proving evolution as just a "theory"

[joshua 1 9]

Not so, since the FIRST 34 verses of Genesis tell us the complete story and ALL of the rest of the Bible refers BACK to one of the 7 Days of Creation shown in those verses. It's an OUTLINE of the Creation and the DETAILS are shown from Gen 2:4 to the end of Revelation. God KNEW that some would try and use only portions of His Holy Word so He told the complete story in the beginning. Amen?

The Bible is written with universal application and this is what throws people off because they do not now how to apply the Bible to their lives. There can be nothing easier then to prove the Bible is accurate and true. Yet they do not know how to do that. Or if they know how they simply do not want to.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have yet to see something created by magic though, or being "spoken" into existence, or anything defying the natural laws of the universe for that matter.

God does not defy the natural laws. Redemption is all about the restoration of the natural laws. God does not take the blame for the mess that man and the devil has made out of His Creation. Francis Collins does a wonderful job of explaining how DNA is the language of God, a language that He uses to create with.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

In fact most if not all of the book of Genesis was probably written during the first millennium BCE, which puts it during the Iron Age (or the Late Bronze Age at the earliest), not during the neolithic.

That is almost certainly true as jewish scripture was not written down till the destruction òf the temple. Prior to that it was an oral tradition.

 

[Jimmy D]

Wait, my view sounds to you like magic?

That's odd, for your view, that God formed a woman from a rib, seems like magic to me.

I was trusting in science, not magic.

It seems mention of all women being created magically from a rib causes creationists some consternation, RJS didn't respond to my comment along the same lines.

Of course they'll never admit how far fetched it sounds or the whole "inerrant, historical truth" house of cards will come tumbling down.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

Since we are presently in the last days, IF you live long enough, you will see that God's Truth will be made apparent to "ALL FLESH". Act 2:17 Can you tell us HOW God will accomplish this feat to atheists, agnostics and phonies?

The users of the Didache in the first century, soon after jesus death, believed they were in the last days, and were impatient for the second coming. They were wrong, as have been every generation and group of Christians who believed the same thing for their own time.
It is just as unlikely that we are in the end of times now.
I have no idea how God accomplishes anything. But every thing will come to pass that he intends.

 

[xianghua]

You have yet to see God pop any animal into existence out of nothing.

but we do see evidence for design in nature.

I at least have evidence.

such as?

 

[omega2xx]

Paul was just a man. He could have made it all up.

All men used by God are just men. Do you have any evidence Paul just made it all up?

How did Paul know the OT was inspired?

God told him all Scripture is inspired by God. Teh OT is Scripture.

How did Paul know about God?

When one is converted they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth.

How did Paul know God even existed?

The same way all Christians know He does.

Do you believe that the events that led up to Paul's conversion actually happened?

The same way little know Jesus loves them---the Bible tells us so. Do you have any evidence it did not happen just as Paul describes

How did Paul know that God actually spoke through the prophets?

He read the OT and believed what he read.

How do you know God exists?

 

[bhsmte]

The Bible is written with universal application and this is what throws people off because they do not now how to apply the Bible to their lives. There can be nothing easier then to prove the Bible is accurate and true. Yet they do not know how to do that. Or if they know how they simply do not want to.

And yet, your efforts to do the above, seem to come up short. It can be entertaining to watch though.

 

[tas8831]

Can we get wolves from poodles?.

According to your naive genetics, yes.

In reality, no.

Still waiting for you to stop running and explain how we got the Asian and the African in the first place from a long chain of inbreeding middle easterners.

 

[tas8831]

proving evolution as just a "theory"

I am supporting it. Can we get wolves from poodles?

Assertions are not "support."

 

[tas8831]

That is incorrect. It is evidence of common design. If there are commonalities among life all it shows is that there is common design.

Humans and chimps share the same inactivation mutation in the gene that in other animals makes vitamin C.

Was that an act of common design? Requiring these creatures to have to eat to get vitamin C?

What design principle explains that - a 'common design' that hinders the final product?

In fact there is no evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.

Here is what creationist and biochemist Todd Wood says about/to people like you:

The truth about evolution

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

 

[tas8831]

Nope it would show evolution to be true. Because that is exactly what evolution teaches. Something without arms, grew one. At some point it grew an arm that it never had to begin with.

"It" would either have an arm, or not.

"A" creature does not grow an arm from nothing.

 

[tas8831]

Specifically the paper described an algorithmic approach to finding regulatory sequences in genomes using phylogenetic trees. Phylogenetic trees are by definition a hierarchy of evolutionary relationships. And just for emphasis, this isn't merely a case of "commonalities". They show specific evolutionary relationships (i.e. which organisms share specific common ancestry) as well as data related to relative divergence times. This is about patterns not mere commonalities.

Sure, but in the Coccyx thread, pshun declared with confidence that phylogenetic trees are. essentially, biased guesswork because they are generated using "intelligently designed programs" with inherent bias based on assumptions of evolution.


And pshun has studied evolution for 30 years by himself, and has talked to real live scientists, and thinks that the coccyx can receive parasympathetic stimulation, so he is totally smart.

 

[tas8831]

The trees themselves are nothing but assumptions.

