Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[Ophiolite]

I know many people who claim to be Christian, but you would not be able to see it at all in their lives

This single sentence told me all I needed to know about you and to conclude that reading any further sentences from you would be pointless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah why is it that whenever we discuss evolution some people have to go back to the accusation that we’re all atheists?

It's a common mistake I can understand people making.

I’m Catholic and it’s acceptable for a Catholic to believe in it and I do.

Jesus is a creationist.

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This single sentence told me all I needed to know about you and to conclude that reading any further sentences from you would be pointless.

Oh wow, I missed that one.

I know that he's technically speaking about people outside of the forum but still:
"Calling anyone's faith, belief in the Bible or walk with Christ into question because they hold a different view is not allowed."

 

[Valletta]

No, you are correct that there is no official position on the matter. But when the last Pope, Francis, says "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation" then... that kind of reads like an acceptance of evolution as scientific fact.

The pope was no scientist, and as a Catholic I disagreed with many of his ideas. But as to that particular statement I personally would agree, although there are weaknesses in the overall of Theory of Evolution. The approach of the Catholic Church has been to accept various scientific theories as theories, not stating whether the theories are true or not. Many Catholic theories were ridiculed by the world, Catholic Copernicus proposed that the planets revolve around the sun and dedicated his theory to the pope. It was accepted as a theory by the Catholic Church, but not ruled upon as being true or false. Likewise a Catholic priest introduced a theory which was so ridiculed it was jokingly call the "Big Bang," it went against the idea of a static universe taught by Albert Einstein. It did eventually become accepted as a THEORY compatible with the creation narrative, not ruled upon as being true or false.

 

[AV1611VET]

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive,

Show how you meld the two.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The pope was no scientist, and as a Catholic I disagreed with many of his ideas. But as to that particular statement I personally would agree, although there are weaknesses in the overall of Theory of Evolution. The approach of the Catholic Church has been to accept various scientific theories as theories, not stating whether the theories are true or not. Many Catholic theories were ridiculed by the world, Catholic Copernicus proposed that the planets revolve around the sun and dedicated his theory to the pope. It was accepted as a theory by the Catholic Church, but not ruled upon as being true or false. Likewise a Catholic priest introduced a theory which was so ridiculed it was jokingly call the "Big Bang," it went against the idea of a static universe taught by Albert Einstein. It did eventually become accepted as a THEORY compatible with the creation narrative, not ruled upon as being true or false.

Well, theories are considered true or false in science either. True and false are philosophical concepts and claims, not scientific ones. Science only deals in evidence and facts.

But let's skip back a bit. You make the claim "although there are weaknesses in the overall of Theory of Evolution." Care to elaborate on that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Show how you meld the two.

Okay, I misspoke since you can't really meld science and religion, unless you want to create the Adeptus Mechanicus from Warhammer 40,000 were science and religion do get melded together to form something... quite abominable.

But they can exist together quite easily.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you are correct that there is no official position on the matter. But when the last Pope, Francis, says "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation" then... that kind of reads like an acceptance of evolution as scientific fact.

"Notion of creation"???

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, I misspoke since you can't really meld science and religion, unless you want to create the Adeptus Mechanicus from Warhammer 40,000 were science and religion do get melded together to form something... quite abominable.

But they can exist together quite easily.

Indeed they can:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

( You saw this coming, didn't you? )

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Indeed they can:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

( You saw this coming, didn't you? )

Not really, no. Especially since you exclude science at any chance you can, Mr. 'SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE'. Not exactly 'existing together quite easily'.

 

[River Jordan]

Not at all. I’m aware that both are said to have evolved from a common ancestor. My point is simply that the functional genetic differences, whatever their origin, must be significant enough to explain the vast gap between humans and chimps in anatomy, cognition, and behaviour. That’s a high bar for random mutations to clear.

Yes, I’m aware of CNVs (copy number variations) and other large-scale mutations. But the concern isn’t just the quantity of changes, it’s about the functionality of those changes. Even if thousands of base pairs change at once, how many of them are beneficial, coordinated, and preserved without disrupting existing systems? It's not just about generating variation, but producing integrated, functional innovation.

I'm not assuming all mutations must be beneficial, only that the key functional differences driving major anatomical and cognitive changes would need to be. Differences in neutral regions like microsatellites or retrotransposons don’t explain the development of complex traits. The real challenge is whether enough functional changes can arise, become fixed, and coordinate to produce the profound differences we see.

