Statements About Evolution

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In a thread that has now closed, I was discussing with @Mark Quayle about evolution.

Specifically, since he had stated that he hadn't studied enough about evolution, he didn't feel that he was in a position to say it was right or wrong, but wanted to hear a convincing argument that evolution was correct before he would accept it.

As such, I proposed that I would make a series of statements about evolution, and Mark would say whether he agreed or disagreed with each statement. We managed to get to two statements that Mark agreed with before the thread was closed. I had presented a third statement, but Mark had not been able to post his reply when then thread was closed.

I sent him a message asking if he wished to continue that specific part of our discussion in a new thread, and he agreed to it, so I have started this thread so our discussion on the different statements about evolution can continue. I would like to keep this thread confined to a discussion about the statements I present and not a general thread about the arguments for and against evolution.

As a refresher, these are the previous statements, and Mark's responses to them:

Kylie said:
I'll make a statement, and you tell me if you agree with it or disagree with it, okay? Once you give me an answer, I'll provide another statement, and we'll go through them one by one.

Statement 1: In a population of animals, each animal is going to have slightly different traits compared to the others. (For example, one animal might have slightly greater stamina, or an immune system that is better at fighting off infection, or poorer eye sight, that kind of thing.)

Do you agree with that?
Original post

Mark Quayle said:
Of course
Original Post

Kylie said:
Okay, so you've agreed that there are variations among the animals in a population.

Now, Statement 2: The different traits that each animal has are determined, at least in part, by genetics. For example, if an individual has slightly better eyesight than average, this is a result of that individual's genes. Likewise, a certain combinations of genes could leave an individual vulnerable to some types of illness.

Do you agree with that?
Original Post

Mark Quayle said:
Of course.
Original Post

These two statements I presented, and Mark agreed with them both. I presented my third statement, but as I said, the thread was closed before Mark could answer. I shall present my third statement again:

You have agreed that in a population of animals, there are variations, and you have agreed that these variations have a genetic basis.

Statement 3: When individual animals in this population reproduce, the genes they have are passed on to their offspring. So, the offspring carries genes from both of its parents.

Do you agree with this?
 

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Not to get in the way here, but the real test of whether something is scientific or not, is whether you can find it in a moment (of significance).

So far we have one claim, that we come from apes and it has never been witnessed again, not sometimes, not often, not irregularly, never.

Neither has anything that has evolved, ever gone back to the Evolution it had (as monkeys and prior, back and back) - that would at least suggest that the finitude of the selection pressure that was once there, caused momentum to stall, once it was found exhausted (or like).

Far from it, life continues to have purpose and meaning, which in scientific circles is the exercise of facts to establish greater and greater peace about one's place in the universe. If everyone is able to have peace, even the fool is free to be a little more imaginative than he otherwise would have been.

As I said, not to interrupt - but preparing people to accept a train of thought as a guiding stricture, needs context, more than it needs anything else and I think I have shown here that evidence we have the right moment in mind, actually hasn't been found. Not that you can't continue without it, but it needs to be said, at least for the fact that you might want to go back and check "where exactly did I get lost?"
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
In a thread that has now closed, I was discussing with @Mark Quayle about evolution.

Specifically, since he had stated that he hadn't studied enough about evolution, he didn't feel that he was in a position to say it was right or wrong, but wanted to hear a convincing argument that evolution was correct before he would accept it.

As such, I proposed that I would make a series of statements about evolution, and Mark would say whether he agreed or disagreed with each statement. We managed to get to two statements that Mark agreed with before the thread was closed. I had presented a third statement, but Mark had not been able to post his reply when then thread was closed.

I sent him a message asking if he wished to continue that specific part of our discussion in a new thread, and he agreed to it, so I have started this thread so our discussion on the different statements about evolution can continue. I would like to keep this thread confined to a discussion about the statements I present and not a general thread about the arguments for and against evolution.

