the Holy Spirit as the Lord and Giver of Life. Faith is letting one's life be changed and directed by who one has faith in.

My life is not changed or directed by whether or not George Washington is a figure in history or legend. (And actually he is both.) It is changed and directed by the grace which led me to Christ and faith in him.

The 'evidence' for universal common ancestry simply doesn't stand up upon closer inspection.

Recently, based on common descent, a team of scientists predicted not only the existence of a certain type of fossil, but the strata and type of rock it would be found in. They went to where such rock was found and found the predicted fossil.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

Based on common descent, the dinosaur expert, Bob Bakker, predicted over a decade ago that fossils of warm-blooded, feathered dinosaurs would be found--and, they have been.

I don't know of evidence for common ancestry that does not stand up on closer inspection. Perhaps you could provide an example?

Nothing in science has disproven any aspect of YEC.

Every dating method whether based on physics, geology or genetics, has falsified a young earth.

Who do you trust more? Men's word or God's Word?

Is it humans who made stars or rocks or genes? I believe the testimony of God's handiwork. Why should I not?

Gluadys: "The type of evolution already demonstrated (mutation, natural selection, isolating mechanisms) is quite sufficient."
No, it's not. All this proves is a sorting and deterioration and loss of organisms and genomes, not the kind of "change in time" that produces more variety, especially not the kind that can account for all of life's diversity.

Extinction is the cause of loss of organisms and genomes. Evolution generates variety as species survive and adapt to new conditions.

The experimental evidence done on D.Birchii best fits the former -- D.Birchii represents a loss of genetic information, the opposite kind of "change in time" that universal common ancestry requires. Science continues to confirm the YEC hermeneutic.

That is your conclusion. Now what is the conclusion of the researchers?

The more I study how molecular biology really works, the less I'm able to see universal common ancestry as the explanation for all of life's current diversity.

Then broaden the scope of your studies. We are learning a lot from molecular biology, but it is not sufficient by itself to explain biodiversity. You need to learn something of fields like ecology, population genetics and evolutionary development biology (evo-devo) to get a more comprehensive view of evolution and the evidence for it.

My microbiologist friend says nobody in her lab of geneticists ever mention evolution or universal common ancestry. She says that's possibly because no scientist in her lab sees mutations as a viable mechanism for increased fitness over time.

And they aren't. Not in themselves. You need to incorporate selection as well.

I wonder too if you are not envisioning fitness as an overall scale against which all species can be ranked. If so, that is incorrect. Fitness is time and place specific. It refers to a species being better fit for its ecological niche than another variant at a particular time. Under different conditions, the very traits which make it fit where it is may make it unfit.

Sigh. Grasshoppers aren't deteriorated in comparison to trilobites because they aren't of the same lineage!

Yes they are. Both are in the arthropod lineage.

Modern grasshoppers are deteriorated in comparison to the more robust form of grasshopper found in fossils, a form closer to the kind God originally created.

What deterioration does this point to? I see only that the species offered for sale here is larger than the norm. But among the 11,000 species of grasshoppers in the world today, there are also some larger than the norm. And what relation is there anyway between size and deterioration?

http://tolweb.org/Caelifera/13316
Recent estimates (Kevan 1982; Günther, 1980, 1992; Otte 1994-1995; subsequent literature) indicate some 2400 valid Caeliferan genera and about 11000 valid species described to date.
As adults they range in size from a few millimetres to more than 15 cm in length,​

Emphasis added. This is longer than the largest species named on the link.


Gluadys: "The essence of the YEC objection to universal common descent is that the known process of evolution is insufficient to account for the known history of evolution."
That, plus genetics in more and more places is finding the "process of evolution" can not account for the "history of evolution." Doors don't just remain nebulously open, they are firmly being shut, thanks to advancements and discoveries in modern science.

Specific examples of such doors being shut?


Search CF for "photosynthesis." I have a thread which shows such happening.

This level of science is over my head. And, I suspect, over yours as well. But in any case, I am more inclined to accept the conclusions of those who do the actual research to the arguments from incredulity offered by AiG.

Gluadys: "Since complexification is an actual historic outcome of evolution, science must be able to account for the evolution of complexity. However, this does not appear to be a significant problem, especially with the new findings in the evolution of development. (evo-devo)"

This is news to me, and contrary to my last statement. How much empirical evidence discovered in "evo-devo" is really supporting "complexification?"

Check out "hox genes". These are the genes that control embryological development. A minor change in one of these genes can lead to major changes in development.

Gluadys: "[Polar bears mating with grizzlies] is one of many examples that indicate that "species" is fluid and fluctuating reality. This is what we expect from evolution."
This is what we expect from creation.

Show me. What line of logical deduction indicates species fluidity as a result of creation.


Gluadys: "The direction fluctuates according to what variations are present and which best meet the needs for survival at the moment."
The direction actually observed in the lab has been unanimously downward, with one or two small controversial exceptions.

In this context "downward" is an undefined and meaningless term. Do you mean that variations produced in laboratory experiments cannot compete with the originating species in nature? Why would we expect them to? Why expect humans to be able to outdo millions of years of natural selection in a few decades?

Gluadys: "What family can be shown to have no possible common ancestor with another family?"
This is homology, evidence of a common Designer who uses similar parts to achieve similar performance.

This is evading the question. Also since homology is the result of ancestry, it is not evidence of a common Designer. In fact, a common Designer would often not use homology because it requires perpetuating less than optimum design when more efficient models are available and make more sense.

In homology, the exception tends to be the rule.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Evolutionists say the wing evolved independently at least four times and the eye evolved independently over 40 times. This alone is strong evidence for created kinds, not universal common ancestry.

This is analogy or convergent evolution, the opposite of homology which is descent with modification. Analogy does not imply a common ancestor relative to the trait under study (wings, eyes), but a common solution to a similar environmental challenges. Careful analysis of analogous features often shows that beneath the similarities, there are significant differences. For example, birds, bats and the extinct pterosaurs, are all vertebrates, and as such have the same overall forearm/wing skeletal structure as all vertebrates whether they have wings or not. But in each group the wing has developed differently and relates differently to the underlying skeletal structure. So although the skeleton is homologous, the wings are not. Each shows a separate history of development.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/paleontology/21666
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Buho said:
What this means is you are avoiding the clear implications of this science -- strong evidence against "complexification" being a valid mechanism to produce the "history of evolution." If "complexification" is impossible -- which science is showing to be the case -- then the "history of evolution" is a discredited theory, or geologists have the geologic column upside down.

What sort of evidence do you think makes the development of more complex features impossible? The only thing I have ever heard is that the genome cannot add information. And that is patently false as new genes and new proteins have been seen.

However, every single instance of mutation observed in the lab has been deleterious -- that's what technical scientists call "disease."

Labs tend to study disease rather than health. But in any case the statement is false. It is known that most mutations are neutral with regard to fitness.

Fitness is one thing. Decreased number of features is another. Blind fish in caves "evolved" the lack of eyes because, supposedly, eye infections decrease fitness. This decrease in features is observed often. Adaption for increased fitness is observed often. Adaption for increased features is never observed (baring an exception or two). The mountain I mentioned is a mountain of features, not fitness.

Fitness and survival are what evolution is about. A species does not adapt for increased features. It acquires new features as a consequence of adapting for fitness.

However, since God sustains "natural law" you concede there is a law we can call "natural." What begs the question here is if natural law alone is sufficient to produce the "history of evolution." Empirical science says no.

