Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

First, not all creationists believe in young earth. When God first created light, there is no sun so the concept of 'day' on that first day is up for interpretation. God said a thousand years to him is a day, which basically means a billion year or a day is no difference to God.

Second, from your post below, what is the mutation rate (i.e. change per million year or generation)? And just because we observe small mutations, does it mean small mutations can actually amount to bigger ones? Have we ever tested to show that what small mutations can amount to (i.e. have we ever observed a single celled organism mutated to multi-celled organism)?

I know not all creationists are young earthers, which is another demonstration that, a lot of this discussion is coming down to scriptural interpretations.

For the second part, you really should give some kind of credit to the proposed test. To be fair, it is a scientific test, it has all the components, the hypothesis, the process and procedure that derives the prediction and result, and it has results derived from an objective procedure that either support the hypothesis or not. It fundamentally is a good test.

I made a post shortly ago directed at mouse. And in it, I said to him "there is probably no literal test that you could ever see that would lead you to believe the earth is old". To be honest, this is probably a true statement. And I would ask the same to you with respect to evolution. Is seeing a fish transform into a tetrapod the only thing that could allow you to believe it? Is having a time machine the only possible way which you could observe what is needed to believe it?

I think if you guys were even half as critical of your own propositions, as you are of the age of the earth or evolution, you would probably find it pretty easy being a theistic evolution proponent, on the condition that deep seated literalist views of scripture are not something that take precedence over scientific tests like the one listed above.

Ill tell you though, just because its on my mind. We have seen, as you probably know, small mutations amount to animals growing additional legs, and chickens growing teeth, and animals morphologically changing. Mutations can result in huge morphological changes in life.

Also, as far as anyone is aware, there is nothing that would stop a life from mutating. Its not like an species says "ok, ive mutated enough, no more changes to my DNA God, thank you". Really, id say its harder to propose that mutations dont add up, than to say that they do add up, simply because there is nothing that anyone is aware of, that would stop them from doing so.

And if every individual is a new individual, its not like a single animal needs to undergo an infinite number of mutations. If 4 billion years pass, and you have a single generation for each year, or lets say post cambrian (500 million), thats 500 million generations worth of mutations. Even if each generation only experienced 1 mutation (im pretty sure we all experience many in our lifetime), that would be 500 million mutations. But if every generation only experienced one microscopic change, its likely theyd never know it (unless they were born with a clear visual abnormality). Unless of course they lived for a 100 million years to see them add up.

The alternative involves the test proposed above. In a situation where we dont have a time machine to go look, what is the alternative? Well, use our mutation rates to predict where the fossils are.

 

[Job 33:6]

On mutation rates and the back and forth between paleontologists and geneticists

Molecular Clocks

The paper sources a good number of research documents. The conclusion makes a good case. It should be noted that, the reason there is controversy between paleontologists and geneticists over common descent, is because there are practical applications being brought to the table by both sides, but also in some cases inefficiencies brought by both sides. Theres competition over who is more accurate. Rather than one or the other being completely wrong or confusing, they both present valid evidence in support of evolution, that is a product of standard scientific tests.

 

[dcalling]

I think from you reply you still think I am a total young earth supporter for some reason, but that is fine, I guess initially formed minds are hard to change

Anyway, about the part of giving the test more credit, and treating things using the same respect, the issue with that is:
1. When I believe in the Bible I am not claiming it as been scientific, I believe it with faith, and to me so far nothing science discovers contradicts to the Bible yet, and the more we discover things, the more it shows how great God is.

2. However on your side, you claimed to be total scientific. But to be of that, you must be able to provide repeatable, verifiable tests. The fossile records, the ERVs, it can be used to show how things are evolved, but just as part of the Bible is up to interpretation, those facts are up to interpretation as well. Einstien's theory of relativity has predications that was verified, and yet as we discover more things, we now know not all what he proposed in the theory is right.


About the article you provided, I didn't have time to read all of it, but here are some examples I can give you to raise question on the methods used:
1. Assuming constant mutation rates, why certain acids in poteins didn't change much for supposed billions of years, and yet other change faster? That can only mean certain mutations are impossible, right?
2. Look at the divergence tree module. even thought it draw AO and BO the same length, and assumed Kao + Kbo =0, it certainly does not, because Kao and Kbo might have different time/rate over the years.
3. All of the above are assumed. No one really observed the actual time, nor tested it in a lab (i.e. the long term e.coli test should be a much better indicator of mutation rates since they are observed in a lab instead of assumed with incomplete fossile records).

I know not all creationists are young earthers, which is another demonstration that, a lot of this discussion is coming down to scriptural interpretations.