If every single base pair difference between the LCA between humans and chimps doesn't require its own separate mutation and doesn't have to confer a benefit, and if large numbers of base pair differences can arise via single mutation events (indels for example) then the argument presented in the video in the OP is wrong. It's just that simple. That's not surprising though since E. Hovind isn't a scientist, let alone a geneticist, which is likely why he makes such fundamental mistakes.

The questions you ask are good questions, but in no way constitute "destroying evolution".

 

[NxNW]

The pope was no scientist, and as a Catholic I disagreed with many of his ideas. But as to that particular statement I personally would agree, although there are weaknesses in the overall of Theory of Evolution. The approach of the Catholic Church has been to accept various scientific theories as theories, not stating whether the theories are true or not.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed with overwhelming evidence. By referring to it as a theory, the Church is confirming that it's true. You seem to be confusing theory with hypothesis.

 

[sjastro]

I note in this thread the use of the term “creationist scientist” which is an oxymoron as creationist scientists are not scientists as they do not employ the scientific method as illustrated.

Furthermore since evolution began around 3.8 - 4 billion years ago other sciences such as geology show the Earth is older than 4 billion years or palaeontology finding evidence of transitional fossils or the discovery of stromatolite fossils in layers dated around 3.5 - 3.7 billion years old.
Then there is the physics involved in the dating process and how different radiometric dating methods are used to confirm measurements.

Not only does the so called creationist scientist reject evolution for creationism but also the application of other sciences which support evolution both directly and indirectly which are extended in the following table.

Supportive Science Field	Contribution to Evolution
Genetics	Explains heredity, mutation, recombination, and how genetic variation arises and is passed on.
Molecular Biology	Reveals conserved DNA, RNA, and protein sequences across species, supporting common descent.
Biochemistry	Shows evolutionary conservation of metabolic pathways and biomolecules like ATP, hemoglobin, and cytochrome c.
Comparative Genomics	Compares whole genomes across organisms to trace evolutionary relationships and shared ancestry.
Population Genetics	Uses mathematical models to study allele frequency changes due to selection, drift, mutation, and gene flow.
Evolutionary Biology	Integrates data from molecular, genetic, and ecological sources to model and explain evolutionary mechanisms.
Geology	Provides fossil dating (radiometric methods), stratigraphy, and Earth's history essential for placing evolutionary events in time.
Paleontology	Supplies fossil evidence of transitional forms, extinction events, and lineage divergence.
Developmental Biology	Shows how changes in gene regulation during development lead to evolutionary changes in body plans.
Comparative Anatomy	Examines homologous structures (e.g., limbs, skulls) that support descent with modification.
Physics	Indirectly contributes via radiometric dating methods (e.g., uranium-lead, carbon-14) and modeling biological systems.
Chemistry	Explains molecular interactions, mutation mechanisms, and the chemical origin of life (abiogenesis).
Mathematical Biology	Uses equations and models to describe evolutionary processes quantitatively (e.g., Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, selection coefficients).
Bioinformatics	Analyzes massive biological datasets (e.g., DNA sequences, protein structures) to infer evolutionary relationships.

The same sciences also effectively contradict creationism.

Supportive Science Field	Contradiction to Creationism
Genetics	Demonstrates shared genetic material and endogenous retroviruses across species, inconsistent with separate creation; observed mutation and speciation events show gradual change.
Molecular Biology	Shows deep homology in genetic sequences and proteins (e.g., cytochrome c, Hox genes) across vastly different organisms, contradicting claims of independent creation.
Biochemistry	Reveals conserved molecular pathways (e.g., ATP synthesis) across life, suggesting common ancestry rather than unrelated creation events.
Comparative Genomics	Identifies shared non-functional DNA (e.g., pseudogenes) between humans and other primates, which has no purpose in a “designed” model but makes sense via evolution.
Population Genetics	Demonstrates the mathematical impossibility of a single human pair origin (e.g., Adam and Eve) within the last few thousand years.
Evolutionary Biology	Observes speciation, adaptation, and natural selection in real-time (e.g., Darwin’s finches, bacteria resistance), which creationism denies as significant drivers of biodiversity.
Geology	Shows the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old through radiometric dating and layered rock strata, contradicting the 6,000–10,000 year age posited by YEC.
Paleontology	Provides a rich fossil record with transitional forms (e.g., Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, hominin species) absent in creationist models of sudden appearance.
Developmental Biology	Reveals conserved embryonic stages and gene expression patterns, inconsistent with independent design of species.
Comparative Anatomy	Homologous structures (e.g., vertebrate limb bones) show modified reuse of the same blueprint, which contradicts the notion of unrelated, optimal creation.
Physics	Radiometric decay rates and thermodynamic evidence refute a young Earth and indicate an ancient universe, contrary to creationist cosmologies.
Chemistry	Demonstrates natural pathways for the formation of biological molecules (e.g., amino acids, nucleotides), undermining the claim that life cannot arise naturally.
Mathematical Biology	Models evolutionary processes that match observed patterns in nature, while creationist models lack predictive power and are not mathematically coherent.
Bioinformatics	Detects statistical signals of shared ancestry in large genetic datasets—patterns incompatible with separate creation or intelligent design models.