I am not aware of any empirical science that falsifies the main outlines of the history of evolution. (Details are very controversial in many cases and await further study.) I am aware of a good deal of empirical evidence that supports the standard phylogeny. Who would have believed in Darwin's day that we would find fossils of land-dwelling ancestors of whales, fish with digitized fins, feathered dinosaurs, ancestors of mammals showing all the major steps from reptiles to mammals including double jaw joints and nearly complete family trees of horses, elephants and humans? Yet all these now exist. And the genetic discoveries confirm the same history. And plate tectonics is also confirming the history of geographic dispersion. So what empirical science is saying no?

Gluadys: "That is because this long out-dated image is not a natural sequence. The evolution of the horse is much more convoluted than this image suggests."
Huh. Ok. Take down one more evidence supporting evolution, then.

On the contrary, the history of the horse family is very much one of cladistic evolution--not the straight-line orthogenesis the famous illustration suggests.

This is a more accurate representation of the evolution of the horse.

evidence for universal common ancestry is far from complete, and all evidental points above argue against it. You accept universal common ancestry on grounds of faith, based on spotty supporting evidence.

Evidence for most anything in science is incomplete. Fortunately science does not wait for all the evidence to be found before developing hypotheses which can be tested by existing evidence or newly discovered evidence. And it never claims more than to have a model supported by existing evidence, with the understanding that new evidence will likely call for revision of the model--and sometimes creating a whole new model. I have yet to see an evidential point that argues against common ancestry.

Buho: "Every fossilized critter found can fit into kinds. Alleged transitionals firmly remain in one kind group or another."
Gluadys: "As the theory of evolution predicts."
Actually, this isn't a prediction of evolution at all, but an example of evolution being molded to fit the evidence. There is no reason, in NeoDarwinian theory, for neat categories of life to be drawn.

With cladistic evolution, there is. Once a division has been created in a population, each division evolves separately and (except in the rare case of hybrids producing a new viable species) there is no return to the commingling of the two populations. Evolution creates the divisions among species that creationists identify as "kind barriers".

We see the lack of clear dividing lines in two respects: first in the difficulty of determining what a biological species is. Closely related species show varying degrees of separation and distinctness from each other both morphologically and in reproductive compatibility.

Second, as we examine the extinct species which are ancestral to modern groups, they become more and more similar to each other. We can easily distinguish dogs from bears, but the paleontologist deals with species of bear-dogs that cannot be demarcated as one or the other. Two small quadrupeds of the Eocene are barely distinguished by minor differences in skull and tooth formation. Any creationist examining them would readily agree they are the same "kind" and possibly insist they are the same species. Yet today, the descendants of one are called horses, and the descendants of the other are called rhinoceroses. And there is no question that these are distinct families.

Those two terms are dependent upon your presuppositions. Calling it "residence time" does not change the fact that four times as much salt is entering the ocean than leaving.

As I noted elsewhere, this figure is disputed. Most scientists hold that salt in the ocean is in equilibrium. This is the point at which I grant I don't know enough to argue whose data is correct. Since you also disclaim expertise, we can sit this one out until the matter is decided.

  1. That which exists and has a beginning, requires a cause.
  2. In the Beginning was only God. God has neither beginning nor end, but God IS (John 1:1). God exists. God does not have a beginning.
  3. Therefore God does not require a cause.
  4. God is good and perfect (Rom 12:2).
  5. Sin is rebelling against God.
  6. Sin exists.
  7. Since God is good and perfect, sin cannot be a part of God.
  8. If in the beginning there was only God and sin is not a part of God, then sin is not eternal.


  1. This is a theological argument. I don't disagree with it, especially in saying that sin is not eternal. But the point is rather whether humanity ever existed without sin. To say theologically that humanity was once without sin is no more than professing a belief that this was so. It is not a demonstration of fact.

    But this is also an irrelevant point. It doesn't really matter if sin has always been part of human nature or became part of human nature since our species appeared. The key point is #6 Sin exists. The existence of sin is what calls for redemption from sin, and the work of atonement in the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

    [*]Therefore, sin has a beginning.
    [*]Therefore, sin has a cause.

    So let us assume these to be true. It still does not require cause A rather than cause B or C or Z. No matter what the cause, the relevant point is #6 Sin exists. Hence the point of the Incarnation, so that the Son of God could atone for sin and welcome us into the kingdom of his Father.

    [*]If Adam is not historical, then the cause of sin remains unknown.

    So what? We do not need to know the cause of sin to know that sin exists and that we require a Redeemer from sin.

    [*]We are descendents of Adam (Rom 5:12b).
    [*]We inherit Adam's nature (Rom 5:15, 18).
    [*]Therefore, we are sinful (Rom 5, Eph 2:2).

    All this is just as true if Adam is a metaphor for the human species.

    [*]Jesus's primary work on Earth was to impute our sins onto him and impute his righteousness onto us and reconcile our relationship with God.
Amen!

Given that sin exists (however it came about), Jesus is here to deal with that. Romans 5 does not nescessitate Adam being historical. Adam being non-historical just means the "from one came to all" happened once (Jesus) in history, not twice. So good call, Gluadys. However, there is still the logical proof for the historical existence of Adam you might want to deal with.

Glad you saw the point. As for the logical proof, see above.

Spiritual things are discerned spiritually (1 Cor 2:14). That is what Matt 13:11 is talking about. Jesus says he uses parables so that those in Christ can learn of spiritual things while those not in Christ remain confused. Jesus is not talking about myths in the Bible itself.

Romans 16:25 (verse 24 isn't in most translations) is speaking of the knowledge of God and how He remains a mystery to us unless God imparts some of his knowledge to us in the form of prophetic writings, i.e., the Bible. Paul is not talking about "mysticism" in the Bible itself.

verse correction noted. Yes, Paul is talking about the mysticism in the bible of his day. For the mystery of the gospel he speaks of is revealed as a new understanding of the Hebrew scriptures which point to Jesus as the Messiah. Perhaps we are so familiar with the Messianic interpretations of passages like Isaiah 53 that they no longer seem mysterious to us. But in the first century CE, this was an astonishing revelation. No one had unearthed this mystery from the scriptures beforehand.

I'd keep fishing. The words of God you offer don't support your notions of a fabricated history of the world and early figures and events in Genesis 1-11.

I would appreciate it if you do not put words into my mouth. I have not spoken of fabricated history. I would not characerize the early chapters of Genesis in this manner. I think they are mostly ahistorical, not history fabricated or otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Assyrian
Upvote 0

Buho

Regular Member
Jun 16, 2005
512
27
45
Maryland, USA
Visit site
✟8,307.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Shern said:
Why not? Just look at the pattern of Genesis 1:

God said, Let there be X. (where X is something fully-existent in the world today)
And X was created.

That is all. As a technical description it is completely inadequate, don't you think? But as a theological description it establishes without doubt that it was God, not Marduk or Baal or Allah or anybody else, and it establishes that X is a created and therefore cannot be worshiped as a creator. Theologically efficient and sufficient.
Good call. So then, how do you explain the rigorous sequence of created order? (Keep in mind that I'm granting you this point, but if it doesn't hold up, I cannot buy into it. The hermeneutic YECs apply to Genesis 1 is already consistent with itself and the rest of scripture. This is what you are up against.)

Shern said:
Which is why dinosaurs are not real and never really existed.... I kid you not. Remember that for centuries these were widely-held Christian beliefs. In fact, I don't see any reason why they cannot hold today.
Dino bones have been dug up for probably centuries (Greeks and Romans probably found some, which may have given rise to the dragon legends). The first dinosaur to be scientifically described was in 1824 by William Buckland. The word "dinosaur" was first coined in 1842 by Sir Richard Owen. Owen presented dinos as a separate taxonomic group in order to bolster his arguments against the newly proposed theory of evolution (although "Origin of the Species" wasn't published until 1859). (Source)

Science does illuminate what our world is. However, when science says opposite of what God says, we must question what science says. In the creation/evolution debate, I've noticed this has simply boiled down to the conclusions science is making, not the discoveries themselves. Does the Bible say dinos were never created at all? No. Does the Bible say dinos were created? No. Did God describe the kinds of land and sea creatures he created in Genesis 1? No. Does the Bible say dinos existed in the past? Maybe. In the littany of observable things on this planet God is lambasting Job with in Job 40, certainly the behemoth best matches a dinosaur than any other creature known to have existed. The same goes with Job 41, Psalm 104, and Isaiah 27. I'd call those Christians you mention from a few centuries ago ignorant for ignoring direct evidence, especially evidence that is supported by the Bible.

Had God said "My creatures will never weigh more than 12,000 units" and the unit worked out to 1000 pounds, obviously, modern animals and dino finds contradict God's word and perhaps compromise is needed. (Alternatively, God is a liar and we are all doomed to an eternity with an injust God.)

I would not call the modern Christian compromising the Bible at all. Justifying your comprimise "because everyone else is" is not even meritous, let alone substantiated. Yet TEs continue to do so.

Wiltor said:
Buho said:
Noted. I might. You should spend some more time in the Word. Yes, it is infallable, and I think you will find it quite enlightening. I'm finding that to be so.
You've made a problematic assumption regarding my habits.
I was aware of that, so I added the word "more" which is always Good Christian Advice ;) Cheers!

+ + + + +

"Faith"

All right. I got three different responses to that paragraph of mine, all in disagreement. Each one of the responses mistook my definition of faith for the Biblical definition of faith, specifically the saving kind of faith. If I were attempting to pass my definition of faith as the Biblical definition of faith, the responses are justified in my condemnation.

But I'm talking about normal human faith, the operational kind every person uses every day to make sense of the chaotic world around them. This kind of faith allows us to aquire facts about the world around us, despite incomplete information. For example: I challenge each of you to try to talk to someone for five minutes without using a single definate statement (excluding God-related subjects). It's really difficult!

When it comes to matters of history, incomplete information is normal. Some absolute statements need to be made, otherwise we spend forever swimming in "ifs." So perhaps "faith" is a poor word choice. What is what I am talking of then?

+ + + + +

Gluadys: "[Tiktaalik.]" Did you know that the supposed legs of the Tiktaalik are little different from the coelacanth? Before the coelacanth fossil was discovered to still be living, scientists pondered whether its fin/legs would allow it to walk on land. Upon discovery of a living specimin, they found the fins were way too weak to support the body, and its fins were best designed for living on the muddy bottoms of oceans.

Gluadys: "I don't know of evidence for common ancestry that does not stand up on closer inspection. Perhaps you could provide an example?" You ignore the past 10 pages of this thread and others we have talked on. One word: genetics.

Gluadys said:
Buho said:
Nothing in science has disproven any aspect of YEC.
Every dating method whether based on physics, geology or genetics, has falsified a young earth.
I appologize. I inadvertently set up up in a trap and I did not mean to. One cannot "prove" or "disprove" historical events. Creation and universal common ancestry both are impossible to "prove" because nobody can run the full experiment a second time and verify claims. Creationists need God to re-do Creation Week and evolutionists need billions of years.

What I mean to say is that (nearly) all evidence uncovered and all scientific discoveries found thus far can be and are accomodated by the creation model. The parts that appear to contradict are just interpretations of the evidence by evolutionists.

Regarding your mention of genetics, evolutionists don't have much hope in this field. The evolution you require hasn't been observed (save one or two controversial examples). Think before you type it.

Gluadys: "I believe the testimony of God's handiwork. Why should I not?" Did you know all of creation is cursed (Gen 3)? Look at the roadkill you passed while driving today. Look at the cancer ward in the hospital. Look at the reports of disease and famine in Africa on the news. Look at the tsunamis and now earthquakes in Indonesia. If God's Word in scripture is equal to God's Word in His Creation, then why is one of them cursed and declared unholy, fit for the domain of Satan and his demons, a creation which God poured his wrath upon in the past, will pour his wrath upon in the future, and will destroy and make anew? God's creation is indeed wonderous and awesome (Job 38-41), but keep in mind it is a creature and not worthy of praise, as Jesus is. No, we shouldn't turn to a creature for guidance, but to the Living Word of God for all guidance. I put my faith and trust in God's Word, not God's Creation, and especially not man's interpretation of God's creation when it contradicts God's explicit Word!

Gluadys: "Evolution generates variety as species survive and adapt to new conditions." Repeating this over and over doesn't make it sufficient to explain universal common ancestry. Normal genetic variety will never turn a lizard into a bird. You need mutation. And mutation (when not neutral) always leads to disease, a sub-optimal configuration.

Gluadys said:
Buho said:
The experimental evidence done on D.Birchii best fits the former -- D.Birchii represents a loss of genetic information, the opposite kind of "change in time" that universal common ancestry requires. Science continues to confirm the YEC hermeneutic.
That is your conclusion. Now what is the conclusion of the researchers?
My mistake. I assumed you read the paper. At the least, I assumed you read the conclusion I quoted in a response a few pages ago. To cover new groups, I'd like to paraphrase:

Hoffmann said:
In populations of D.Birchii we observe differences in dessication resistance, which suggests this trait has been selected for in the past. However, our best efforts on D.Birchii fail to produce the variation in this trait we see in nature -- and we don't have a single clue as to why this is so!
The answer is simple. I presented two scenarios earlier: one in which the common ancestor had dessication resistance, and one in which the common ancestor did not. The researchers here are assuming the latter, but the evidence they themselves collected suggests the former, which is what is observed over and over throughout the world in all labs -- it's a lot easier for DNA to skip over a chunk of code than it is for random mutations to create a new feature.

Gluadys said:
Buho said:
The more I study how molecular biology really works, the less I'm able to see universal common ancestry as the explanation for all of life's current diversity.
Then broaden the scope of your studies. We are learning a lot from molecular biology, but it is not sufficient by itself to explain biodiversity.
WRONG! Molecular biology, the "final frontier" in understanding life, is failing to validate progressive evolution (mutation + natural selection) as a viable mechanism for universal common ancestry. I say "final frontier" because above the cellular level we understand biology very well and under the cellular level we understand chemistry, elements, and atoms very well, but it's the genes, proteins, and molecular machines inside the cell that are the last mystery of life. It's in this domain where chemical machines build, duplicate, transport, relay, fight, defend, copy, interpret, and operate in ways that allow biological life to live! Population genetics is worthless without molecular biology. Ecology is worthless without molecular biology. Evo-Devo is even worse as a science because all it does is compare things, which is such a subjective process (yet I note has the highest potential for evolutionary theory).

Genetics and microbiology have not been friendly to NeoDarwinian Evolution, not now and not for many decades. The more we understand sub-cellular operations, the more complicated the picture becomes and the lower the probabilities that new features can be developed. In Darwin's day, scientists knew of cells, but thought they were simple blobs of protoplasm.

Gluadys: "And they aren't. Not in themselves. You need to incorporate selection as well." You've already been rebuked on this before by others, Gluadys. Selection does not create variation. Selection selects from pre-existing variation. If new features do not arise, selection is dead in the water.
 
Upvote 0

Buho

Regular Member
Jun 16, 2005
512
27
45
Maryland, USA
Visit site
✟8,307.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Gluadys: "Yes they are. Both [grasshoppers and trilobytes] are in the arthropod lineage."
Both are classified as arthropod because of shared physical characteristics. This does not imply common ancestry and if you use cladistics as evidence for universal common ancestry, that's illogical to the extreme. (A and B look similar, so lets lump them together. Look, they are lumped together, that means they are relatives!) Can you give me a list of actual ancestors (read: fossils) that go from trilobytes to grasshoppers, showing in-between transitionals? I'll give you a warning: The Cambrian Explosion (some evolutionary scientists say this happened in 10 million years) resulted in the instant appearance of trilobytes (with incredibly-complex eyes), and once trilobytes appeared, they pretty much stayed the same until their extinction. This is strong evidence for creation and against evolution.