For the second part, you really should give some kind of credit to the proposed test. To be fair, it is a scientific test, it has all the components, the hypothesis, the process and procedure that derives the prediction and result, and it has results derived from an objective procedure that either support the hypothesis or not. It fundamentally is a good test.

I made a post shortly ago directed at mouse. And in it, I said to him "there is probably no literal test that you could ever see that would lead you to believe the earth is old". To be honest, this is probably a true statement. And I would ask the same to you with respect to evolution. Is seeing a fish transform into a tetrapod the only thing that could allow you to believe it? Is having a time machine the only possible way which you could observe what is needed to believe it?

I think if you guys were even half as critical of your own propositions, as you are of the age of the earth or evolution, you would probably find it pretty easy being a theistic evolution proponent, on the condition that deep seated literalist views of scripture are not something that take precedence over scientific tests like the one listed above.

Ill tell you though, just because its on my mind. We have seen, as you probably know, small mutations amount to animals growing additional legs, and chickens growing teeth, and animals morphologically changing. Mutations can result in huge morphological changes in life.

Also, as far as anyone is aware, there is nothing that would stop a life from mutating. Its not like an species says "ok, ive mutated enough, no more changes to my DNA God, thank you". Really, id say its harder to propose that mutations dont add up, than to say that they do add up, simply because there is nothing that anyone is aware of, that would stop them from doing so.

And if every individual is a new individual, its not like a single animal needs to undergo an infinite number of mutations. If 4 billion years pass, and you have a single generation for each year, or lets say post cambrian (500 million), thats 500 million generations worth of mutations. Even if each generation only experienced 1 mutation (im pretty sure we all experience many in our lifetime), that would be 500 million mutations. But if every generation only experienced one microscopic change, its likely theyd never know it (unless they were born with a clear visual abnormality). Unless of course they lived for a 100 million years to see them add up.

The alternative involves the test proposed above. In a situation where we dont have a time machine to go look, what is the alternative? Well, use our mutation rates to predict where the fossils are.

 

[Job 33:6]

Noble mouse is a young earther, so my words relating to the earths age are more for him than you.

Einsteins relativity is of course incomplete. It always has been. But many truths can still be gleaned from it. I would say, the same with evolution.

And your questions are fine. The truth is, with any theory there are questions that still are to be answered. Truths, still to be uncovered. But people shouldnt deny einsteins relativity outright, just because we cant figure out how it coincides with quantum mechanics.

Bowen's reaction series is widely accepted and extensively explanatory with respect to understanding partial melting of rocks. But even the most well understood theories, by the nature of science, will have unanswered questions. Because science really is, an ever exploring and ever learning experience. Science is always on the frontier of understanding the most complex details of nature. And so it indefinitely will have questions yet to be answered, so long as mankind has things that it must learn.

But this isnt justification for just burying our heads in the sand and saying that its all wrong. Einsteins relativity shouldnt completely be thrown out, nor bowens reaction series, nor evolution.

Regarding your numbered responses
1. Alternating rates of mutation wouldnt indicate an impossibility for certain mutations to occur. Rather it would likely have more to do with environmental pressures.
2. Kao and Bao might have different rates in some tests, they might have the same rates in others. The fact that predictions can be made and tested is enough to demonstrate the plausibility in its occurrence when those predictions are shown to be true.
3. "no one really observed the actual time", well thats because we do not have a time machine. Is having a time machine the only way you would ever consider evolution as a means by which God created?

 

[loveofourlord]

Barbarian observes:
You're wrong about evolutionary theory. It doesn't say we evolved from bacteria. It says were evolved from other primates.



Smithsonian says humans evolved from Austrolopithecines. They weren't bacteria; they were human-like primates.
Australopithecus anamensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program



Well, let's see...
These fossils and many others are landmark discoveries in paleoanthropology, finds that have filled crucial gaps in scientists’ understanding of human origins. They are all vitally important. And yet the A. sediba fossils manage to stand out from even this elite crowd, because of the sheer volume and quality of information they contain. The finds from Malapa tick pretty much all the boxes on a paleoanthropologist’s wish list. Specimens that preserve multiple skeletal elements? Check. Remains of multiple, coeval individuals (important for understanding variation within a species)? Check. Fossils in near-pristine condition, thus eliminating uncertainties about how pieces fit together? Geological context that allows for precision dating of the fossils? Associated plant and animals remains? Check, check, check.
Is Australopithecus sediba the Most Important Human Ancestor Discovery Ever?

Nope. Not them, either.



Nope:
Researchers studying fossils uncovered in the outskirts of Nairobi reveal that they belonged to the same species as Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis. This is the first time a fossil from this extinct genus was discovered east of the Rift Valley, suggesting that the range of our Australopithecus ancestors was much bigger than we thought.
New Kenyan Fossils Expand The Range Of Australopithecus | Richard Dawkins Foundation



Apparently not.

