The best evidence for Creationism

[SkyWriting]

Personal theology is not compatible with scripture.

Personal geology is not compatible with scripture.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm just gonna go with St Augustine and say everything was created in an instant, take that Young Earth and Old Earth views!

Because God does not reside in "time" as we are, your statement is the most likely.
Why He would take 6 days, only God knows.

 

[Gracchus]

Yes. There was no speciation. But there was a change in the allele frequency of the gene pool of the interbreeding population. That is one definition of evolution.

And that some how is proof for common ancestory or evolution in general?

The evidence for common ancestry is the consilience of evidence from paleontology, embryology, genetics and biochemistry.

This is equivocation with the definition of evolution. I believe you are projecting the abilities of evolution.

When we are speaking of biology, there is only one meaning of “evolution”, although there are several valid definitions, so it is not equivocation. I am not too clear on what you mean by “projecting the abilities of evolution”. (Perhaps you could re-phrase?)

When the selective pressure changed, and the environment favored the original coloration, the original form replaced the evolved form.

(I worded that clumsily. I should have said that the phenotypes changed frequency in the affected areas.)

there was no evolution there was dark and light moths before the industrial era.

Indeed! If the original form had become extinct, melanistic form might have become extinct too, when the environment changed back to the original conditions.

Selection operates on variablility. The melanistic phase was rare before coal smoke pollution, became predominant in those areas affected by pollution, and became less common when the pollution was cleaned up. Thus, there was a change in the allele frequency of the population.

would you consider the holocaust as evolution there was a massive change in the allele frequency in the population there?

I would not characterize it as a massive change, since six million out of several billion is barely significant, but yes, there was a change in allele frequency, and that would be evolution.

I sense an attempt to "'poison the well" by implying that evolution is Nazism, else why use that example? Evolution has no moral component in this respect, although the evolution of morality is under active study.

Not a miracle, but about 99% of all known species are extinct.

Why not a hundred percent?

Because it didn't happen that way. Why weren't you run over by a cement truck? Because you weren't!

Well, you have probably acquired a couple of hundred mutations of your own, alleles that neither of your parents had. So with nearly seven billion persons in the world, that is a lot of variability.

I'm sure the hundreds of mutations I've acquired are not uncommon, so the variability probably isn't too much. Between people of different skin color its something like less than 0.2% difference in the genome.

It is probably true that your personal mutations didn't add much variability to the human genome, but there are about seven billion people in the species now, and there is a lot of variability. Some of the differences or minor to be sure but most Masai could not pass as Inuit.

And remember, it was religious people, not scientists, who poisoned the Kool-Aid!

It was religious people that helped fund and start scientific endeavors.

But now it is religious people who are trying to deny the findings of science, probably, I surmise, because science has removed them from the center of the universe and their supposed position as its overlords.

 

[WisdomTree]

The evidence for common ancestry is the consilience of evidence from paleontology, embryology, genetics and biochemistry.

When we are speaking of biology, there is only one meaning of “evolution”, although there are several valid definitions, so it is not equivocation. I am not too clear on what you mean by “projecting the abilities of evolution”. (Perhaps you could re-phrase?)(I worded that clumsily. I should have said that the phenotypes changed frequency in the affected areas.)



Selection operates on variablility. The melanistic phase was rare before coal smoke pollution, became predominant in those areas affected by pollution, and became less common when the pollution was cleaned up. Thus, there was a change in the allele frequency of the population.
I would not characterize it as a massive change, since six million out of several billion is barely significant, but yes, there was a change in allele frequency, and that would be evolution.

I sense an attempt to "'poison the well" by implying that evolution is Nazism, else why use that example? Evolution has no moral component in this respect, although the evolution of morality is under active study.


Because it didn't happen that way. Why weren't you run over by a cement truck? Because you weren't!

It is probably true that your personal mutations didn't add much variability to the human genome, but there are about seven billion people in the species now, and there is a lot of variability. Some of the differences or minor to be sure but most Masai could not pass as Inuit.
But now it is religious people who are trying to deny the findings of science, probably, I surmise, because science has removed them from the center of the universe and their supposed position as its overlords.

Hey! I'm a religious nut-case, but I don't deny the findings of science!!! If anything, I promote the scientific findings. However, I will always question it and even at times find a way to counter it, as that is what science as well as its predecessor; philosophy, is all about it: critical thinking.

 

[Gracchus]

Hey! I'm a religious nut-case, ...

Well, you said it. I will be agreeable.

...but I don't deny the findings of science!!!

I said this: "But now it is religious people who are trying to deny the findings of science, ...". I didnt mean to imply that all religious people deny the findings of science, only that those who deny the findings of science are, in my experience and observation, religious.

If anything, I promote the scientific findings. However, I will always question it and even at times find a way to counter it, as that is what science as well as its predecessor; philosophy, is all about it: critical thinking.

Many religious persons are capable of critical thinking, even about religion. (As long as it isn't their own!)

 

[USincognito]

And that some how is proof for common ancestory or evolution in general? This is equivocation with the definition of evolution. I believe you are projecting the abilities of evolution.

You keep using "projection" but it doesn't mean you seem to think it means. You're also using "proof" and "equivocation" incorrectly.

The change in the frequency of genetic expressions of characteristics in a population over time is the lowest level of explanation for evolution. Kind of like one or more individuals purchasing products or services in exchange for money is the lowest level of explanation for economics. There are many layers and sources of evidece for evolution - phylogenetic relationships established by genetic analysis and morphological study of fossils being the most compelling.

there was no evolution there was dark and light moths before the industrial era.

While not as sexy as some examples that can be cited, Peppered Moths are a perfect example of random mutation and natural selection in action. Moths with a mutation for darker wings were selected for after the change in environment. That's the process in a nutshell.

...would you consider the holocaust as evolution there was a massive change in the allele frequency in the population there?

What part of natural selection are you having the most trouble understanding?

Why not a hundred percent?

Are you asking this scientifically or philisophically? But to be honest, this sounds as insipid as a question like "how would you feel about abortion if your mother had aborted you?"

I'm sure the hundreds of mutations I've acquired are not uncommon, so the variability probably isn't too much. Between people of different skin color its something like less than 0.2% difference in the genome.

Yeah, but East Africans and Northern Europeans have mutations that allow for lactose tolerance that is not shared by East Asians, Middle Easterners and Native Americans. So what? Populationally adventageous mutations don't always manifest in phenotype.

 

[diychristian]

When we are speaking of biology, there is only one meaning of “evolution”, although there are several valid definitions, so it is not equivocation.

Equivocation | Define Equivocation at Dictionary.com

Yes it is.

I am not too clear on what you mean by “projecting the abilities of evolution”. (Perhaps you could re-phrase?)

I know I'm not the only person to use the word "projecting" in this context, but let me try to be clear. You are taking small changes observed in a species grossly amplifying it, expanding on it to mean something or imply something greater than what it actually is. I have not been given any example of one kind of animal turning into another. Yet this is what is claimed.

Selection operates on variablility.

How does NS know what is variable? To my understanding it can only react to expressed traits and has no consideration for future requirements of the environment (that would require intelligence or some kind of predestination). I don't deny NS is real I just believe it to be insufficient.

Because it didn't happen that way. Why weren't you run over by a cement truck? Because you weren't!

As you put it some mutations (mistakes)never change/corrected. Wouldn't this put NS into a corner unable to get out? What about things NS can't function around like catastrophic events, disease, human intervention and I'm sure others. Why is there still life? There's been apparently billions of years of oppostion to prevent and hinder the development of life. Yet we're here.

 

[Jamin4422]

Hey! I'm a religious nut-case, but I don't deny the findings of science!!!

It is the anti religious people that are usually anti science.

 

[Davian]

...
But now it is religious people who are trying to deny the findings of science, probably, I surmise, because science has removed them from the center of the universe and their supposed position as its overlords.

Well said.

The Great Demotions: Carl Sagan on science deflating our conceits [Carl Sagan Tribute Series] - YouTube

 

[TLK Valentine]

Personal geology is not compatible with scripture.

So stop using personal geology and use the same geology that everyone else does.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is the anti religious people that are usually anti science.

Oh, I can't wait to hear an explanation on this one...

 

[sfs]

Theistic evolution is not compatible with scripture.

Some think it is, some think it isn't -- it depends on how you view scripture. Given the great freedom the church, including the church fathers, have shown in interpreting the Bible, evolution is a pretty small gnat to swallow. If it isn't compatible, however, then scripture is wrong. Your choice.

 

[sfs]

Oh, I can't wait to hear an explanation on this one...

I'm still waiting for the explanation of his claim that evolutionists here don't understand evolution.

 

[sfs]

You are taking small changes observed in a species grossly amplifying it, expanding on it to mean something or imply something greater than what it actually is. I have not been given any example of one kind of animal turning into another. Yet this is what is claimed.

You misunderstand how evolution was assessed and accepted by science. It is not that small changes were observed in living organisms, and based on this it was concluded that we all came from bacteria. Rather, it was concluded independently that all organisms were related by descent from a common ancestor; this was established by comparative morphology, by biogeography, by fossils and by genetics. Separately, it was observed that populations of organisms change over time as a result of mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and several other processes. Scientists concluded long ago that the observed processes of change were the mechanism by which life has changed and diversified over the last ~4 billion years. They drew that conclusion because the mechanisms appear to be adequate to explain the changes, and because no one has ever offered a competing hypothesis that explained anything.

How does NS know what is variable?

I don't understand the question. NS doesn't know anything. Organisms do vary. Some of those variations are genetic, and some of those make the organism more or less likely to successfully reproduce. NS just means that the genetic traits that are more likely to reproduce are likely to increase in frequency in the population.

To my understanding it can only react to expressed traits and has no consideration for future requirements of the environment (that would require intelligence or some kind of predestination).

Yes, that's correct. I haven't been following the discussion very closely, so I don't know how that applies here.

I don't deny NS is real I just believe it to be insufficient.

But why do you believe it to be insufficient?

As you put it some mutations (mistakes)never change/corrected.

It's not a question of correction or change to the mutation (if it appears at all, it's already gotten past error correction). It's a question of whether it spreads in the population. Beneficial ones are more likely to spread and deleterious ones very rarely spread.

Wouldn't this put NS into a corner unable to get out?

Which corner? In the rare cases that deleterious mutations do become common in a population, nothing prevents a later mutation from counteracting its effect.

What about things NS can't function around like catastrophic events, disease, human intervention and I'm sure others. Why is there still life? There's been apparently billions of years of oppostion to prevent and hinder the development of life. Yet we're here.

If changes are too severe for NS, then the species will become extinct. Life as a whole, however, is highly adaptable, at least on Earth, and it would take very severe changes to the earth to drive all species to extinction. (Eventually this will happen, as our sun transitions into a red giant, but that won't be for hundreds of millions of years.) Of course, other planets might have more fragile life one them -- but if they do, no one there will wonder about its fragility, since intelligent species are only likely to arise on planets where life isn't fragile.

 

[WisdomTree]

You misunderstand how evolution was assessed and accepted by science. It is not that small changes were observed in living organisms, and based on this it was concluded that we all came from bacteria. Rather, it was concluded independently that all organisms were related by descent from a common ancestor; this was established by comparative morphology, by biogeography, by fossils and by genetics. Separately, it was observed that populations of organisms change over time as a result of mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and several other processes. Scientists concluded long ago that the observed processes of change were the mechanism by which life has changed and diversified over the last ~4 billion years. They drew that conclusion because the mechanisms appear to be adequate to explain the changes, and because no one has ever offered a competing hypothesis that explained anything.

I don't understand the question. NS doesn't know anything. Organisms do vary. Some of those variations are genetic, and some of those make the organism more or less likely to successfully reproduce. NS just means that the genetic traits that are more likely to reproduce are likely to increase in frequency in the population.

Yes, that's correct. I haven't been following the discussion very closely, so I don't know how that applies here.
But why do you believe it to be insufficient?

It's not a question of correction or change to the mutation (if it appears at all, it's already gotten past error correction). It's a question of whether it spreads in the population. Beneficial ones are more likely to spread and deleterious ones very rarely spread.

Which corner? In the rare cases that deleterious mutations do become common in a population, nothing prevents a later mutation from counteracting its effect.

If changes are too severe for NS, then the species will become extinct. Life as a whole, however, is highly adaptable, at least on Earth, and it would take very severe changes to the earth to drive all species to extinction. (Eventually this will happen, as our sun transitions into a red giant, but that won't be for hundreds of millions of years.) Of course, other planets might have more fragile life one them -- but if they do, no one there will wonder about its fragility, since intelligent species are only likely to arise on planets where life isn't fragile.

Just one question: what does "NS" stand for?

 

[sfs]

Just one question: what does "NS" stand for?

Natural selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am NOT talking about differences or similarities, I'm talking about the data of DNA that is NOT considered or mentioned when making the evolution argument.

Such as . . . ?

I hear creationists say that we are ignoring evidence, but they never seem to produce this evidence.

 

[WisdomTree]

Natural selection.

I'm all for that, but one problem; nature doesn't select, it eliminates.

 

[Gracchus]

Natural selection.

I'm all for that, but one problem; nature doesn't select, it eliminates.

Selecting out, or culling, produces the same effect as choosing what is to survive and breed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm all for that, but one problem; nature doesn't select, it eliminates.

Whatever isn't eliminated is "selected."

(Actually, I suspect "natural elimination" just didn't have the same ring to it.)