And again, look at grasshoppers. The oldest fossils of grasshoppers (from at least 150 million years ago according to geologists) are little changed from the kind living today. Why such conservation of morphology in these two specimins? Perhaps because the kind of evolution evolutionists think happens -- doesn't.

Gluadys: "Specific examples of such doors being shut [in genetics]?" Are you reading what I'm writing or just responding to what I write? I gave you an example in my next sentence.

Gluadys: "This level of science is over my head. And, I suspect, over yours as well. But in any case, I am more inclined to accept the conclusions of those who do the actual research to the arguments from incredulity offered by AiG." Is this bias? I read secular evolutionists' papers. Do you accuse Christian creationist scientists of being deceitful? Here's an excerpt of one such paper I'm currently reading:

Jin Xiong and Carl E. Bauer said:
Complex Evolution of Photosynthesis (2002)

Subsection: Evolution of Oxygenic Photosynthesis

The development of oxygenic photosynthesiswas one of the most important events in Earth’s history as it fundamentally changed the redox balance on Earth and permitted development of aerobic metabolism and more-advanced life forms. As discussed above, oxygenic photosynthesis is likely a late event during evolution that was preceded by anoxygenic photosynthesis.... [A brief but complex chemical theory proposed by Blankenship & Hartman follows.] Although this theory is interesting, it lacks geochemical support showing that there was indeed a significant amount of H202 on Earth. There is also no phylogenetic or structural evidence for relatedness between catalase and the water oxidation complex.
The section on evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis ends there. In summary, this very lengthy and complex research paper doesn't even begin to attempt to answer the question of how photosynthesis could have evolved. I may be wrong, as I haven't read the whole paper yet, but geez, oxygenic photosynthesis is crucial to understand since the vast majority of photosynthetic organisms today are of this kind.

In another secular research paper on the evolution of photosynthesis, the authors write "The principles of biological evolution of photosynthesis are established, but the ways of chemical evolution are unclear yet." Again, they are learning that it is one thing to say "it happened," but quite another to say "this is how it happened" while supporting their claims with science.

In the AiG article, the author illuminates one possible reason why: "If chlorophyll evolved before the antenna proteins that bind it, it would in all likelihood destroy the cell, so the proteins had to evolve first. But natural selection could not favour a ‘newly evolved’ protein which could bind chlorophyll and other pigment molecules before those crucial pigments had themselves come into existence!" These are real problems for evolutionists, and, based on their writings, I think they know it.

That is what I mean when I say new discoveries in genetics is not leaving the question of evolution open but is actually closing doors firmly. Yes, more doors still remain open, but if this trend continues, there soon won't be many doors open for evolutionists.

Gluadys: "[On complexification.] Check out "hox genes"."

You call replacing an antennae with a leg is complexification? And how is this extra leg beneficial to the fly? Changing things in HOX will not result in, say, a mammal eye. No, in fact, a change in the genes for flies that cause extra (compound) eyes to form, the same change in mice causes extra (mouse) eyes to form, not compound eyes. This is that information, whatever information is. HOX genes is a poor example of complexification in action.

Gluadys: "[Polar bear and grizzly bear mating.] Show me. What line of logical deduction indicates species fluidity as a result of creation."
God created the bear kind. Geographic separation and genetic variation create different varieties of bears (polar and grizzly). There could have existed a third population which remained isolated but still genetically robust (like the original bear kind). This third group would have characteristics of both polar bears and grizzlies. For a better example, look at the difficulty in identifying breeds of non-purebred dogs.

Gluadys: "In this context "downward" is an undefined and meaningless term." It's meaningless because you choose it to be, despite obvious evidence that supports this adjetive. Creationists can define downward as loss of features over time, inbreeding, genetic copy mistakes, and disease. Sometimes downward constitutes an increase in fitness within a particular environment.

Gluadys: "Why would we expect them to? Why expect humans to be able to outdo millions of years of natural selection in a few decades?" Because we are creative and can do things better and faster than randomness. Because we can unnaturally accelerate conditions favorable to evolution as we think we know it. Because we can shrink the geographic requirements of a test subject and perform multiple tests simultaneously.

As I already pointed out, 50 years of evolution research on E.Coli has produced nothing substantially new. Given E.Coli's generation-time, that's a human equivilant of tens of millions of years of evolution for humans or apes. Surely, something would have been seen as an upward change by now. Yet none has. This is strong evidence against universal common ancestry. This evidence is everywhere!

Gluadys: "[On homology.]" Can you explain how the eye independently evolved over 40 times? It's my understanding that it should be a miracle that the eye developed once by random mutation. Also note that the trilobyte has very fine-tuned compound eyes, as mentioned above. How did it develop these magnificant eyes in the span of a few million years? Can you point me to scientists who have identified the probable chemical progression to develop such eyes?

Gluadys: "What sort of evidence do you think makes the development of more complex features impossible?" See above. In many places.

Gluadys said:
Buho said:
Fitness is one thing. Decreased number of features is another. Blind fish in caves "evolved" the lack of eyes because, supposedly, eye infections decrease fitness. This decrease in features is observed often. Adaption for increased fitness is observed often. Adaption for increased features is never observed (baring an exception or two). The mountain I mentioned is a mountain of features, not fitness.
Fitness and survival are what evolution is about. A species does not adapt for increased features. It acquires new features as a consequence of adapting for fitness.
Pardon my bluntness, but do you have a short-term memory? You are correct, but the topic of this subpoint is that features increased in history according to those who subscribe to universal common ancestry. Therefore, you must show that this is possible. I have shown (with extras to spare) that it is virtually impossible for this to happen (theoretically possible, but statistically improbable and empirically unobserved).

Gluadys: "So what empirical science is saying no?" You're not reading my responses, are you?

Gluadys: "[Horse evolution.]" I encourage you to look for the supporting fossils for your pretty pictures. I think you'll find the lack of complete skeletons and transitionals rather disapointing.

Gluadys: "I have yet to see an evidential point that argues against common ancestry." You really are ignoring what I'm writing, aren't you?

Gluadys: "Second, as we examine the extinct species which are ancestral to modern groups, they become more and more similar to each other." You say this, but can you point to these ubiquitous transitional ancestors you speak of? From what I understand, the species at each join in the phylogenic tree do not exist save in a few spots (such as archy, which is really just an extinct bird). Can you link me to the alleged horse-rhino? That's news to me.

Gluadys said:
Buho said:
Those two terms are dependent upon your presuppositions. Calling it "residence time" does not change the fact that four times as much salt is entering the ocean than leaving.
As I noted elsewhere, this figure is disputed. Most scientists hold that salt in the ocean is in equilibrium. This is the point at which I grant I don't know enough to argue whose data is correct. Since you also disclaim expertise, we can sit this one out until the matter is decided.
I did some more looking into this. I think when you say "many scientists", the reality is there are a dozen scientists at most who are knowledgable on this subject, some of which are Creationists.

Original 1990 Creationist paper by Austin and Humphreys of ICR.
Old-Earth Rebuttal from 1997, including an updated 2006 rebuttal to the AiG article below.
2006 AiG update and rebuttal to the 1997 rebuttal.
Key points (paraphrased):

Humphreys: "We did a thorough survey of inputs and outputs and found the inputs are 4 times the outputs, and extrapolating backwards, gives the ocean a maximum age of 60 million years."