 

[Valletta]

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed with overwhelming evidence. By referring to it as a theory, the Church is confirming that it's true. You seem to be confusing theory with hypothesis.

"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Google Search

A theory has evidence to back it up, but it is not a fact. A "supposition," as is used in the definition, is similar to a hypothesis.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Google Search

And the example given underneath that definition is Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

[FaithT]

The Catholic Church does not accept evolution as scientific fact.

The Catholic Church let’s each of us decide for ourselves if evolution is real or not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
​

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are many scientists who are Christians and accept evolution. But it's also true that there are highly qualified scientists who are Christians and reject evolution, holding instead to a six-day creation. The difference isn't always about the data itself, but the worldview through which that data is interpreted.

And this is not the place for debating those worldview things. Defend creation scientifically as you mostly have.

Both sides, evolutionary and creationist, start with different assumptions. Evolutionary scientists often interpret evidence through a naturalistic lens, while creationist scientists interpret it through a biblical framework. So, the debate isn't just about actual science; it's about the foundational worldview each person brings to the evidence.

Most of these scientists who are creationists are not in biology, but are working in field where their ideology doesn't interfere with their capacity to do good science.

You're right that interpretation has varied throughout history, sometimes with serious consequences. But differing interpretations don't mean all interpretations are equally valid. The goal is to interpret Scripture faithfully and consistently, using context, genre, and the original languages. It’s not about claiming personal authority, but about seeking truth with humility.

But it is about whether you believe the word of God or not.

I’m not denying divine sovereignty over natural processes. But if life requires intelligent input even in the lab, it challenges the idea that unguided, mindless processes can do the same unaided. The issue isn’t about ruling out divine causality, it’s about whether the evidence supports that life can arise without it.

I really don't care about worldviews, or especially, theology.

 

[sfs]

The 30 million figure refers to estimated genetic differences, not necessarily all functional.

Uh, do you recall who it was who wrote, 'we supposedly need 30 million meaningful genetic changes'? In the context of the argument you're presenting, it's only functional differences that matter, so why would you be introducing any other kind of changes?

But the real question is: how many of those differences had to be functional to account for the profound anatomical, cognitive, and behavioural differences between humans and chimps?

Well, yes, that would have been a good question to have started with. Your argument kind of depends on the answer to it. But let's take a wild guess at it. There are ~20,000 genes in our genome. Most of them do exactly the same thing in humans and chimpanzees. So let's guess that 10% of them differ in meaningful ways between humans and chimps. If there were 5 functional mutations per gene just in the human lineage, that would be 10,000 differences, which is 5% of the (generous) limit you offered before. So what exactly is supposed to be the problem here?

Even if it's just a few thousand, that still presents a serious challenge for the time and mechanisms available, given the limits of mutation and selection.

That's an assertion, one that is contradicted by the numbers that you've already posted in this thread.

You cited a 2024 Genetics paper suggesting that Haldane’s Dilemma isn’t a major constraint in most species. But even that paper admits the cost of selection can be significant, especially in slowly reproducing organisms like humans. While sex and recombination help, there are still real biological limits. Dismissing these concerns doesn’t make them go away, it just avoids the hard questions about whether unguided processes are enough to explain the changes we see.

To summarize: you've gone from "destroying evolution in less than five minutes" to "maybe there's a conflict between a very poorly understood limit on the number of beneficial mutations that could have fixed and the even more poorly understood number of beneficial mutations that actually did fix, although at present there is precisely zero reason to think there is." Admittedly, that is a difficult argument to refute, since it doesn't actually end up saying anything.

There are many scientists who are Christians and accept evolution. But it's also true that there are highly qualified scientists who are Christians and reject evolution, holding instead to a six-day creation.

More accurately, there are many, many highly qualified Christian scientists who accept evolution and a handful who are YECs.

 

[AV1611VET]

I note in this thread the use of the term “creationist scientist” which is an oxymoron ...

To this we agree.

"Creation Scientist" is a contradiction in terms.