Babarian observes:
but the "life ex nihilo" claims of YE creationism are explicitly denied by God's word.



The Bible says life was created from existing natural things, not ex nihilo:

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Not from nothing, from the earth, air and water, which brought forth living things as He intended.

Common ancestor is still consistent, but the YE doctrine of life ex nihilo is specifically ruled out in Genesis.



I know he denies the many, many transitional characteristics in hominin skulls, but he never bothered to present any evidence. If I missed it, pick something and we'll see if it stands up to inspection.

Meantime...

Which of these hominin skulls is human and on what basis did you decide?



Tell us about those. What do you think they are?

Barbarian, regarding what evolution is:
Close. It's "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Alleles are different versions of the same gene. It's not common to see genes come and go; more often alleles change



Nope. The great majority of them don't do much of anything at all. You have perhaps 20 mutations that didn't exist in either parent. Unless you're very unlucky, none of them will give you any problems. A few mutations are harmful and a very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.



No, you're thinking of harmful recessives, which are something entirely different. Neutral mutations, even if homozyogous, don't harm the organism. The reason for this is that a single amino acid substitution in a protein is very unlikely to change the activity of the protein.

The misconception is a common one among creationists, who suppose there is a single "right" gene for each locus in humans. That's absurd. This points back to the creation/corruption model that YEC adherents accept, but a simple fact makes such a model impossible. Adam and Eve could have had at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus between the two of them. But most loci have dozens of alleles. The rest, including many that are very useful for survival, evolved.



That idea is not supported by scripture, which says no such thing. And the evidence from numerous favorable mutations shows it to be false. A presuppositional bias towards accepting creationism would look at something like random mutations and suggest that these must be mostly harmful (contrary to what is commonly observed otherwise)


Agreed, I would add that implied by evolution is also that this "change" is generally beneficial and increasing in complexity. Again, no way to get from bacteria to man without beneficial and increasingly complex DNA.



We can easily test it by comparing DNA of organisms of known descent. Turns out, DNA testing does indeed show us evidence of common descent.



Young Earth creationism. When children are raised being told that YE creationism is an essential Christian doctrine, and then they find that it cannot be true, they sometimes lose their faith. This is the real damage creationism does.



No. It goes against what creationism teaches. Which is quite another thing.



The Bible and science are compatible, but science cannot affirm anything supernatural.

Barbarian observes:
The evidence says otherwise. For example, vultures are all very similar. And yet, new world vultures and old world vultures are rather different in DNA. If you were right, they'd be very similar in DNA. It turns out that old world vultures are evolved from birds of prey, while the evidence indicates that new world vultures are most closely related to storks.



In this case, it says that the creationist notion of DNA being similar in similar organisms is often incorrect. And so we know creationism is false.



Sorry, postmodernism isn't going to be convincing. There is an objective reality, and we can learn about it from evidence.



Do you think God has a nose and thumbs? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd like to know.



Would be. "From dust you are, to dust you will return." Our bodies are created naturally, like any other animal. However, we are not a body. As C.S. Lewis says "you are a soul; you have a body."



If that were true, the children of scientists would tend to be worse-behaved than most children. And the opposite is true.

your being a bit pedantic, in the broadest sense we evolved from bacteria or something simular, but split off billions of years ago.

 

[dcalling]

Noble mouse is a young earther, so my words relating to the earths age are more for him than you.

Einsteins relativity is of course incomplete. It always has been. But many truths can still be gleaned from it. I would say, the same with evolution.

And your questions are fine. The truth is, with any theory there are questions that still are to be answered. Truths, still to be uncovered. But people shouldnt deny einsteins relativity outright, just because we cant figure out how it coincides with quantum mechanics.

Bowen's reaction series is widely accepted and extensively explanatory with respect to understanding partial melting of rocks. But even the most well understood theories, by the nature of science, will have unanswered questions. Because science really is, an ever exploring and ever learning experience. Science is always on the frontier of understanding the most complex details of nature. And so it indefinitely will have questions yet to be answered, so long as mankind has things that it must learn.

But this isnt justification for just burying our heads in the sand and saying that its all wrong. Einsteins relativity shouldnt completely be thrown out, nor bowens reaction series, nor evolution.

Regarding your numbered responses
1. Alternating rates of mutation wouldnt indicate an impossibility for certain mutations to occur. Rather it would likely have more to do with environmental pressures.
2. Kao and Bao might have different rates in some tests, they might have the same rates in others. The fact that predictions can be made and tested is enough to demonstrate the plausibility in its occurrence when those predictions are shown to be true.
3. "no one really observed the actual time", well thats because we do not have a time machine. Is having a time machine the only way you would ever consider evolution as a means by which God created?

I don't think I am the one who burried head in sand

1. A part that was common to both animal and planet (so if you think we allevolved fromt he samething, that must be very likely a common ancestory of all of us), and yet almost no mutations.... That certainly is a indication some mutations are impossible to happen.

2. What predications? That was a way to measure mutations rates, and the graph shows KAO and BAO of same length, and the theory suggested KAO+BAO=0, but if KAO and BAO actually have differnt number of mutations then the assumption is not even correct. I don't know what can be predicated from a flawed measure.

3. No, as I said, a repeatable, verifiable test. We are geting close to that (i.e. how we can genetically modifying things). Just build on that, I want to see something really simple, i.e. genetically modify a single celled organism to a multi-celled organism, and verify that such modifcations can happen in nature.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think I am the one who burried head in sand

1. A part that was common to both animal and planet (so if you think we allevolved fromt he samething, that must be very likely a common ancestory of all of us), and yet almost no mutations.... That certainly is a indication some mutations are impossible to happen.

2. What predications? That was a way to measure mutations rates, and the graph shows KAO and BAO of same length, and the theory suggested KAO+BAO=0, but if KAO and BAO actually have differnt number of mutations then the assumption is not even correct. I don't know what can be predicated from a flawed measure.

3. No, as I said, a repeatable, verifiable test. We are geting close to that (i.e. how we can genetically modifying things). Just build on that, I want to see something really simple, i.e. genetically modify a single celled organism to a multi-celled organism, and verify that such modifcations can happen in nature.

1. I dont know what you are trying to say.

2. Im not sure what you are trying to say here either. Its more like Kao + Kbo = 1 million, therefore if Kao changes at 750,000 per year (observed rate), and Kbo changes at 250,000 every per year (observed current rate), then the ancestor between the two is 1 year old.

Predictions of the temporal location of an ancestor are made based on observed rates of mutation.

And as I said before, in history, mutation rates might alter say with environmental changes, but again, the fact that such a prediction can be made, and in cases has been a correct prediction, this therefore lends credence to the plausibility that ancestral lineages trapped in the fossil succession, are a product of compiled mutations.

3. The change from single celled organisms to multi celled was not necessarily a product of evolution (wholistically) and it wouldnt necessarily be simple either. A mutation in DNA is more simple than a change from prokaryotic to eukaryotic.

Human HOX gene mutations. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Job 33:6]

I think I see where some confusion is coming from, you said...

2. Look at the divergence tree module. even thought it draw AO and BO the same length, and assumed Kao + Kbo =0, it certainly does not, because Kao and Kbo might have different time/rate over the years.

The article does not actually say this ^, it says, " KOA + KAB = 0" not "Koa + Kob=0".

All its saying is that the sum of changes between two organisms with relation to their ancestor, should be equivalent to the differences the organisms hold between eachother.

Which again, is a prediction, and if tested accurately (which it has been on some occasions), gives credence to the plausibility that the fossil succession is a reflection of ancestral lineages, temporally positioned as a result of accumulated mutations.

 

[dcalling]

1. I dont know what you are trying to say.

2. Im not sure what you are trying to say here either. Its more like Kao + Kbo = 1 million, therefore if Kao changes at 750,000 per year (observed rate), and Kbo changes at 250,000 every per year (observed current rate), then the ancestor between the two is 1 year old.

Predictions of the temporal location of an ancestor are made based on observed rates of mutation.

And as I said before, in history, mutation rates might alter say with environmental changes, but again, the fact that such a prediction can be made, and in cases has been a correct prediction, this therefore lends credence to the plausibility that ancestral lineages trapped in the fossil succession, are a product of compiled mutations.

I saw your other post, I think I misread the paper. Thanks for the correction!

But again as your pointed out in the other post, it is just an rough assumption, combined with the paper you provided (maybe someone else's paper about we share some segment of DNA with plants that has not changed much, indicates some mutations are MUCH harder than others.

3. The change from single celled organisms to multi celled was not necessarily a product of evolution (wholistically) and it wouldnt necessarily be simple either. A mutation in DNA is more simple than a change from prokaryotic to eukaryotic.

Human HOX gene mutations. - PubMed - NCBI

I am not sure what you believe in right now. if you truely believe in evolution then single -> multi cell should be DNA mutation as well, since everything is on the DNA.

 

[Job 33:6]

I saw your other post, I think I misread the paper. Thanks for the correction!

But again as your pointed out in the other post, it is just an rough assumption, combined with the paper you provided (maybe someone else's paper about we share some segment of DNA with plants that has not changed much, indicates some mutations are MUCH harder than others.

I am not sure what you believe in right now. if you truely believe in evolution then single -> multi cell should be DNA mutation as well, since everything is on the DNA.

Overall, what I've presented is, scientifically, a test. And a good one. As mentioned before, it contains a hypothesis, it contains observations. It contains predictions based off of those observations, and it contains results that match those predictions.

Yes, assumptions are made. You have to make assumptions in order to construct your prediction. Otherwise it wouldnt be a prediction if you already knew the outcome. And when your conclusion supports your predictions, you have credibility and support to your hypothesis. Nobody has a time machine or lives 4.5 billion years to witness it all, but given that we do not have a time machine, tests such as these still all indicate the occurrence of evolution.

And ultimately it all makes sense. The fossils match evolution, the DNA and rates of observed mutations match evolution, the biogeographic distributions match evolution. Thats another one, the fact that things like flightless birds only exist in australia, or that african and indian elephants are only located in africa and india and nowhere else in the world.

it all indicates that evolution has occurred.

 

[dcalling]

Overall, what I've presented is, scientifically, a test. And a good one. As mentioned before, it contains a hypothesis, it contains observations. It contains predictions based off of those observations, and it contains results that match those predictions.

Yes, assumptions are made. You have to make assumptions in order to construct your prediction. Otherwise it wouldnt be a prediction if you already knew the outcome. And when your conclusion supports your predictions, you have credibility and support to your hypothesis. Nobody has a time machine or lives 4.5 billion years to witness it all, but given that we do not have a time machine, tests such as these still all indicate the occurrence of evolution.

And ultimately it all makes sense. The fossils match evolution, the DNA and rates of observed mutations match evolution, the biogeographic distributions match evolution. Thats another one, the fact that things like flightless birds only exist in australia, or that african and indian elephants are only located in africa and india and nowhere else in the world.

it all indicates that evolution has occurred.

But as I said with the same set of data we can also make the same predications for ID. So basically the criteria for your set of test is too broad, i.e. over fitting.

And I am not even asking here for a time machine. I am simply asking:
Can you check if each of the key mutations is possible under natural conditions.

So based on the facts that some segments of DNA seems mutation resistant even though there are claims (or tests I am not sure) that mutations are constant, it is very reasonable to ask if some mutations are possible.

Now let's take a look at your evidences:
1. Fossiles match evolution. You only have a set of fossiles, with jumps and yet each type have multiple fossiles.
2. DNA rates and mutations rates. You claim they match, and yet the link you provided clearly implies all are assumed rates (if fossiles are indeed evolved). Not only that, ACTUAL TESTS on e.coli showed pretty much no significan mutation after 66k generations, which is a much simpler organism, and should mutate much faster.

 

[Job 33:6]

But as I said with the same set of data we can also make the same predications for ID. So basically the criteria for your set of test is too broad, i.e. over fitting.

And I am not even asking here for a time machine. I am simply asking:
Can you check if each of the key mutations is possible under natural conditions.

So based on the facts that some segments of DNA seems mutation resistant even though there are claims (or tests I am not sure) that mutations are constant, it is very reasonable to ask if some mutations are possible.

Now let's take a look at your evidences:
1. Fossiles match evolution. You only have a set of fossiles, with jumps and yet each type have multiple fossiles.
2. DNA rates and mutations rates. You claim they match, and yet the link you provided clearly implies all are assumed rates (if fossiles are indeed evolved). Not only that, ACTUAL TESTS on e.coli showed pretty much no significan mutation after 66k generations, which is a much simpler organism, and should mutate much faster.

Anything can be evidence for intelligent design if you imagine that God simply made things look as they are. The world could have been created yesterday and the earth 6000 years old, all it takes is for you to imagine that God simply created it, as if it looks old.

Yes, it looks as if fossils match evolution, but God could have just simply made it look that way, if you can imagine it. Yes, mutations happen, and simple logic would indicate that mutations would result in evolution, but wait...thats right, God just made it look that way, if you imagine it happening that way. Nevermind the fact that there is nothing supporting the notion that mutations do not accumulate, we can just imagine that they cant and we can just say that God simply made it look as if they accumulate, but in reality they dont.

Your logic is no different from the young earthers. They make the same arguments just with respect to geology. Anyone can believe anything if they just imagine that God simply made it look so.

A global flood? What, theres no evidence? Oh well I imagine that God simply made it look as if the global flood never happened. What, the earth is 6000 years old and everyone who studies geology believes otherwise? Well, I imagine that God must have just made it look as if it was old, but in reality its not.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
You cant propose the idea that certain mutations are not possible under natural conditions, unless you have evidence to support the possibility that they arent.

And slowed rates of mutation, is not equivalent to mutations not occurring at all.
Genetic drift - Wikipedia


You cant just make stuff up, or imagine counter arguments. You have to have counter arguments that can be demonstrated. Or counter tests.

If you propose that mutation rates would have just stopped, well, what test is there to support that counter claim?

None, its just that you are baselessly imagining your counter arguments.

This is why I liked Carl sagans dragon in the garage analogy. In the video, the person imagines a dragon in his garage, and he imagines every possible counter argument to make his belief true. Nevermind the fact that you cant see the dragon, its just invisible. Nevermind that you cant sense its heat, its fire breath is heatless.

The difference between my side of the table, and yours, is that one side approaches the discussion with authentic evidence, tests, predictions.

Your side, imagines. You Imagine God creating and destroying and creating and destroying. But if all we can see are mutations occuring, we cant just assume that the animals just disappear and re appear. We can only logically assume that they evolved (assuming mutations accumulate).

If we see mutations accumulating, without any evidence of anything that stops those mutations, the only logical conclusion is that they keep adding up, which would explain the fossil record.

It is illogical to assume some sort of unseen force stops them from accumulating because no such thing has ever been observed. Yet this is what you are doing. And you are speaking as if this assumed invisible force, is equally plausible, to the assumption that the mutations simply add up (no assumed invisible force necessary).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the truth.

If not for a literal interpretation of genesis, every single person, would likely find evolution as the most plausible explanation for how we came to be. But because of an interpretation of scripture, perception is changed, and invisible dragons are assumed to defend those preconceived notions.

 

[Job 33:6]

Literally, a good analogy to this discussion is if I showed a picture of footprints in the snow...

My argument:

We see the person walking, so it is logical to assume that step by step, this person made each of those footprints and walked the entire distance.

(We see mutations happening, they add up, life evolves over time and space).

Your argument:

You dont know that the person made those footprints because you didnt see it happen. The person wasnt walking, he or she actually disappeared and re-appeared in the snow over and over and over and over again. And because the person sometimes slows down and sometimes speeds up while walking, its actually plausible to believe that the person might not even be able to walk the whole distance. An invisible force actually stops them from walking, and they disappear and reappear, over and over. You cant say this isnt true, because you didnt see it happen, and you dont have a time machine to witness it.

(you dont know life evolved because you didnt see it happen, the fossils are not transitionals, God just made life disappear and re appear over and over. Because mutation rates slow down and speed up, its fair to propose that they also completely stop. God stops mutations from happening? You cant say that all my words are untrue, because you dont have a time machine.)

 

[dcalling]

I am not interested in young or old earth or flood, we are discussing evolution. Let's get back to point.

I asked 2 questions,
Now let's take a look at your evidences:
1. Fossiles match evolution. You only have a set of fossiles, with jumps and yet each type have multiple fossiles. (Addition in this poinst:In fact we are discovering more and more same types of fossils, and very rarely we find anything new now. How do you explain that)

2. DNA rates and mutations rates. You claim they match, and yet the link you provided clearly implies all are assumed rates (if fossiles are indeed evolved). Not only that, ACTUAL TESTS on e.coli showed pretty much no significan mutation after 66k generations, which is a much simpler organism, and should mutate much faster


And to your footstep argument:
You can't assume the person walked entire distance, you have to trace all the footsteps back to have a reasonable assumption that the persona walked the entire distance. The person might have drove the rest. Simple as that

Anything can be evidence for intelligent design if you imagine that God simply made things look as they are. The world could have been created yesterday and the earth 6000 years old, all it takes is for you to imagine that God simply created it, as if it looks old.

Yes, it looks as if fossils match evolution, but God could have just simply made it look that way, if you can imagine it. Yes, mutations happen, and simple logic would indicate that mutations would result in evolution, but wait...thats right, God just made it look that way, if you imagine it happening that way. Nevermind the fact that there is nothing supporting the notion that mutations do not accumulate, we can just imagine that they cant and we can just say that God simply made it look as if they accumulate, but in reality they dont.

Your logic is no different from the young earthers. They make the same arguments just with respect to geology. Anyone can believe anything if they just imagine that God simply made it look so.

A global flood? What, theres no evidence? Oh well I imagine that God simply made it look as if the global flood never happened. What, the earth is 6000 years old and everyone who studies geology believes otherwise? Well, I imagine that God must have just made it look as if it was old, but in reality its not.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
You cant propose the idea that certain mutations are not possible under natural conditions, unless you have evidence to support the possibility that they arent.

And slowed rates of mutation, is not equivalent to mutations not occurring at all.
Genetic drift - Wikipedia


You cant just make stuff up, or imagine counter arguments. You have to have counter arguments that can be demonstrated. Or counter tests.

If you propose that mutation rates would have just stopped, well, what test is there to support that counter claim?

None, its just that you are baselessly imagining your counter arguments.

This is why I liked Carl sagans dragon in the garage analogy. In the video, the person imagines a dragon in his garage, and he imagines every possible counter argument to make his belief true. Nevermind the fact that you cant see the dragon, its just invisible. Nevermind that you cant sense its heat, its fire breath is heatless.

The difference between my side of the table, and yours, is that one side approaches the discussion with authentic evidence, tests, predictions.

Your side, imagines. You Imagine God creating and destroying and creating and destroying. But if all we can see are mutations occuring, we cant just assume that the animals just disappear and re appear. We can only logically assume that they evolved (assuming mutations accumulate).

If we see mutations accumulating, without any evidence of anything that stops those mutations, the only logical conclusion is that they keep adding up, which would explain the fossil record.

It is illogical to assume some sort of unseen force stops them from accumulating because no such thing has ever been observed. Yet this is what you are doing. And you are speaking as if this assumed invisible force, is equally plausible, to the assumption that the mutations simply add up (no assumed invisible force necessary).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the truth.

If not for a literal interpretation of genesis, every single person, would likely find evolution as the most plausible explanation for how we came to be. But because of an interpretation of scripture, perception is changed, and invisible dragons are assumed to defend those preconceived notions.

 

[Job 33:6]

1. You have never defined "types", so your response doesn't have meaning.

2. Theyre observed rates of mutation, being compared with predicted rates.
Mutation rates in mammalian genomes
Analysis of Genetic Inheritance in a Family Quartet by Whole Genome Sequencing

Rates of observed mutations and their respective accumulation between generations are in the ballpark of rates predicted in comparing rates of divergence with the fossil succession.

And in regards to the footstep argument, at some point you just have to have common sense. If there are no tire tracks, you cant assume a car was used. If you cant see anything stopping mutations from occuring, or you cant see species disappearing and re appearing over and over, then you cant assume that what we are seeing is anything more but descent with modification.


If you see mutations occurring, and you see them accumulating (which is a real thing), and you see fossils morphologically diverging over time, its just a common sense approach to recognize that the mutations which alter DNA and morphology, are likely playing a roll in the morphological changes in fossils through time.

Its just common sense.

Your alternative of life disappearing and reappearing over and over and over again, has no test, has no supporting evidence, it has nothing. Its just something you have made up in your imagination. There isnt even anything in scripture proposing such a thing. You have simply made it up.

 

[dcalling]

You don't have to read too far from your link "among mammalian lineages and have come to conflicting conclusions. For example, significant differences in mutation rates among mammalian lineages reported over the last two decades led to the proposal of the generation-time effect hypothesis"

So basically with conflicting conclusions and SIGNIFICANT differences in mutations rates among mammalian lieages, you argue that the rates are still in the ball park. I will say this is totally inconclusive.


And to your second question, yes we do see mutations occure and accumulate. Good example is dogs, through thousands years of breeding there are so many kind. Yet do you see dogs with wings? The best long term test of e.coli, after 66k generations, you only see obserable mutations decreese. You can't answer that question can you? Those are hard objective evidences.

And, all the fossil records indicate things are created, then some simply go distinct. Same as we humans create computers, and we discard the old systems. This is only my hypthose, with this I predict that it is much easier to find fossils of animals that we already discovered then new ones, since they are created, not evolved. If they are really evolved, I should expect we find many many different kinds with tiny tweaks.

1. You have never defined "types", so your response doesn't have meaning.

2. Theyre observed rates of mutation, being compared with predicted rates.
Mutation rates in mammalian genomes
Analysis of Genetic Inheritance in a Family Quartet by Whole Genome Sequencing

Rates of observed mutations and their respective accumulation between generations are in the ballpark of rates predicted in comparing rates of divergence with the fossil succession.

And in regards to the footstep argument, at some point you just have to have common sense. If there are no tire tracks, you cant assume a car was used. If you cant see anything stopping mutations from occuring, or you cant see species disappearing and re appearing over and over, then you cant assume that what we are seeing is anything more but descent with modification.


If you see mutations occurring, and you see them accumulating (which is a real thing), and you see fossils morphologically diverging over time, its just a common sense approach to recognize that the mutations which alter DNA and morphology, are likely playing a roll in the morphological changes in fossils through time.

Its just common sense.

Your alternative of life disappearing and reappearing over and over and over again, has no test, has no supporting evidence, it has nothing. Its just something you have made up in your imagination. There isnt even anything in scripture proposing such a thing. You have simply made it up.

 

[Job 33:6]

You cant rightfully disregard an entire line of research, simply on the basis of a single statement. If you have read my links, you also would have read of various methods used to mitigate inaccuracies. Such as averaging rates of mutation and averaging rates in various genes. Doing so, even in the words of opponents, have yielded accurate results.

The point still stands that despite trials, accurate predictions are still being made based on observation of mutation rates and predictions of where fossils are. Mutation rates based on direct observation are in many cases strikingly close to those blindly predicted based on the fossil succession and total amounts of genetic difference in modern day organisms.

Even if such tests or predictions were correct even just 50% of the time, if your beliefs were true, I would have no explanation for why observed mutation rates align with predicted mutation rates based on the fossil succession. Whereas if evolution were true, it would all make perfect sense.

And you revert back to the fossil succession, which you still have yet to explain what a "type" is, rendering your words meaningless, same with your words about dogs, still meaningless without defining morphological terms. And you keep bringing up e. coli, but as ive said before, alterations in mutation rates are not the same as something not mutating at all. Again, you have no evidence for anything that stops organisms for mutating. All you have is your imagination.

Even your final words again refer to "kinds", and you refer to animals being created and destroyed and recreated and destroyed again, all without any shred of evidence. Yet you speak as if objectivity is important to you, yet all you are doing is using your imagination.

 

[dcalling]

You cant rightfully disregard an entire line of research, simply on the basis of a single statement. If you have read my links, you also would have read of various methods used to mitigate inaccuracies. Such as averaging rates of mutation and averaging rates in various genes. Doing so, even in the words of opponents, have yielded accurate results.

The point still stands that despite trials, accurate predictions are still being made based on observation of mutation rates and predictions of where fossils are. Mutation rates based on direct observation are in many cases strikingly close to those blindly predicted based on the fossil succession and total amounts of genetic difference in modern day organisms.

Even if such tests or predictions were correct even just 50% of the time, if your beliefs were true, I would have no explanation for why observed mutation rates align with predicted mutation rates based on the fossil succession. Whereas if evolution were true, it would all make perfect sense.

And you revert back to the fossil succession, which you still have yet to explain what a "type" is, rendering your words meaningless, same with your words about dogs, still meaningless without defining morphological terms. And you keep bringing up e. coli, but as ive said before, alterations in mutation rates are not the same as something not mutating at all. Again, you have no evidence for anything that stops organisms for mutating. All you have is your imagination.

Even your final words again refer to "kinds", and you refer to animals being created and destroyed and recreated and destroyed again, all without any shred of evidence. Yet you speak as if objectivity is important to you, yet all you are doing is using your imagination.

When your link actually says there are significant variations in mutations rates, and we know some segments mutated very little between us and plants, how can you tell me that the mutation rates align with predicated mutation rates? None of this can be verified and tested.

All I have is the actual tests, i.e the long term e.coli tests, shows a flat lining rate of mutation on sizes (and pretty much no other verifiable mutations after the first few). Where is the mutation rate predication in this real test?

On the 'kind' thing, I will say it is the same as your "mutation rate", which I am unable to give a precises definition. The tests I can show your support my hypthesis is the e.coli evolution test, and on dogs.
We have been breeding dogs for thousands of years. Have we ever breed a dog with wings?

 

[Job 33:6]

There are two things going on here. There are direct observed rates of mutation, and there are rates of mutation derived from the total difference between genomes. Further, there are fossils, which have had their locations predicted based on these rates, both those observed and those derived, as they are the similar.


Regardless, to be quite honest, if evolution were not true, and life just instantaneously appeared and disappeared, we really shouldn't even see things like mutation rates that could even potentially be predicted at all. They shouldnt even remotely correlate with temporal positioning in the fossil succession.

If evolution were not true, and mutation rates did not have any relation to morphology observed in the fossil record, people would be predicting the presence of hominids in the precambrian.

So, you can keep poking at this if you want, but really, its just a silly discussion to even have because the relationship between paleontology-morphology-genetics-and mutation accumulation, its just a fundamental reality of nature and Gods creation.


Remember, you asked for a test, a test was presented, and you are simply in denial at this stage. You have no reason to believe that mutations do not accumulate, you havent seen such a process that stops mutations from accumulating. And you are just assuming that such a thing doesnt happen, and that the predictions made, I guess you think they are just pure luck?

If a geneticist, predicts the temporal location of fossils, remember, these are people who dont know geology. They dont know the succession. And yet, if they are telling paleontologists where the fossils are, and further, they are proven correct at a later date when the fossils are actually discovered...



And there is no flatline of e.coli mutation rates. Youre just making this up too. E.coli still mutates, just as all other life forms do.

And you're asking ridiculous questions like have we bred a dog with wings, but there is nothing in the theory of evolution that proposes that such a thing would occur. I cant be bothered to continue here, you clearly aren't interested in truth at all, just your opinion.

 

[Job 33:6]

You can't just deny reality simply because you don't agree with it. Your opinion is not a sufficient rebuttal to the reality of mutations, the reality if the accumulation and the reality of the predictable fossil succession.

And asking why dogs don't have wings is not a rebuttle either, it's just a meaningless question.