Morton: "Humphreys did a good job but neglected the albite sink which, using my data, calculations, and the experiments I cite, accounts for the missing 75% output. Thus, inputs equal outputs and it is impossible to use sodium as a measurement of the ocean's age.

Humphreys: "Morton is correct in that albite takes out sodium, but when albite cools, it decomposes into chlorite and releases the sodium back into the water. This is why albite is only found at mid-ocean ridges. The net effect of albite and sodium in the ocean is zero.

Morton: "Humphreys is correct, but Humphreys did not mention that decomposition of one meter of albite takes 13 million years."

Humphreys: "If Morton is on to something, he would have published his findings in a peer-reviewed paper. His findings would be celebrated by old-earthers everywhere."

Morton: "If Humphreys is on to something, he would have done likewise."

Humphreys: "I have. In the Creation Ex Nihilo technical journal. The journal Nature has shown prejudice to Creationists in the past and will not publish our findings. But Creation Ex Nihilo is peer-reviewed by other PH.D-holding scientists and peers in the applicable scientific fields."

Gluadys said:
Gluadys: "Actually [George Washington] is both [a figure in history and legend]."
You seem to be attempting to blur the line between history and legend. Do you have a motive behind this? The dictionary says "legend" is "a romanticized or popularized myth of modern times." I.e., the current details are fictional, although it may or may not have been grounded in historical fact. Here's a statement rich with specific details: "George Washington was the first president of the United States of America." Historical fact, legend, or both? This statement as a whole is either true or false. If both, it would violate the law of contradiction, so that eliminates one choice. Is the statement true in the sense that "we are all leaders of some kind"? That blather I rebuke.

Gluadys said:
Buho said:
I'd keep fishing. The words of God you offer don't support your notions of a fabricated history of the world and early figures and events in Genesis 1-11.
I would appreciate it if you do not put words into my mouth. I have not spoken of fabricated history. I would not characerize the early chapters of Genesis in this manner. I think they are mostly ahistorical, not history fabricated or otherwise.
I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your own will suffice:
Gluadys said:
Buho said:
Can you show me where in the Bible "a good bit of legendary material" is present?
It's a shorter list to say where it is not. I would say the closest we get to straightforward history in the OT are the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Most everything else has at least as much legend as history.

I would say legend is rarer in the NT, but not altogether absent.
This is what I object to, and this is where you failed to support with scripture or anything else other than your own personal feelings, which I might add, are corrupted by the false teachings of atheistic science determined to exclude God and undermine the scriptural authority of the Bible. Need I remind you that nothing in scripture has been contradicted by archaeology? Matthew 14:31: "You of little faith, why do you doubt?"
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
WRONG! Molecular biology, the "final frontier" in understanding life, is failing to validate progressive evolution (mutation + natural selection) as a viable mechanism for universal common ancestry. I say "final frontier" because above the cellular level we understand biology very well and under the cellular level we understand chemistry, elements, and atoms very well, but it's the genes, proteins, and molecular machines inside the cell that are the last mystery of life. It's in this domain where chemical machines build, duplicate, transport, relay, fight, defend, copy, interpret, and operate in ways that allow biological life to live! Population genetics is worthless without molecular biology. Ecology is worthless without molecular biology. Evo-Devo is even worse as a science because all it does is compare things, which is such a subjective process (yet I note has the highest potential for evolutionary theory).

Genetics and microbiology have not been friendly to NeoDarwinian Evolution, not now and not for many decades. The more we understand sub-cellular operations, the more complicated the picture becomes and the lower the probabilities that new features can be developed. In Darwin's day, scientists knew of cells, but thought they were simple blobs of protoplasm.


this is simply not true and full of outright falsehoods to just plain old ignorance.

i'd recommend a really good book on the topic:
Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom

The book puts together pieces of the puzzle of life in a very interesting yet easy enough to understand way for those without degrees in the field.

"all it does is compare things"
i'm simply at a lose for words to reduce evo devo which promises to be the 3 great revolution in biology to bean counting...o'l well.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Good call. So then, how do you explain the rigorous sequence of created order? (Keep in mind that I'm granting you this point, but if it doesn't hold up, I cannot buy into it. The hermeneutic YECs apply to Genesis 1 is already consistent with itself and the rest of scripture. This is what you are up against.)

It's called the "tohu-bohu" parallelism. In the first few verses of Genesis the universe is described as "tohu", formless, and "bohu", void. The very words show a rhyme scheme, by the by. So on the first three days God gives form: on day 1 He creates light, on day 2 He creates the skies and the seas, on day 3 He creates land and land vegetation. Then on the next three days God fills form: on day 4 He creates luminaries that govern the light, on day 5 He creates birds in the sky and fish in the sea, and on day 6 He creates animals to rule the land and man to rule them all.

It's a very artistic order. However, it flies in the face of common sense informed by modern science on several counts. The solar system is heliocentric and yet the earth was created before the sun. Plants need light to photosynthesize and yet plants were created before the sun. Meanwhile, a lot is missing from the picture of creation: one cannot say that plankton was created, say, because it falls into none of the categories; neither were pulsars, interstellar dust clouds, or brown dwarfs, because they never served as signs of time and never gave light to the earth.

All these strange omissions make perfect sense if God was simply describing the world as the Israelites knew it. But if God was tailoring His description to the limited proto-scientific cosmogony of the Israelites, it makes no sense to continue to give any scientific authority to this description today.

I'd call those Christians you mention from a few centuries ago ignorant for ignoring direct evidence, especially evidence that is supported by the Bible.

Very good, now have you ever considered the possibility that Christians a few centuries from now (barring the return of Jesus ;) between now and then) will consider you similarly ignorant? You are demonstrating precisely what I was describing in my refutation of the face value idea: what one generation calls a face-value interpretation, the generations before it call liberal and the generations after it call ignorant. The medieval theologians saw the fixity of species and the impossibility of extinction flow directly from God's character and providence in creation. I can't think of any reason creationists have to reject those other than bowing to external scientific evidence - precisely the same thing they blame evolutionists for.

"Faith"

All right. I got three different responses to that paragraph of mine, all in disagreement. Each one of the responses mistook my definition of faith for the Biblical definition of faith, specifically the saving kind of faith. If I were attempting to pass my definition of faith as the Biblical definition of faith, the responses are justified in my condemnation.

But I'm talking about normal human faith, the operational kind every person uses every day to make sense of the chaotic world around them. This kind of faith allows us to aquire facts about the world around us, despite incomplete information. For example: I challenge each of you to try to talk to someone for five minutes without using a single definate statement (excluding God-related subjects). It's really difficult!

When it comes to matters of history, incomplete information is normal. Some absolute statements need to be made, otherwise we spend forever swimming in "ifs." So perhaps "faith" is a poor word choice. What is what I am talking of then?

Inductive reasoning is what you are talking about. Using "faith" the way you use it would make you say things like "Creationists and evolutionists have faith in different things", which has very, very serious ramifications in the Christian view of things.

Humphreys: "We did a thorough survey of inputs and outputs and found the inputs are 4 times the outputs, and extrapolating backwards, gives the ocean a maximum age of 60 million years."

Morton: "Humphreys did a good job but neglected the albite sink which, using my data, calculations, and the experiments I cite, accounts for the missing 75% output. Thus, inputs equal outputs and it is impossible to use sodium as a measurement of the ocean's age.

Humphreys: "Morton is correct in that albite takes out sodium, but when albite cools, it decomposes into chlorite and releases the sodium back into the water. This is why albite is only found at mid-ocean ridges. The net effect of albite and sodium in the ocean is zero.

Morton: "Humphreys is correct, but Humphreys did not mention that decomposition of one meter of albite takes 13 million years."

Humphreys: "If Morton is on to something, he would have published his findings in a peer-reviewed paper. His findings would be celebrated by old-earthers everywhere."

Morton: "If Humphreys is on to something, he would have done likewise."

Humphreys: "I have. In the Creation Ex Nihilo technical journal. The journal Nature has shown prejudice to Creationists in the past and will not publish our findings. But Creation Ex Nihilo is peer-reviewed by other PH.D-holding scientists and peers in the applicable scientific fields."

Get it straight from the horse's mouth ... http://home.entouch.net/dmd/salt.htm
(near the bottom)

Gluadys: "[Tiktaalik.]" Did you know that the supposed legs of the Tiktaalik are little different from the coelacanth? Before the coelacanth fossil was discovered to still be living, scientists pondered whether its fin/legs would allow it to walk on land. Upon discovery of a living specimin, they found the fins were way too weak to support the body, and its fins were best designed for living on the muddy bottoms of oceans.

Did you know that it's bad manners not to cite a source? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0406fishin.asp
And did you know that it's a bit hasty to post this confidently before checking if it's been refuted? http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2006/04/aig-tries-to-respond-to-tiktaalik.html

Soundbites: What appears to be more important than reality to these men is the term "lobe-fin", a term of convenience used to describe a general condition for a certain type of fish: the sarcopterygians. However, fin morphology is radically diverse in this group, and there are many ways of being a "lobe-finned fish". To deny the tetrapod-like nature of the fins of Tiktaalik on the basis of the fact that it happens to be a lobe-finned fish as well as is a coelacanth is a shameful advertisement of one's ignorance. ... The interesting thing about all this is that the Menton and Looy are simply pointing out that Tiktaalik has attributes of a fish, but doing nothing to dispute the observed similarities with tetrapods. Has it ever dawned on them that an animal somewhere between fishes and tetrapods might actually have some attributes of a fish?

(hostility in original.)
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Buho said:
However, when science says opposite of what God says, we must question what science says. In the creation/evolution debate, I've noticed this has simply boiled down to the conclusions science is making, not the discoveries themselves.

Scientific conclusions are based on the discoveries though. I often think we do need to go through science chronologically to see how the conclusions were arrived at. Especially in schools which tend to serve up scientific factoids rather than teaching scientific thinking.


In the littany of observable things on this planet God is lambasting Job with in Job 40, certainly the behemoth best matches a dinosaur than any other creature known to have existed.

A poor "best" then, since it describes behemoth as having a naval. How many dinosaurs had an umbilical cord or needed one, since they hatched from eggs instead of being nurtured in a womb by a maternal placenta?


When it comes to matters of history, incomplete information is normal. Some absolute statements need to be made, otherwise we spend forever swimming in "ifs." So perhaps "faith" is a poor word choice. What is what I am talking of then?

Try "opinion". That covers what you think to be true, and sometimes because of evidence and experience.

+ + + + +

Did you know that the supposed legs of the Tiktaalik are little different from the coelacanth? Before the coelacanth fossil was discovered to still be living, scientists pondered whether its fin/legs would allow it to walk on land. Upon discovery of a living specimin, they found the fins were way too weak to support the body, and its fins were best designed for living on the muddy bottoms of oceans.

I see shernren already covered this.

Gluadys: "I don't know of evidence for common ancestry that does not stand up on closer inspection. Perhaps you could provide an example?" You ignore the past 10 pages of this thread and others we have talked on. One word: genetics.

Well, I took up your challenge and spent the last three hours going back over the last twelve or so pages of this thread. And you have not provided any example of evidence that undermines the thesis of common ancestry. What example of genetics does so?


Creation and universal common ancestry both are impossible to "prove" because nobody can run the full experiment a second time and verify claims.

Science does not attempt absolute proof. However, the evidential case for common ancestry is solid, while that for creationism is non-existent.


What I mean to say is that (nearly) all evidence uncovered and all scientific discoveries found thus far can be and are accomodated by the creation model.

That doesn't make it a scientific option. Only when the creation model predicts and explains the evidence and does so to the exclusion of other models will it have scientific validity.

Also, the creation model of today has adopted pretty much all of the evolutionary model except universal common descent. So most of its predictions are really the borrowed predictions of evolution.


The parts that appear to contradict are just interpretations of the evidence by evolutionists.


Can you show which of these interpretations are not valid?


Regarding your mention of genetics, evolutionists don't have much hope in this field. The evolution you require hasn't been observed (save one or two controversial examples). Think before you type it.

I have. Genetics is fundamental to today's evolutionary model and I am not aware of a genetic discovery that invalidates it. Can you provide an example?

Did you know all of creation is cursed (Gen 3)?

Genesis 3 says "Cursed is the ground because of you [Adam]...thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you."

That does not sound like a curse on all creation. Doesn't say anything about genes being cursed or the stars being cursed or the laws of nature being cursed.

God's creation is indeed wonderous and awesome (Job 38-41), but keep in mind it is a creature and not worthy of praise, as Jesus is.

Putting words in my mouth again? Did I make the slightest suggestion that creation is to be praised? It is a creature of God. Doesn't that mean it expresses God's truth?


No, we shouldn't turn to a creature for guidance, but to the Living Word of God for all guidance.

That would be the Living Word from which creation springs. Does he create untruth in his workmanship?

I put my faith and trust in God's Word, not God's Creation, and especially not man's interpretation of God's creation when it contradicts God's explicit Word!

Creation is part of God's explicit Word since it is by the Word it was made and is sustained. It is not possible for creation to contradict God's explicit Word.

Human interpretations of creation can be faulty. But so can human interpretations of scripture.

If, in spite of human fallibility, we can apprehend the Word which inspired scripture through scripture, why does the same expectation not apply to creation? We can apprehend aright the testimony of creation on the same basis that we can apprehend aright the testimony of scripture, because both are rooted in the Living Word who speaks to us through them.


Normal genetic variety will never turn a lizard into a bird.

Or rather it didn't. It was a group of dinosaurs which were ancestral to birds, not lizards which are a different reptile group.

You need mutation. And mutation (when not neutral) always leads to disease, a sub-optimal configuration.

Right for the first sentence. The last is not true. This is just one of several examples of recent beneficial mutations in humans.


My mistake. I assumed you read the paper.

Couldn't read it. I don't have access to that site. Unless you are willing to pay the subscription fee for me.;)

Hoffmann said:
In populations of D.Birchii we observe differences in dessication resistance, which suggests this trait has been selected for in the past. However, our best efforts on D.Birchii fail to produce the variation in this trait we see in nature -- and we don't have a single clue as to why this is so!

Emphasis added.

The answer is simple.

How arrogant! Four professional researchers have no clue to why they fail to replicate nature, but you who have no background in biology assume you know the "simple" answer.


I presented two scenarios earlier: one in which the common ancestor had dessication resistance, and one in which the common ancestor did not. The researchers here are assuming the latter, but the evidence they themselves collected suggests the former,

Well, since I can't read the paper directly, how be you provide this evidence which the researchers did not see!


which is what is observed over and over throughout the world in all labs -- it's a lot easier for DNA to skip over a chunk of code than it is for random mutations to create a new feature.

Do you mean it is easier for code to be deleted than inserted? What is the basis for such a statement?


WRONG! Molecular biology, the "final frontier" in understanding life, is failing to validate progressive evolution (mutation + natural selection) as a viable mechanism for universal common ancestry.

Show me.

I say "final frontier" because above the cellular level we understand biology very well and under the cellular level we understand chemistry, elements, and atoms very well, but it's the genes, proteins, and molecular machines inside the cell that are the last mystery of life. It's in this domain where chemical machines build, duplicate, transport, relay, fight, defend, copy, interpret, and operate in ways that allow biological life to live!