Getting tired of having to re-present this to you guys:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



The only 'assumptions' are those that even creationists admit are true - mutations happen; some mutations are heritable; patterns of shared inherited mutations are indicative of parent-offspring/ancestor-descendant relationships.

 

[tas8831]

What correct phylogenies trees are we discussing? The human one where they know the entire tree and history of mankind is going to have to be rewritten?

Ahh, but it’s only the tree for the most genetically studied and geologically searched for species that they got wrong, right? Right?

Do you use math?

Equations?

2+3=5, right?

But what about 2x1.37^-456 + 77x10^23 = ?

If we do not already know the answer, by your logic, we can never get the answer using this technique known as 'addition.'

 

[tas8831]

according to this: since both cars and airplanes shared wheels- therefore they share a common descent.

Do cars breed and produce offspring?

No?

Just another inapt and silly fake analogy presented in lieu of something intelligent and relevant.

 

[tas8831]

since the best explanation for the existance of something like a watch\robot (self replicating or not) is the design option, the design is the best explanation so far.

Yes, it is - because we KNOW that humans designed watches and robots.

Are you claiming that humans designed humans?

Because that is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from your many iterations of the same flawed and silly analogies.

 

[tas8831]

Or are you subscribing to the idea that maybe Asians and Africans are subspecies?

When Asians and Africans mate, we get an Afro-Asian, according to you.

Members from which two group mated to get Asians in the first place, and how do you know?

Didn't you recently indicate in this very thread that unless we know all such lineages for a fact (words to that effect) that we cannot make any statements at all (in your attempt to reject phylogenetics)?

So you have made it impossible for you to support your own empty assertions.

Was that on purpose?


Never mind - I still want your evidence as to what 2 groups mated to get an Asian in the first place.

Because according to your bible-based beliefs, ALL humans are originally middle eastern. With perfect genomes (no evidence for this).

So how do 2 people with perfect genomes - middle easterners both - mate and somehow produce Asians and Africans and Inuit and aborigines and Nordic folk, etc.?

Do tell!

Or maybe my cousin 5 times removed is a different subspecies? Funny how what applies to animals never applies to humans, even if we are but animals. It’s almost as if they treat us as a special creation....

True, in a sense, due to the fear of being accused of racism. Very often by people like you.

'Sub' refers to being below. In terms of classifications, 'sub' means below in a classification scheme - i.e., Species above, subspecies below. it does NOT mean inferior, but the connotation is that 'sub' means 'less than' or below.

i would say that, if we were to apply what we do know about human evolution, and if we were to use the 'subspecies' designation universally, Africans would be the type species, maybe something like Homo sapiens sapiens, and all other 'ethnic groups' would be subspecies - something like Homo sapiens inuitus, Homo sapiens asiaticus, whatever.

This human chauvinism is why Linnaeus called our order Primates - the First Order, and put us in our own Family. It was not due to the science, it was due to prejudice.

 

[tas8831]

Weird that a certain somebody ignored this...

In your naivete, you fail to understand the scope of the issue.

First, in limited genomes (e.g., mitochondrial, bacterial), we DO see more than 1 mutation occurring at specific loci. This is called homoplasy. We know about it, understand it, and take it into account.

Second, in eukaryotic genomes, which are much, much larger than prokaryotic genomes, the rate of mutation is substantially less. Recent estimates put the number of new mutations any given person has at birth to be about 100-200 (probably closer to 100).

That is 0.000003% of the genome.

The probability that any 2 organisms possess the same mutation at the same locus by chance alone is vanishingly small (something like 0.00000000000000001%). That is just a 'random' sharing of a single SNP. Consider that we see THOUSANDS of these unique shared SNPs or indels (which are much less common than SNPs) - the numbers soon exceed the limits of Borel's law (which I frankly could not care less about, but IDcreationists seem to think it is important - a quick back of the envelope calculation shows that 6 organisms sharing a single unique mutation by chance alone in a genome of 3 billion bps is 1 in 1.37*10^-57).

Add to that the articles I have cited several times documenting the accuracy and reliability of molecular phylogenetics methods when tested on knowns, and arguing against this area of evidence comes across as little more than ignorant desperation.

 

[tas8831]

And I’ll ask again for the 20th time.

Please show me a common ancestor that bridges the gaps on those trees?

Ummm.... It was the offspring of a mating of 2 middle easterners!

You can’t, because they don’t exist, because they aren’t trees, they are individual bushes.

There is no common ancestor for these claimed splits to be found, because there were no splits. They are missing, each and every single one because they never existed.

And hence you will never produce one.

And you will never produce the offspring of Adam and Eve that had Asian features, yet you insist (assert) that such a human must have existed. Further, you have implied that this was possible because Adam and Eve had "perfect genomes" and possessed all of the "allies" needed to produce the Asian phenotype.

Both claims are devoid of evidence and in fact are contrary to what we do know about genetics and inheritance.

So both models have gaps - the difference is, our gaps are understandable, explicable, and due to a large amount of other data, not unbridgeable.

Your gaps are literally impossible to bridge and your whole model suffers from having exactly zero evidence in favor of any part of it.

You claim you base it on what we do know - hybridization, dog breeds, yet your very premise contradicts all that, and you either do not understand this, or refuse to accept it as it is fatal to your model.

So tired of winning.