proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

Why would a creator have needed to do that?

it can be the result of neutral mutation. we dont need a designer to explain such a fusion.

 

[TBDude65]

so give me one theoretical finding in genetics that evolution cant explain.

I can't give you any observations in genetics that evolution CAN'T explain. Genetics only makes sense in light of the theory of evolution. Special pleading to try and make genetics and creationism/ID compatible, is illogical and not consistent with science in general.

 

[TBDude65]

it can be the result of neutral mutation. we dont need a designer to explain such a fusion.

But you invoke a designer in the process. So are you admitting that a designer is an unnecessary assumption?

 

[sfs]

the majority of those changes can be the result of neutral mutations.

How large a majority? How long have these mutations been accumulating? How different were the original genomes. (You know, the questions I've asked you repeatedly, as I try to get you to state a creationist model that makes any kind of prediction about genetics.)

how it have any connection to a common descent?

Because if common descent is true, then all of the differences are the result of mutation. All of the differences actually look like mutations.

first: according to this logic even a car isn't evidence for design. if a spinning motor can evolve naturally then why not a car?

Irrelevant means irrelevant.

secondly: i dont think that evolution make any prediction about genetics. even you admit that you dont know what we should find if common descent were not true. so basically any genetic finding can fit with evolution.

Your logic does not resemble our earth logic. "If common descent is true, we will see X" is a prediction. It means that if we fail to see X, our prediction has failed. It means that most genetic findings would not fit with evolution.

 

[tas8831]

The failure rate is more like 99.99%. Esp when you bring in the DNA evidence that shows just about everything science believed to be true 10 years ago is now turning out NOT to be true.

Just about everything? Really?

Just one example is they use to talk about "JUNK" DNA and now they are finding out that so called junk is not junk at all but used for regulation.

How much?

Most biologists still put the estimated amount of 'junkDNA' at 50% or more. What amount of junkDNA 'proves' or 'disproves' evolution?

Look at the famous monkey trial debate. Now science is even backing off on that.

What are you talking about here?

"For decades, scientists have agreed that human and chimpanzee DNA is 98.5 percent identical. A recent study suggests that number may need to be revised. Using a new, more sophisticated method to measure the similarities between human and chimp DNA, the two species may share only 95 percent genetic material."

Humans, Chimps Not as Closely Related as Thought?

OH MY GOSH!!!! 95% and NOT 98%???? Obviously, we are totally created by Jesus!

Funny thing - why do creationists NEVER do pairwise DNA comparisons of taxa they believe to be 'within-Kind' variants?

 

[xianghua]

I can't give you any observations in genetics that evolution CAN'T explain.

but you proposing that evolution makes predictions. so now you admiting that evolution doesnt make any specific predictions and therefore any finding will fit well with evolution?

 

[TBDude65]

but you proposing that evolution makes predictions. so now you admiting that evolution doesnt make any specific predictions and therefore any finding will fit well with evolution?

No, I’m telling you that the field of genetics is research that uses predictions from the theory of evolution to construct hypotheses that it then tests. And what genetics research shows is that those tests support the theory of evolution.

 

[xianghua]

How large a majority? How long have these mutations been accumulating? How different were the original genomes. (You know, the questions

about 90-99% of them (from the 2% difference) can be the result of mutations. and this may also be the difference among the original genomes.

Irrelevant means irrelevant.

it's actually very relevant, since you ask me to give you predictions about creation. this prediction is very important since evolution cant explain it at all and creation can.

"If common descent is true, we will see X" is a prediction. It means that if we fail to see X, our prediction has failed.

if evolution can predict what we should find, it can also predict what we should not find. another problem is that those predictions are also fit well with creation. so by this criteria the creation model is correct too.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so give me one theoretical finding in genetics that evolution cant explain (something that evolution doesnt predict).

So you can do the research and claim a Nobel prize for proving evolution wrong? Do you seriously think anyone would feed you that little nugget (if it existed) on an internet forum?

 

[sfs]

about 90-99% of them (from the 2% difference) can be the result of mutations. and this may also be the difference among the original genomes.

I don't know what your second sentence means, but this is a start. Now, how long has it taken for these mutations to accumulate?

it's actually very relevant, since you ask me to give you predictions about creation.

I'm asking for predictions about genetic data.

if evolution can predict what we should find, it can also predict what we should not find.

Exactly. And it does. We should not find equal rates of transitions and transversions between humans and chimpanzees, for example.

another problem is that those predictions are also fit well with creation.

You and many creationists have said things like this, but as I noted before, I don't believe you. I don't believe you because no creationist ever shows how the predictions fit well with creation.

 

[tas8831]

it can be the result of neutral mutation. we dont need a designer to explain such a fusion.

Cool - so you see no problem in propagating an aneuploidic karyotype in a species. I think your creationist and ID pals would like to rake you over the coals for that.

 

[HitchSlap]

@Camila Smith
The real tragedy with your friend and all others who attempt to cover their unbelief through
the mythology of evolution; is that they are forfeiting their souls and throwing away the hope
for eternal life with Jesus when this world burns and is destroyed.
In the end all the mumbo jumbo of evolution is nothing more than atheism and unbelief in
the truth. And that truth is returning to Earth in order to save us from ourselves and to
bring in a new spiritual government for all of humankind.

No amount of false science can save a person from condemnation.