Granted. And precisely because it is a frontier, it has not been deeply explored yet, nor do we have the depth of understanding we have in other fields. It is hugely complicated and will take time to sort out. However, I have not heard of anything in molecular biology that indicates there is no basis for common ancestry. Do you have something specific in mind?


Population genetics is worthless without molecular biology. Ecology is worthless without molecular biology.

Equally, when it comes to understanding evolution, molecular biology is worthless without population genetics. Or ecology or evo-devo.


Evo-Devo is even worse as a science because all it does is compare things, which is such a subjective process (yet I note has the highest potential for evolutionary theory).

Does science do anything else than compare things?

Genetics and microbiology have not been friendly to NeoDarwinian Evolution, not now and not for many decades.

Again, show me.


The more we understand sub-cellular operations, the more complicated the picture becomes and the lower the probabilities that new features can be developed.

Argument from incredulity.


Gluadys: "And they aren't. Not in themselves. You need to incorporate selection as well." You've already been rebuked on this before by others, Gluadys. Selection does not create variation. Selection selects from pre-existing variation. If new features do not arise, selection is dead in the water.

Shifting goal posts again. The subject was mutation, not new features. Mutation alone, I agree, is not sufficient to explain evolutionary change. Selection alone is not sufficient to explain evolutionary change. Both are required. Mutation to generate variation, selection to determine which variations will be preserved and which rejected.

The two processes working together do result in new features, though usually not in a single generation.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
gluadys said:
Scientific conclusions are based on the discoveries though. I often think we do need to go through science chronologically to see how the conclusions were arrived at. Especially in schools which tend to serve up scientific factoids rather than teaching scientific thinking.

No, discoveries have nothing to do with it. Science is based on dirctly observed and demonstrated phenomenon, sometimes new things are discovered but most times not.


Well, I took up your challenge and spent the last three hours going back over the last twelve or so pages of this thread. And you have not provided any example of evidence that undermines the thesis of common ancestry. What example of genetics does so?

The divergance between chimps and humans comes to mind, I have yet to see an answer for how they accumulated since the LCA.




Science does not attempt absolute proof. However, the evidential case for common ancestry is solid, while that for creationism is non-existent.

Evidence for single common ancestory is not only nonexistant, it is irrelevant. Never would a Darwinian suggest a possible basis for rejecting their presumed common ancestor. It is assumed with a vengance and the target is, has allways been and will always be special creation.

Highly conserved genes and the nearly identical DNA of humans worldwide refutes Darwinism conclusivly. With every demonstrated mechanism have been observed acting on human populations our DNA is virtually identical. That is as close to immutablity of species as you can get but it would be more like immutablity of genus.




That doesn't make it a scientific option. Only when the creation model predicts and explains the evidence and does so to the exclusion of other models will it have scientific validity.

If Darwinism does anything different you have yet to show that it does. If they are the same line of reasoning the Darwinism is religiously oriented and specifically opposed to special creation, not proevolution. Evolution as natural science supports creationism because it demonstrates what creationists have been saying all along. There is a profound difference between men and apes, so much so that apes transposing into humans is a genetic impossibility.


I have. Genetics is fundamental to today's evolutionary model and I am not aware of a genetic discovery that invalidates it.

5 million indels in as many years, ranging from 1-56,000 nucleotides long. Do me a favor, try to explain it with the rethoric of genetic drift or selective sweeps. Then you can apply all this wonderfull science to the actual data demonstrated and directly observed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
mark kennedy said:
Evidence for single common ancestory is not only nonexistant, it is irrelevant. Never would a Darwinian suggest a possible basis for rejecting their presumed common ancestor. It is assumed with a vengance and the target is, has allways been and will always be special creation.
there is no "target." Rather, when creationists makes claims about science, then scientists challenge the claims.

Highly conserved genes and the nearly identical DNA of humans worldwide refutes Darwinism conclusivly.
Not really. Other than there is nothing that is "darwinism," as the current product is the Scientific Theory of Evolution, there is nothing in your claim about science that actually is true.

With every demonstrated mechanism have been observed acting on human populations our DNA is virtually identical. That is as close to immutablity of species as you can get but it would be more like immutablity of genus.
Prove it.

If Darwinism does anything different you have yet to show that it does.
Well, the Scientific Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, states merely that there is a change in genetic makeup of populations over generations. In a nutshell, that's what Evolution is. So I am not quite sure of what it is you are trying to claim here. Your claims are odd and certainly have never been an issue in science. So could you elaborate?

If they are the same line of reasoning the Darwinism is religiously oriented and specifically opposed to special creation, not proevolution.
As science is not a religion, this makes no sense.

Evolution as natural science supports creationism because it demonstrates what creationists have been saying all along. There is a profound difference between men and apes, so much so that apes transposing into humans is a genetic impossibility.
Science actually does NOT say this, so you are bearing false witness about science here.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Buho said:
Gluadys: "Yes they are. Both [grasshoppers and trilobytes]
are in the arthropod lineage."
Both are classified as arthropod because of shared physical
characteristics. This does not imply common ancestry

Are you saying they did not inherit their characteristics? Inherited characteristics imply common ancestry.

and if you use cladistics as evidence for universal common
ancestry, that's illogical to the extreme. (A and B look similar, so
lets lump them together. Look, they are lumped together, that means
they are relatives!)

This is an ignorant and unfair description of cladistic studies. Learn about cladistics first; then make some intelligent critiques.

Can you give me a list of actual ancestors (read: fossils)
that go from trilobytes to grasshoppers, showing in-between
transitionals?

Insect fossils are quite rare. But why insist on fossil evidence when it is not the only evidence?

I'll give you a warning: The Cambrian Explosion (some
evolutionary scientists say this happened in 10 million years) resulted
in the instant appearance of trilobytes (with incredibly-complex eyes),
and once trilobytes appeared, they pretty much stayed the same until
their extinction. This is strong evidence for creation and against
evolution.

Instant? What is the basis for making this claim? And since trilobites are one of the most diverse fossil orders, the claim that they pretty much stayed the same is laughable.

And again, look at grasshoppers. The oldest fossils of
grasshoppers (from at least 150 million years ago according to
geologists) are little changed from the kind living today. Why such
conservation of morphology in these two specimins? Perhaps because the
kind of evolution evolutionists think happens -- doesn't.

No, because the kind of evolution creationists think is supposed to happen doesn't. Conservation of morphology is not a problem for the theory of evolution, because it does not claim that species must change
according to some timetable or agenda. If species are capable of surviving well with the morphology they have, they will continue to do so. There are a good number of species which show few obvious changes in morphology.

This, however, is not to say they have never evolved. Genetically there is often much variability. And modern species area distinguishable from fossil species.

Gluadys: "Specific examples of such doors being shut [in
genetics]?" Are you reading what I'm writing or just responding to what
I write? I gave you an example in my next sentence.

Chloropyll, photosynthesis? All I have seen is you misreading "We don't know" as "It's impossible."

Do you accuse Christian creationist scientists of being
deceitful?

Oh yes. For a good example of creationist dishonesty, look at the article used to comment on genetic bottlenecks in the Age of the Earth
formal debate.
No outright lie-but an arrangement of material designed to lead the unwary to a conclusion that is certainly not true. I don't think this is accidental.

The section on evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis ends there.
In summary, this very lengthy and complex research paper doesn't even
begin to attempt to answer the question
of how photosynthesis could
have evolved. I may be wrong, as I haven't read the whole paper yet,
but geez, oxygenic photosynthesis is crucial to understand since the
vast majority of photosynthetic organisms today are of this
kind.

I have read the abstract, but cannot access the full paper.