As a refresher, these are the previous statements, and Mark's responses to them:

Original post

Original Post

Original Post

Original Post

These two statements I presented, and Mark agreed with them both. I presented my third statement, but as I said, the thread was closed before Mark could answer. I shall present my third statement again:

You have agreed that in a population of animals, there are variations, and you have agreed that these variations have a genetic basis.

Statement 3: When individual animals in this population reproduce, the genes they have are passed on to their offspring. So, the offspring carries genes from both of its parents.

Do you agree with this?
Statement 3: When individual animals in this population reproduce, the genes they have are passed on to their offspring. So, the offspring carries genes from both of its parents.

Do you agree with this?
No. Not as simply as the general statement you have made here. From what little I understand, some traits pass on, some do not. Beyond that, there are dominant and recessive genes. Further, the theory (as I understand it) works off the notion of mutations being passed on —not simply a generic 'gene'. Also the offspring doesn't carry twice as many genes as either one of the parents. I guess what I'm saying is you need to be more specific how this works.

Edit: I probably should have said, "No, not always". Your statement as presented implies an easy passing on of genes not much different from selective breeding of dogs, for example, but can be taken too easily to also imply natural selection by environment of the successful reproduction of mutated parents to produce offspring with the same mutation. As far as I know, that has not been established with any regularity. Mutations are not the same thing as 'traits' within a species. Dogs are still dogs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Statement 3: When individual animals in this population reproduce, the genes they have are passed on to their offspring. So, the offspring carries genes from both of its parents.

Do you agree with this?

What you haven't said is that if you believe this properly: you will experience the beginning of a longer Evolution, in this life.

I'm not calling you anything, but your approach is deceptive, if not for greater freedom for all.

The chance that Evolution will be exhausted in this lifetime is slim, but by the same token, the reality that you will be more of a target for what you believe is trustworthy is the same reality Christ already faced (believing that would be wise as well).
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No. Not as simply as the general statement you have made here. From what little I understand, some traits pass on, some do not. Beyond that, there are dominant and recessive genes. Further, the theory (as I understand it) works off the notion of mutations being passed on —not simply a generic 'gene'. Also the offspring doesn't carry twice as many genes as either one of the parents. I guess what I'm saying is you need to be more specific how this works.

Edit: I probably should have said, "No, not always". Your statement as presented implies an easy passing on of genes not much different from selective breeding of dogs, for example, but can be taken too easily to also imply natural selection by environment of the successful reproduction of mutated parents to produce offspring with the same mutation. As far as I know, that has not been established with any regularity. Mutations are not the same thing as 'traits' within a species. Dogs are still dogs.

True, there is no guarantee that if a parent has a trait that it WILL be passed to the offspring.

This is somewhat of an oversimplification, but generally speaking, when an animal reproduces, half of the genes it has came from its mother, and half came from its father. And there is a chance that some small mutations will occur. So, an individual can get a gene from it's mother, and that gene may (but probably won't, as the chances of a gene being mutated are very low) have some slight change.

However, the point I am trying to make here is that the traits that the offspring has are almost certainly NOT the result of some random mutation creating a new trait out of nothing. They are almost always the result of the fact that one of the parents had the same trait and the genes responsible for that trait were passed to the offspring.

Would you agree with that? Don't worry about the issue of mutations for the moment, I'll be addressing that shortly.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
True, there is no guarantee that if a parent has a trait that it WILL be passed to the offspring.

Because it is passed on as part strength, part instinct, which the younger generation has to make meaning of, through life experience.

This is somewhat of an oversimplification, but generally speaking, when an animal reproduces, half of the genes it has came from its mother, and half came from its father. And there is a chance that some small mutations will occur. So, an individual can get a gene from it's mother, and that gene may (but probably won't, as the chances of a gene being mutated are very low) have some slight change.

As depends entirely on which strengths or instincts the child decides to exercise, give or take what life experience he can hold onto.