Proverbs
1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkens unto counsel is wise.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him
might be saved.
18 He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already,
because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the
glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe
(because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
2 Thessalonians 1:
(ISV) "Truly, the coming day is burning like a furnace. All the arrogant and all who practice evil will be stubble. The coming day will set them on fire," says the LORD of the Heavenly Armies, "so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. Malachi 4:1

No amount nor effort of unbelief can prevent this from happening.
God has declared it, and his will shall prevail despite all the protestations of Darwinists.
People can either choose life or choose death.

At least we can both agree that rejecting the truth is tragic.

 

[pitabread]

another problem is that those predictions are also fit well with creation. so by this criteria the creation model is correct too.

Except that the so-called 'creation model' doesn't appear to exist and consequently doesn't make any predictions within a scientific framework.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that the so-called 'creation model' doesn't appear to exist and consequently doesn't make any predictions within a scientific framework.

You guys have too many models anyway.

How many models do you have, just for how we got our moon?

Not to mention a myriad of models as to what the atom looks like.

So I have to ask:

Since when does "making predictions within a scientific framework" stop you from having models?

 

[Wakalix]

Yes but the point is a long established belief on the evolution of horses was falsified. Now you have a new theory that will soon be falsified when new information comes along. By comparison we have the teachings of Moses that has stood rock solid for over 3500 years. Why would you throw away what is known to be true for a teaching that is far from being proven?

Another PRATT... but I'll engage with it, for the second time.

This is a specific form of a rather common argument against science; namely, the argument that science disagrees with itself, or changes its mind, whereas [insert alternative here] is always confident and never changes its mind. This is a purely emotional argument; humans prefer the comfort of certainty when they can get it. But if we cannot be certain about anything, what is better? To arbitrarily pick a belief and stick by it, regardless of the evidence? Or to shift one's beliefs as theories become more refined, as new evidence comes in, as the feedback loop of science and technology provides more opportunities to test previously untestable claims? Which is more likely to approach the truth? If your religion is false, its dogma will stand against all evidence to the contrary; but if science contains a false claim, it can eventually be rooted out and replaced with a more truthful alternative.

A specific response to your argument: you seem to think that since our understanding of the history of evolution has changed, the entire theory is entirely different. This could not be further from the case. We understand the basic facts of evolution, and are now just chasing down edge-cases and details. Furthermore, there is a difference between the process of evolution, the historical fact of evolution, the details of historical evolution, and the theory of evolution. A change in one does not result in a change in all. And how exactly are the teachings of Moses "known to be true"?

Let me give you an important example. If evolution was so dependable and reliable, then the Paleolithic diet would have more substance. Evolution theory states that the diet evolves along with the species. Yet science fails to be able to establish a proper diet for us based on evolutionary theory.

There are many pseudosciences that draw upon the popularity of the theory of evolution. Social Darwinism, phrenology (and "scientific racism" in general), much of evolutionary psychology, and popular evolutionary diet conjecture, among others. These are all often used to attack the theory of evolution itself; this is clearly a flawed argument.

The Paleolithic diet itself is highly flawed. First, it supposes that the dietary needs and digestive capabilities of humans have not changed since the Paleolithic era, which is untrue. Second, we evolved to find the right combination of "available food" and "possible gastronomical system," not the right combination of "any food possible" and ditto. That is, it is possible that a food not present in the ancestral environment is better for humans than the foods that they evolved alongside.

So when the rubber meets the road the theory fails to accomplish its intended purpose.

Its intended purpose is not "make good things happen for people." This is laughable. Its intended purpose is "accurately describe reality; be testable and falsifiable." Just like the rest of science.

Just like over time horse evolution failed and had to be replaced with a new theory.

The specific detail of historical horse evolution was revised. That is all.

You know me and you know I am a theistic evolutionist. But I am presenting an argument against evolution to keep the discussion going. I could easily argue either side of this issue but I choose to argue against Darwin's theory in this situation. Francis Collins chooses to defend the theory, I choose to argue against it to see if we can uncover any of it's inherit weakness.

Motivated reasoning is not conducive to good discussion. Raise points that you think are valid and useful, not necessary to Support Both Sides or something similar.

 

[Wakalix]

realy? if so a car isn't evidence for design too. and an airplane and a robot and so on...

There are circles in nature. Human-designed things have circles. Thus, natural circles must also have been designed. If you can see the flaw in this argument, you can see the flaw in yours.

yep.

Your initial claim seems rather a posterior - and why are you generalizing from humans to God, anyway? Isn't he so far above us?

since we cant prove that even a single complex trait can evolve naturally- this is only a belief, without any scientific evidence.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Just about everything? Really?

Yes, I read that in Francis Collins book: "The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine" He is the leading expert on the subject. I did not want to have to go looking for the book to give the exact quote but I could if need be.

 

[joshua 1 9]

how exactly are the teachings of Moses "known to be true"?

Why don't you read the wiki article then we can take it from there.

Biblical infallibility - Wikipedia

 

[TBDude65]

Why don't you read the wiki article then we can take it from there.

Biblical infallibility - Wikipedia

Believing it is infallible, is not the same thing as it actually being infallible.

A lot of people out there believe that the Quran is infallible, and a lot believe the Book of Mormon is infallible. Heck, there are people who think Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard is infallible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Maybe I should pick up a copy of the book on kindle. Is it an interesting read?

His other book is a lot more interesting:
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

His second book is more of a discussion on the latest findings on DNA. Although the book was written 5 years ago, so it must be getting outdated by now.