proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

I have. But actually on a much more basic level that is sort of a scientific observation per say. The Gospel of Jesus Christ basically says that most of humanity will reject it. Jesus said wide is the path that leads to destruction and many are on that path. He said straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life and few are there who will find it. In another place Jesus claimed that men's hearts are inherently evil and hate the light and are repelled by it because it exposes their deeds. So from a scientific mind I think "if the Gospel then is true I would predict to observe the majority of the world rejecting anything that leads them to the truth of the Gospel and inventing alternate explanations for the existence of life apart from God." In other words people would be spiritually blinded and therefore we cannot in this case base what is true at all on what the "majority says." We must base all of our conclusions on actual observable evidence.

See, none of what you wrote follows from what I wrote. You're basically going back to a religious argument and ignoring science altogether.

What I'm asking about is specifically the "scientific" claims of YECism: namely that the Earth/universe are only 6000 years old, the Earth suffered a massive catacylsim ~4500 years ago, that life isn't related by common ancestry, etc.

It is was possible to arrive at these conclusions strictly by examining the evidence (i.e. in absence of any religious belief), then why is it predominantly Protestant Christians in the West advocating this (and to a certain extent Muslims in the Middle East)? Why don't we have people from all backgrounds, including atheists, advocating the same? Why is YECism so intrinsically tied to specific religious beliefs?

That is why my friend it doesn't matter to me if the whole world thinks it is true. I must be resolved strictly to what can be actually observed.

Thing is, I don't actually believe you arrived at this based on what is actually observed. I think you've been pulled in by creationist propaganda, but that's about it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I was asked to do a search of the web and find just one example of a "finely graduated chain from one major form to another."

And lo an behold, one of the best examples was for our own evolution Species | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
We have so many fossils that show the evolutionary steps for humans that some are difficult to even categorize, since they have traits intermediate between species that are closely related.

It was pointed out that a creator would have created different forms to have similar features so they could not be deemed related based on similarity.

I see absolutely 0 reasons why a deity that is supposedly all knowing and all powerful would have to stoop to making a bunch of creatures with only slight physical differences between each other. Heck, the niche property of organisms that share environments makes it better to avoid doing that, least you create organisms that compete with each other until one or both go extinct.

I was sure that the web would be replete with tons of such examples as I was told in school they existed. To my surprise I couldn't find even one clear cut example.

I read further and found that this all happened around 2005. Many relevant fossils have been found since then, but I have to ask, what do you need fossils for? Genetic evidence is the strongest evidence for evolution.

Then I was shocked to learn that a trade secret among many paleontologists was that no such chain actually exists and all the so called "chains" only consisted of different forms which had similar features. They were claimed to be related based only on those similarities.

Pakicetus, which is considered a common ancestor to whales and dolphins, is considered such because it has inner ear structures EXCLUSIVE to cetaceans, among other shared skull structures. If this trait is so beneficial for semi-aquatic and aquatic animals, why is it only seen in a select number of organisms that all have intermediate traits between terrestrial mammals and whales? What creator would do that?

Well we have all of this observed evidence of evolution in biological organisms I thought. But again I found that all the so called cases where some organism developed a resistance to a pesticide etc.. were merely cases of already existing genes in the gene pool becoming dominant after all the susceptible relatives in the population were killed off.

-_- as if new benign genes via mutation have never been observed. Sir, that is not the case, try some bacteria studies. They start out with the descendants of just 1 individual, so all variation in future populations HAS to be from mutation.

That there were actually no clear examples of new genetic information forming as needed for evolution theory to work.

Every person born has 40-60 mutations not shared by either of their parents, they are easy to observe, your issue was doing all this research more than a decade ago.

So I began going on to the debate sites actually debating as the "devils advocate" against evolution in the hopes that there would be someone out there who could stand up to these challenges. That was back in 2005 friend. I have since of course gradually became solidified in YEC. But I am not the typical case. I don't believe just because I want to believe I believe because the actual observable evidence seems to support it.

You are erroneously treating the YEC position as the null hypothesis, and all of your searching hasn't covered, say, the age of the planet itself and how scientific studies since the 1800s have concluded that it is much older than any YEC would agree with.

Did you even consider that you could be skeptical of evolution and NOT be a YEC?

I fully get how hard it is to swallow at first. I was the same way. The media promotes it at every turn and it seems the whole world accepts it, so to believe otherwise feels like you are becoming one of those crazy flat earthers or something.

Dude, I haven't seen anything on the mainstream news even bringing up evolution in years. Years.

The difference is that an honest look at what evidence is actually observed does not support Darwinian Evolution but rather special Creation. We have observable photos of the earth. We don't have observable finely graduated chains or new genes being formed in the genome.