However, the point I am trying to make here is that the traits that the offspring has are almost certainly NOT the result of some random mutation creating a new trait out of nothing. They are almost always the result of the fact that one of the parents had the same trait and the genes responsible for that trait were passed to the offspring.

Not to forget that Evolutionists believe they can have it both ways, traits out of nothing or perfect legacies from parents and no mention of the struggle of life or the anticipation of what is to come.

Would you agree with that? Don't worry about the issue of mutations for the moment, I'll be addressing that shortly.

If you have to convince by degrees, you are playing the fool, for less of a fool, than fools will always be.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
True, there is no guarantee that if a parent has a trait that it WILL be passed to the offspring.

This is somewhat of an oversimplification, but generally speaking, when an animal reproduces, half of the genes it has came from its mother, and half came from its father. And there is a chance that some small mutations will occur. So, an individual can get a gene from it's mother, and that gene may (but probably won't, as the chances of a gene being mutated are very low) have some slight change.

However, the point I am trying to make here is that the traits that the offspring has are almost certainly NOT the result of some random mutation creating a new trait out of nothing. They are almost always the result of the fact that one of the parents had the same trait and the genes responsible for that trait were passed to the offspring.

Would you agree with that? Don't worry about the issue of mutations for the moment, I'll be addressing that shortly.
However, the point I am trying to make here is that the traits that the offspring has are almost certainly NOT the result of some random mutation creating a new trait out of nothing. They are almost always the result of the fact that one of the parents had the same trait and the genes responsible for that trait were passed to the offspring.

Would you agree with that?

From what little I know, yes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not to get in the way here, but the real test of whether something is scientific or not, is whether you can find it in a moment (of significance).

A hypothesis or theory is scientific when it comes from the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology (scientific method) based on evidence.

So far we have one claim, that we come from apes and it has never been witnessed again, not sometimes, not often, not irregularly, never.
Something that needs millions of years to take place can not be witnessed. There is plenty of evidence from fossils, proteins and genetic studies that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor millions of years ago. There is even have a fossil that reveals what last common ancestor of humans and apes looked liked.

ED044103-D436-4DC3-917A6F28500D9A24_source.jpg

Let us know when creationists have scientific evidence for common design.

Neither has anything that has evolved, ever gone back to the Evolution it had (as monkeys and prior, back and back) - that would at least suggest that the finitude of the selection pressure that was once there, caused momentum to stall, once it was found exhausted (or like).
Let us know how to produce 5-6 millions of years of mutations, selection pressures and other conditions that can reverse humans and apes back to there common ancestors. Even if you can there will be no witnesses.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you not capable of looking it up?
At least I thought of it.

I rest my case.

If you don't believe in common design, and you live in a universe that's at least 94 billion light years wide, made of just over a hundred different elements, then ... well ... you're entitled to your opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
At least I thought of it.

I rest my case.

If you don't believe in common design, and you live in a universe that's at least 94 billion light years wide, made of just over a hundred different elements, then ... well ... you're entitled to your opinion.
Your argument is based solely on the YEC misunderstanding of probabilities. There was a recent discussion on Panda's Thumb on Jason Rosenhouse's book "The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your argument is based solely on the YEC misunderstanding of probabilities.
Probabilities have nothing to do with it.

Just a few elements were created, then those elements were mixed and matched to configure this entire universe which, as I said before, is at least 94 billion light years wide.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Probabilities have nothing to do with it.

Just a few elements were created, then those elements were mixed and matched to configure this entire universe which, as I said before, is at least 94 billion light years wide.
You are still regurgitating YEC misunderstanding of probabilities. The probability of the universe being what it is is 1. The probability of another universe is 1/∞
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You are still regurgitating YEC misunderstanding of probabilities.
And you are still regurgitating SCIENTIFIC misunderstanding of divine design.

God made Adam & Eve from the dust of the ground in an instant.

They didn't come from daisy-chaining DNA from the ocean over millions of years.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums