Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not to get hardcore Cartesian, but all beliefs are vulnerable to doubt!

Yes, you're right - I should have said particularly vulnerable...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sorta kinda, but in the whole you are right and my post was in error. Mea culpa.

I'm starting to like this "VirOptimus" guy.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, you're right - I should have said particularly vulnerable...

I think that's still probably going to depend upon your underlying approach to epistemology, though. If you're not an empiricist, then your beliefs aren't necessarily going to be vulnerable to specific evidentiary concerns. I'm pretty postmodern, so my belief in theism and faith in modern science are equally vulnerable to the types of doubts I have--if I ever snap, I'll be going full-on Feyerabend.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think that's still probably going to depend upon your underlying approach to epistemology, though. If you're not an empiricist, then your beliefs aren't necessarily going to be vulnerable to specific evidentiary concerns. I'm pretty postmodern, so my belief in theism and faith in modern science are equally vulnerable to the types of doubts I have--if I ever snap, I'll be going full-on Feyerabend.

The defensiveness and evasion on these forums suggest that your postmodernism is the exception... though, presumably, you can simply doubt that evidence

 

[DogmaHunter]

No... "blind faith" would be believing without seeing.

Yes, that was my point.
It's what the religious do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.


I’m not trying to be tricky – just curious. Outside a scientific laboratory and controlled experiment, if you witnessed an extraordinary event of some kind, which do you think you would believe... what you actually saw (or even thought you saw) and interpreted, or what you tried to rationalize it to be (or was told to rationalize it to be)?

It would completely depend on the nature of said event and just how extra-ordinary it is.

 

[Silmarien]

The defensiveness and evasion on these forums suggest that your postmodernism is the exception... though, presumably, you can simply doubt that evidence

Oh, no no no. The worldviews of others exist to be deconstructed and criticized at length, preferably with a whole bunch of obscure French or German terms tossed in for good measure, never doubted or denied!

Actually, that sounds like a joke but it's really not. Theistic postmodernism is a little different than the secular variety--we do believe in Truth (though in true continental fashion, we might get a bit Greek and start calling it Αλήθεια instead)--but we aren't exactly friendly to fundamentalism's obsession with absolute certainty.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It would completely depend on the nature of said event and just how extra-ordinary it is.

If someone enters a high stake lottery and wins . . . should she conclude she has the favor of God on account of that?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If someone enters a high stake lottery and wins . . . should she conclude she has the favor of God on account of that?

No. If she flaps her arms and can fly that way after praying for it, though...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Possibly, there might've been a neanderthal named Adam, how would I know? Doubt that an Adam was the common ancestor to all humans though - our genetics don't indicate a sole male parent.

I'll accept the findings of Science because it consistently gives us usable, practical results we can employ to improve our circumstances.

I don't have to do anything with any scripture until its veracity can be authenticated.

What do you mean, according to evolutionists we have a sole first lifeform parent.

And our genes do indicate we had one sole parent (or two).

If we all came from different lines we wouldn’t share the same genes.

Even in your theory in order for a mutation to be passed down to eventually be in the general population, the general population must all be descended from that same one.

I’m other words if you develop a mutation and pass it down, in order for the entire population to have that mutation your descendants must be the entire population.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What do you mean, according to evolutionists we have a sole first lifeform parent.

First, that's not true.
Second, read what he actually said... he's talking about a single "male human".

And our genes do indicate we had one sole parent (or two).

It doesn't. If you're referring to "Y chromosome adam" or "mitochondrial eve", then it seems you don't understand what those represent either.

If we all came from different lines we wouldn’t share the same genes.

We come from the same population. We don't come from a single breeding pair.

Even in your theory in order for a mutation to be passed down to eventually be in the general population, the general population must all be descended from that same one.

But not only from that one.

I’m other words if you develop a mutation and pass it down, in order for the entire population to have that mutation your descendants must be the entire population.

Sure.
But that doesn't make all my peers disappear. My off spring might breed with their off spring. The off spring that that produces are descendants of me, sure. They are also descendants of my peers.

You have 4 grand parents, you know.
8 Great grandparents.
16 Great great greandparents.

If one of those sixteen had a mutation that is spreading, that doesn't make those other 15 ancestors disappear.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

First, that's not true.
Second, read what he actually said... he's talking about a single "male human".



It doesn't. If you're referring to "Y chromosome adam" or "mitochondrial eve", then it seems you don't understand what those represent either.



We come from the same population. We don't come from a single breeding pair.



But not only from that one.



Sure.
But that doesn't make all my peers disappear. My off spring might breed with their off spring. The off spring that that produces are descendants of me, sure. They are also descendants of my peers.

You have 4 grand parents, you know.
8 Great grandparents.
16 Great great greandparents.

If one of those sixteen had a mutation that is spreading, that doesn't make those other 15 ancestors disappear.

And no matter how far back you wish to extend that family tree, it will lead to two.

But in order for a mutation to be fixed in the entire general population, the entire population must come from the same parents.

If I have a mutation, it is impossible for it to fix in the entire population unless that population is my descendants.

It’s your entire argument about shared ancestory between apes and humans.

Even in your theory since all apes and all humans share a common mutation, they must have shared the same parent or common ancestor.

You can’t now argue against what your own theory requires.

If Paul had 10,000 descendants, and Joe had 10,000 descendants, there would be no way for their descendants to share the same mutation unless both Paul and Joe came from the same line.

Any inherited from just Paul would not be in Joes lineage. Nor would there children enable it to happen by mixing due to the fact that populations have been historically geographically isolated until modern times.

Argue against your own claim to human/ape ancestory if you like.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If Paul had 10,000 descendants, and Joe had 10,000 descendants, there would be no way for their descendants to share the same mutation unless both Paul and Joe came from the same line.

lol...................

Let's say paul has 1 child and that child breeds with a child of joe.
From there, Paul's mutation spreads to the entire population.

All descendends that have this mutation, are now both Paul AND Joe's descendends.

Case closed.

Argue against your own claim to human/ape ancestory if you like.

You mean, your strawman version.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

lol...................

Let's say paul has 1 child and that child breeds with a child of joe.
From there, Paul's mutation spreads to the entire population.

All descendends that have this mutation, are now both Paul AND Joe's descendends.

Case closed.

Case closed indeed, since your example requires we start with just two to get the entire population.

You mean, your strawman version.

No, yours. It’s you who’s own example starts from two. And again, no matter how far back you extend the family trees, they converge into two.

Oh that’s right, in your magic fantasy land we start with how many at the very first??????

 

[tas8831]

And our genes do indicate we had one sole parent (or two).

Evidence?

If we all came from different lines we wouldn’t share the same genes.

There goes your whole hybridization scam! LOL!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evidence?

There goes your whole hybridization scam! LOL!

Oh no, mine is just fine, it’s yours that has the problem. I can easily get to all the variation seen from just two. But there you go again, ignoring all the variation in dogs came from wolves.

And as the Grants have already shown in actual reality, it’s two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation in creating new genetic variance. Only in your tiny world view where mutation is your only tool in the toolbox must you continue to try to sledgehammer that screw in because you lack a screwdriver.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.re..._on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316/amp

“In agreement with expectations from a model of polygenic inheritance, hybrid and backcross classes were generally phenotypically intermediate between the breeding groups that had produced them. Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation.”

Just learn to accept reality and you can put that sledgehammer down and pick up a screwdriver.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Case closed indeed, since your example requires we start with just two to get the entire population.

LOL!!!!!!!!!

Right, right, my example "requires" that Joe and Paul are the only humans in existance.... hahaha, good grief.

No, yours. It’s you who’s own example starts from two.

No. I just took your claim and showed you how it's a false claim.
If you don't understand how lineages in populations work - that's not really my problem.

In reality, humans descend from a population of humans. That population always consisted of at least a couple thousand individuals.

And again, no matter how far back you extend the family trees, they converge into two.

No they don't.
Perhaps they do in the bible, but it wouldn't be the first time that bronze age tales are utterly wrong. And certainly not the last.

Oh that’s right, in your magic fantasy land we start with how many at the very first??????

Populations evolve, not individuals.
Homo Sapiens did not start with a single breeding couple.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What do you mean, according to evolutionists we have a sole first lifeform parent.

Well, more like a Last Universal Common Ancestor, or LUCA - which would've been a population, not an individual...

And our genes do indicate we had one sole parent (or two).

Not sure if you mean mt-MRCA and Y-MRCA - or Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam? If so, then as with the LUCA explanation above, the genetic evidence shows them to be two separate individuals (i.e. didn't live together) and that they were still just individuals within an already diverse population.

If we all came from different lines we wouldn’t share the same genes.

We share quite a lot of genes with not just other humans, but with Neanderthals, and Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans, Simians, Haplorhinis, Primates, Mammals, etc.

Even in your theory in order for a mutation to be passed down to eventually be in the general population, the general population must all be descended from that same one.

Well, that same one would be in their ancestry, yes.
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia

I’m other words if you develop a mutation and pass it down, in order for the entire population to have that mutation your descendants must be the entire population.

It doesn't mean that one ancestor was literally the only ancestor at that point for all those descendants, I'm afraid... Mitochondrial Eve was very much part of a very viable population of humans.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL!!!!!!!!!

Right, right, my example "requires" that Joe and Paul are the only humans in existance.... hahaha, good grief.



No. I just took your claim and showed you how it's a false claim.
If you don't understand how lineages in populations work - that's not really my problem.

That’s just it. I do understand how lineages work. The further back one goes the smaller they get until you finally end up with just two.

Please show me any family tree that begins with more than two? You can’t.

So we trace Joes parents back, and Paul’s parents, and however far back you want to extend it, it ends up in two.

In reality, humans descend from a population of humans. That population always consisted of at least a couple thousand individuals.

Yes, I know in your magic world thousands of humans just popped into existence.

No they don't.
Perhaps they do in the bible, but it wouldn't be the first time that bronze age tales are utterly wrong. And certainly not the last.

You’ve yet to show it to be in error.

Populations evolve, not individuals.
Homo Sapiens did not start with a single breeding couple.

Yes, I know. In your magic world thousands just popped into existence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, more like a Last Universal Common Ancestor, or LUCA - which would've been a population, not an individual...

Not sure if you mean mt-MRCA and Y-MRCA - or Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam? If so, then as with the LUCA explanation above, the genetic evidence shows them to be two separate individuals (i.e. didn't live together) and that they were still just individuals within an already diverse population.

We share quite a lot of genes with not just other humans, but with Neanderthals, and Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans, Simians, Haplorhinis, Primates, Mammals, etc.

Well, that same one would be in their ancestry, yes.
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia

It doesn't mean that one ancestor was literally the only ancestor at that point for all those descendants, I'm afraid... Mitochondrial Eve was very much part of a very viable population of humans.

Yes, I know. In your magic world thousands of humans just popped into existence.

And what LUCA? Every single one is missing on every single tree where you require linkage to anything else. Human or otherwise.

Is this where we go into imagination because you lack every single one that bridges every single imaginary gap?