We have absolutely observed the formation of new genes, and you aren't going to usually see "finely graduated chains" of fossils for 2 reasons:
1. fossils are rare. Many organisms that lived in the past did not live in areas suited to fossil formation, and even in places that are, the majority of organisms do not fossilize.
2. punctuated equilibrium has been the prevailing model for the progression of evolutionary developments since the 1970s. Basically put, that there are jumps in evolutionary change, with periods of relatively little change in between. Basically put, evolution doesn't occur at a steady, continuous rate.

 

[Speedwell]

Well my path was likewise starting out as a new Christian who also believed in evolution and an old earth. I was challenged as to why I believed in evolution as opposed to the Bible if I were a Christian?

There is only "opposition" for YECs--those who believe in God because they believe in the Bible rather than the other way around like the rest of Christendom.

I fully get how hard it is to swallow at first. I was the same way. The media promotes it at every turn and it seems the whole world accepts it, so to believe otherwise feels like you are becoming one of those crazy flat earthers or something. The difference is that an honest look at what evidence is actually observed does not support Darwinian Evolution but rather special Creation. We have observable photos of the earth. We don't have observable finely graduated chains or new genes being formed in the genome.

Evolution is not that important to me in that respect. If the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow I, like most Christians, would not change my view of the Bible.

 

[BradB]

See, none of what you wrote follows from what I wrote. You're basically going back to a religious argument and ignoring science altogether.

What I'm asking about is specifically the "scientific" claims of YECism: namely that the Earth/universe are only 6000 years old, the Earth suffered a massive catacylsim ~4500 years ago, that life isn't related by common ancestry, etc.

It is was possible to arrive at these conclusions strictly by examining the evidence (i.e. in absence of any religious belief), then why is it predominantly Protestant Christians in the West advocating this (and to a certain extent Muslims in the Middle East)? Why don't we have people from all religious backgrounds, including atheists, advocating the same? Why is YECism so intrinsically tied to specific religious beliefs?



Thing is, I don't actually believe you arrived at this based on what is actually observed. I think maybe you've fallen for creationist propaganda, but that's about it.

Biblical creation theory, the Young earth theory, and the World Wide Global Flood theory are all based on the Bible so no I don't expect that anyone would have any reason to arrive at such theories apart from the Bible. The thing to understand about these theories are that it is theorized that upon comparing those claims in the Bible, which are feasibly testable with science, to current scientific observations, that the claims of the Bible and the observations will harmonize. Meaning we will observe that the universe is finite and comprised of highly specified features. We will observe nothing that dictates the earth must be older than 6000 years. And we will observe that the earth's crust contains several layers of strata laid down by water and full of dead things.

 

[pitabread]

Biblical creation theory, the Young earth theory, and the World Wide Global Flood theory are all based on the Bible so no I don't expect that anyone would have any reason to arrive at such theories apart from the Bible.

But don't you realize that you're contradicting yourself? If one could arrive at YECism via observation of the evidence (your claim) then it should be possible to arrive at it independent of any specific theological belief.

But if one can't arrive at it save for a pre-existing theological belief based on a specific interpretation of the Bible, then it's clearly not something based on observable evidence. It's simply a theology based on a specific Biblical interpretation.

The thing to understand about these theories are that it is theorized that upon comparing those claims in the Bible, which are feasibly testable with science, to current scientific observations, that the claims of the Bible and the observations will harmonize. Meaning we will observe that the universe is finite and comprised of highly specified features. We will observe nothing that dictates the earth must be older than 6000 years. And we will observe that the earth's crust contains several layers of strata laid down by water and full of dead things.

Well, that's wrong (insofar as supporting YECism). For example, I'd previously given you the example of the Institute for Creation Research's own RATE project in which they concluded there is hundred of millions of years worth of radioactivity to account for on Earth. This is in direct contradiction to the idea that the Earth is only ~6000 years old.

It's also worth noting that I've never seen a single example--not one--of an independent dating method actually corroborating the age of the Earth per YECist timelines. Seriously, there is absolutely nothing. Yet at the same time, I can find multiple independent dating methods yielding a ~4.6 billion year old Earth and solar system.

Then you have things like the fact that YECs put the global flood--a cataclysm they claim reshaped the entire Earth's continents--at the same time of human civilizations apparently untouched by the same disaster. Seriously, the flood apparently takes place in the middle of Egypt's 6th Dynasty, yet oddly enough those Egyptians never noticed. Of course, the YEC response is simply that everything we know about Egyptian chronological history is wrong then, which I honestly think is rather disrespectful to that civilization and history.

The only way to truly arrive at a YEC conclusion is to ignore everything from geology, biology, biogeography, physics, cosmology, astronomy and even human history which contradicts it. There's simply no other way.

You mentioned earlier like feeling like a flat-Earther. In all honesty, I don't think YECism and Flat Earthism is particularly far apart. Both require a high level of denial of human knowledge.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You might find this paper interesting, which posits a relatively simple evolutionary scenario for the origin of opsins: Metazoan opsin evolution reveals a simple route to animal vision

This Scientific American blog adds a wider range of and presents it in a friendly fashion. Animal vision evolved 700 million years ago

 

[ruthiesea]

very simple. we know that in both living and non living objects a motion system required at least several parts to its minimal function. therefore its impossible to made such a system stepwise in both living and non living objects. you want to belive otherwise? fine. but in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. and so far all the evidence we do have shows that a complex system cant evolve stepwise.

That has been falsified over and over. Biological systems that lack parts found in later organisms either are inert, perform different functions, or perform the same function. For example, the matter of blood coagulation not working if any part is missing, there are fish that have blood that does not have all of the chemicals used for coagulation in mammals, but their blood coagulates just find. Microscopic organisms are missing some of the parts that make up the flagella used by other organims for motion. Instead, the the organ is used as a stinger for self defense.

There is no organ that cannot be said to only be of use if it is not as complete on lower organisms. That includes the human eye which seems t be the most popular example.

 

[omega2xx]

What do you expect, when we are told the attention span here is for 50 words or less? How can we express complex subjects like speech evolution in 50 words?

For more on the concept of gossip as a key factor in speech evolution, see Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language — Robin Dunbar | Harvard University Press

and What gave rise to gossip?

For more on the evolution of the mechanics of speech see http://www.cog.brown.edu/people/lieberman/pdfFiles/Lieberman P. 2007. The evolution of human speech, Its anatom.pdf

No evidence, no response.

 

[omega2xx]

First, no Old World primate has a prehensile tail; that 'very useful characteristic' is restricted to New World Primates and some animals that are not primates - Prehensile tail - Wikipedia .

This is as good example of why I have quit reading evo links. That link offered no evidence. It simply said it was true and you accepted it, not because of any evidenced, but because it would support your theology and you
want it to be true. You accept the exact same way I accept the existence of God---BY FAITH ALONE.

Second, you are citing in support of your beliefs a fact that is strong evidence for our common ancestry with the apes. Most primates have tails (although not necessarily prehensile ones), but the apes, like ourselves, are tail-less. How did this shared tail-less state arise except as a result of the common ancestry of humans and the other apes?<<

What came first the ones with tails or the ones without tails? How did tails originate? How did the prehensile tail originate. What was the ape before it was an ape?

If you think about it, God could have created humans with tails and apes without tails, or vice versa, and either arrangement would have been strong evidence against our having common ancestors with the apes. This would have been very convenient for the evolution-deniers, so why didn't God do it?

Amusing. That is exactly the way God did it and the fossil record tends to support "after their kind," not "not after their kind."

What was the first life form and what did it evolve into? Please don't tell me first lie for is not about evolution. Originally it was but trying to explain the first life became an embarrassment to evolutionists and they divided the original guess---the primordial ooze.

 

[omega2xx]

You may be confusing us with creationists. Creationists frequently argue with (out of context) quotes of 50 words or less. Scientists argue with lengthy journal articles when dealing with complex issues.

Pass the mustard, it makes the bolony taste better. That is an excuse that admits you can't provide any real evidence. I can post the evidence given for natural selection in 100 words or less, and I guarantee it will not say HOW it happened.

Sorry, we are not going to start quote mining.

That is because you have no quotes to support your opinions.

 

[omega2xx]

The funny thing about science is that creationists are happy to reject the sciences, just not the benefits it provides.

What a silly thing to say, and like evolution, you can't prove it.

You see we don't mix real science with pseudo science. Real science proves/disproves man's theories. What does the T stand for in TOE?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Pass the mustard, it makes the bolony taste better. That is an excuse that admits you can't provide any real evidence. I can post the evidence given for natural selection in 100 words or less, and I guarantee it will not say HOW it happened.



That is because you have no quotes to support your opinions.

What do you mean by "HOW"?

 

[omega2xx]

Perhaps if you were a small child of limited understanding I might endeavor to simplify things in such a manner.

But given that your profile says you are 85 years of age, I would think by now you have more than the intellectual capability needed to digest something longer than 50 words, and wouldn't want to insult you with the need to dumb down any material for your consumption.

Thank you for that. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed but I do have a BS from a major university, which indicates it do have a better than average reading comprehsion ability.

Uh-huh. Like I said, you get to believe whatever you want. Good luck.

We all get that privilege.

 

[omega2xx]

That's a dishonest claim and you know it.

For that to be dishonest, you need to post some evidence. Until you do, guess which claim is dishonest.

 

[omega2xx]

What do you mean by "HOW"?

I am sure you know HOW to use a dictionary.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I am sure you know HOW to use a dictionary.

I do. But I'm asking what you mean by "HOW". It's a reasonable question given your attitude towards what others post. In order to avoid another instance of omega2xx handwaving, a clear understanding of what, specifically, you need to have presented is required.

 

[Jimmy D]

What a silly thing to say, and like evolution, you can't prove it.

You see we don't mix real science with pseudo science. Real science proves/disproves man's theories. What does the T stand for in TOE?

Here you go Omega, Loudmouth made this post a while back, it's a good starting point....

I originally wrote this post from another thread, but thought it deserved it's own thread. Creationists keep arguing that finding ERV's at the same place in the genomes of different species is not evidence for common ancestry since retroviruses would insert into the same places. What they forget is that the theory of evolution also predicts which ERV's will be found at different places in each genome, something their claims can not do.

Here are the two positions under question:

1. Common ancestry.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base.

As it happens, there are ERV's that we can use to test these hypotheses. In chimps and gorillas we find multiple insertions from the PtERV family of retroviruses. Interestingly, insertions from that retrovirus are NOT found in humans and orangutans. Our two different positions make two different testable hypotheses in this situation.

1. Common ancestry. Since these insertions are not found in the human or orangutan genome, then these insertions must have happened after the chimp lineage split off from the human lineage. If they occurred before this point then they would be found in the human genome. If they occurred at the root of the ape tree, then they would also be found in the orangutan genome. Since they are only found in the chimp and gorilla genomes, this means that they had to occur independently in each species. Therefore, PtERV insertions in the chimp and gorilla genomes should NOT be found at the same location in the chimp and gorilla genomes.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base. If the specificity of retroviral insertion causes ERV's to occur at the same position 99.9% of the time (the rate needed to produce the shared ERV's between the human and chimp genomes), then we should find PtERV insertions at the same location in both the chimp and gorilla genomes.

As you can see, the two positions make the exact opposite prediction. Here is the data:

"Within the limits of this BAC-based end-sequencing mapping approach, 24 sites mapped to similar regions of the human reference genome (approximately 160 kb) and could not be definitively resolved as orthologous or non-orthologous (Table S3). We classified these as “ambiguous” overlap loci (Figure 3). If all 24 locations corresponded to insertions that were orthologous for each pair, this would correspond to a maximum of 12 orthologous loci. The number of non-orthologous loci was calculated as 275/287 (275 + 12) or 95.8%. This is almost certainly a lower-bound estimate owing to the limitation of our BAC-based mapping approach to refine the precise locations of the insertions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

The limits of the BAC-based method allow you to determine if two insertions are within about 100k to 200k base pairs of each other. Of the 287 PtERV insertions, 95.8% were not even within hundreds of thousands of base pairs of each other. Already, the independent insertion hypothesis is entirely busted. The authors of the paper then looked at existing genome sequencing to determine if the ones that were close to each other were actually at the same base. They couldn't find a single unambiguous orthologous PtERV shared by chimps and gorillas.

The common ancestor hypothesis is completely supported. The independent insertion hypothesis is thoroughly falsified.

 

[xianghua]

But cars don't actually reproduce though and consequently, they *don't* share that trait with biological organisms. You've already admitted that.

Now if you could actually show me a car capable of self-reproduction, that would be one thing. But you can't.



And this also makes no sense whatsoever. Acceptance of the biological evolution has nothing to do with how non-living objects like cars are built.

again: do you agree that ic systems exist in both living and non living things? if not, can you show why in biological system there is stepwise way and in non living things there isnt? if you cant, then we dont have any good evidence that its different.

 

[xianghua]

By definition, the domains of proteins can function independently of each other,

lets say that this is true. so we both agree that at least 2 proteins\genes required for a minimal (tipical) biological system. what do you think the chance to get such a system? even if we assume that the chance to get any gene separately is about 10^10 then the chance to get a minimal new system is on average 10^20. its too much mutations if we talking about mammals or reptiles.

 

[xianghua]

Microscopic organisms are missing some of the parts that make up the flagella used by other organims for motion. Instead, the the organ is used as a stinger for self defense.

not realy. here is a comparison of both flagellum and ttss:

(image from Type III secretion systems and bacterial flagella: Insights into their function from structural similarities)

as you can see: flagellum has some proteins that doesnt exist in the ttss and vice versa. actually: even the shared proteins arent identical but only similar. so by removing parts from the flagellum we will not get a ttss.