In another secular research paper on the evolution of
photosynthesis, the authors write "The principles of biological
evolution of photosynthesis are established, but the ways of chemical
evolution are unclear yet." Again, they are learning that it is one
thing to say "it
happened," but quite another to say "this is how
it happened" while supporting their claims with science.

For someone who wants to replace scientific investigation with "Goddidit", it is the height of irony to note the difference between being able to say "it happened" and "this is how it happened."

This is not to say that finding the mechanism is not important. But just because the mechanism has not been established yet doesn't mean there is none. In this case, note that the researchers state that biological evolution isestablished and they are working on the chemical side of things. I have heard that it is highly probable that the first living cells were already photosynthetic. If this is correct, it would put the evolution of photosynthesis in the context of abiogenesis, and that whole field is full of unanswered questions yet. Such unanswered questions are what
drive scientific research.

That is what I mean when I say new discoveries in genetics is
not leaving the question of evolution open but is actually
closing doors firmly.

I would say then, that you have an over-active imagination. To close doors firmly requires positive evidence that evolution cannot happen, not unanswered questions about how it did.

You call replacing an antennae with a leg is complexification?
And how is this extra leg beneficial to the fly?

I call it a significant change in development due to a mutation in a regulatory (hox) gene. Who said all hox gene mutations had to be beneficial?


No, in fact, a change in the genes for flies that cause extra
(compound) eyes to form, the same change in mice causes extra (mouse)
eyes to form, not compound eyes.

Why would you expect anything different? The change is in the number of eyes, not the type of eyes. The independent origin of the two types of eyes leads naturally to a conclusion that you can't get one from
the other.

Gluadys: "[Polar bear and grizzly bear mating.] Show me. What
line of logical deduction indicates species fluidity as a result of
creation."
God created the bear kind. Geographic separation and genetic variation
create different varieties of bears (polar and grizzly).

So, if variation had not occurred this would mean the bear kind was not created, right? Those cases of conserved morphology are evidence that they were not created since created things vary. This is your logic?

Creationists can define downward as loss of features over time,
inbreeding, genetic copy mistakes, and disease. Sometimes downward
constitutes an increase in fitness within a particular environment.

A definition which includes the fundamental mechanism of mutation (copy mistakes) and improvement as well as decrease in fitness is too vague to be of any use. You have simply defined "downward" to include every possible form and mechanism of evolution. On that basis it is hypocritical to ask for evidence of "upward" evolution.

Gluadys: "Why would we expect them to? Why expect humans to be able to
outdo millions of years of natural selection in a few decades?"

Because we are creative and can do things better and
faster than randomness.

Yet engineers are finding that some tough problems can be solved more quickly and effectively through random genetic algorithms than old-fashioned human ingenuity.

Because we can unnaturally accelerate conditions
favorable to evolution as we think we know it. Because we can
shrink the geographic requirements of a test subject and perform
multiple tests simultaneously.

And, while these make evolution more probable, they do not guarantee it. Especially they do not guarantee a pre-determined result.

As I already pointed out, 50 years of evolution research on
E.Coli has produced nothing substantially new. Given E.Coli's
generation-time, that's a human equivilant of tens of millions of years
of evolution for h
umans or apes. Surely, something would have
been seen as an upward change by now.

What would you define as an "upward" change, and why do you assume it must take place? Evolution does not follow a predetermined schedule or agenda. I expect there has been a lot of evolutionary change in E.
coli both in these experiments and in nature over the last 50 years, but you deny it because it doesn't fit your preconceptions of what it ought to look like. But your preconceptions are based on a caricature of evolution, not on real science.


Gluadys: "[On homology.]" Can you explain how the eye independently
evolved over 40 times? It's my understanding that it should be a
miracle that the eye developed once by random mutation.[/quote]

And your understanding cannot be in error? The best layperson's guide to the evolution of the eye that I know of is a chapter in Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. Worth a trip to the library to check it out.

Gluadys: "What sort of evidence do you think makes the
development of more complex features impossible?" See above. In many
places.

It would seem then that you are avoiding the evidence that complex features have evolved. Like most creationists, you make a big deal about what we don't know, but wear blinkers to avoid seeing what we do
know. I don't find it surprising that those committed to a
God-in-the-gaps theology apply the same attitude to evidence. You don't look at evidence at all. You simply tot up the gaps in the evidence and think you have proved something.

Pardon my bluntness, but do you have a short-term memory? You
are correct, but the topic of this subpoint is that features
increased in history
according to those who subscribe to universal
common ancestry.

Go back and re-read. The topic was mutations, not new features per se. You switched from talking about mutations to talking about new features.


Gluadys: "So what empirical science is saying no?" You're not
reading my responses, are you?

I am not finding any references to empirical evidence in your responses. Only a lot of incredulity.

Gluadys: "[Horse evolution.]" I encourage you to look for the
supporting fossils for your pretty pictures. I think you'll find the
lack of complete skeletons and transitionals rather disapointing.

The fossil evidence for equine evolution is among the most complete of any mammalian family.

Can you link me to the alleged horse-rhino? That's news to
me.

At the "door-step" of this evolutionary line, it becomes very difficult to recognize the ancestors of horses from the ancestors of tapir and the rhinoceros. Both of them have obviously similar origins, and similarities in the structure of teeth, odd-toed limbs,
obvious mobility of the upper lip and other similarities according to which they join the evolutionary line of odd-toed hoofed mammals, the Perissodactyls. The tapirs and rhinoceroses remained "faithful" to their original style of life and also kept their original forms suitable
for life in the tropical forests, however the evolutionary line of horses led to life on dryer land in much harsher climatic conditions of the steppes.

http://horsecare.stablemade.com/articles2/horse_origins.htm

Homagalax (early Eocene) -- Very like its sister genus Hyracotherium, but had cross-lophs on teeth. Note that these early perissodactyls differed only in slight details of the teeth.

Emphasis added.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html

Homogalax is the tapir/rhino ancestor contemporaneous with Hyracotherium, the ancestor of the horse lineage.

Here's a statement rich with specific details: "George
Washington was the first president of the United States of America."
Historical fact, legend, or both?

Fact. Now what about the cherry tree?


I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your own will
suffice:

My words say nothing about fabricated history. That is your invention and not stated or implied by me. To say that I originated this idea is a distortion of what I said.

This is what I object to, and this is where you failed to
support with scripture or anything else other than your own personal
feelings,

Interpretations of scripture cannot be supported from the text. It is the text of scripture that is the subject of
interpretation. No, I didn't go into detail on why I interpret some specific texts as legend. But it is more than personal feelings. It is literary and contextual analysis that has led many people-not me alone-to these conclusions.

Matthew 14:31: "You of little faith, why do you
doubt?"

I am not one who doubts scripture. I am also not one who doubts creation.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
5 million indels in as many years, ranging from 1-56,000 nucleotides long. Do me a favor, try to explain it with the rethoric of genetic drift or selective sweeps. Then you can apply all this wonderfull science to the actual data demonstrated and directly observed.

This "rhetoric" of genetic drift and selective sweeps stems straight from those Mendelian genetics you talk so highly of. Mendelian genetics, by realizing what alleles are and how they recombine during meiosis and fertilization, lead directly to the fact that mutations may be disproportionately represented in succeeding generations due to random effects on a small sample space - genetic drift - and that the closer two different alleles are the less the chance that recombination during meiosis will separate them - selective sweeps.

I think the real rhetoric here is your argument that indels happen too fast to be true, so far I haven't seen any research that proves this other than a qualitative claim of incredulity. What is the measured rate of indel occurrence in scientific literature? So far the measured rate of single-nucleotide mutation and fixation outpaces what the chimp-human divide needs, ditto the rate of outward phenotypic modification measured in darwins. I am awaiting your data on indels.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.