29+ evidences for macroevolution: the scientific case for common descent

[pitabread]

I keep seeing creationists claiming there is no evidence for evolution. I wonder how many of them have ignored this comprehensive TalkOrigins article: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[AV1611VET]

I keep seeing creationists claiming there is no evidence for evolution. I wonder how many of them have ignored this comprehensive TalkOrigins article: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I wonder how many evolutionists have ignored this:

- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -

 

[pitabread]

I wonder how many evolutionists have ignored this:

- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -

That was responded to by the original author and the original TalkOrigins article was updated as a result: A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"

It's also worth pointing out that having read some of their critique (particularly the parts to do with genetics), they don't make a particularly convincing counter-argument.

For example, in the parts related to molecular biology (i.e. genetics) they resort to the usual argument of claiming that things like pseudo-genes, ERVs, are in fact functional. But then they also leave them self an "out" by claiming that maybe God just put non-functional regions in genomes at the same locus for reasons unknown. The latter which only confirms that life has the appearance of biological evolution.

At another point, they write this in regards to cytochrome c:

But even if there were no unknown design constraints on the gene for cytochrome c, how could one be sure that God would not conserve codon sequences when creating cytochrome c gene in separate species? After creating the cytochrome c gene in the first organism, it certainly is conceivable that he would make changes to that blueprint only when necessary for his purpose. In other words, the default in this instance may be similarity rather than dissimilarity. Again, there is no basis for demanding that God introduce novelty for novelty’s sake.

From that perspective, it is the differences in the cytochrome c gene that need to be explained, not the similarities. One creationist explanation for those differences is that various cytochrome c genes were created differently for functional reasons and then diverged further as a result of mutations (whereas the evolutionist attributes the differences entirely to mutation.)

and,

And even if the pattern of similarities in cytochrome c genes could not be attributed to functionally related differences in the original genes of various groups of organisms, there could be other divine reasons for the pattern. If, for example, ReMine is correct that nested hierarchy is a crucial aspect of the Creator’s biotic message, then one would expect that nesting to be expressed at the biochemical as well as the morphological level.

What is interesting to me about this is I've actually created phylogenetic trees based on the cytochrome c sequence from various animals. And in doing so, the results fell essentially in line with accepted evolutionary relationships between taxa.

The author is essentially arguing that this would all be illusionary and merely a coincidence if this was a result of independent design. But it again calls into question why God would go out of their way to make life with the appearance and constraints associated with biological evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it again calls into question why God would go out of their way to make life with the appearance and constraints associated with biological evolution.

Maybe "they" [sic] should have checked with higher academia first, eh?

 

[mark kennedy]

I keep seeing creationists claiming there is no evidence for evolution. I wonder how many of them have ignored this comprehensive TalkOrigins article: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I know it well, Talk Origins contrived this years ago and it never stands up to close scrutiny.

 

[pitabread]

I know it well, Talk Origins contrived this years ago and it never stands up to close scrutiny.

In what way?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I keep seeing creationists claiming there is no evidence for evolution. I wonder how many of them have ignored this comprehensive TalkOrigins article: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This article starts off: "Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences". This is NOT a true statement at all. In fact Evolution does just the opposite and it is designed to cause division. As Darwin was quick to point out, even if you agree on evolution the mechanism is still not understood. So there is constant dispute on just what the mechanism is.

God has a plan and a purpose in this as Paul says: "they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." God makes it clear who is and who is not approved by God.

 

[pitabread]

This article starts off: "Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences". This is NOT a true statement at all. In fact Evolution does just the opposite and it is designed to cause division. As Darwin was quick to point out, even if you agree on evolution the mechanism is still not understood. So there is constant dispute on just what the mechanism is.

You appear to confuse debate around mechanisms versus debate on whether or not evolution occurs in the first place. There may be debate around the former (i.e. the how evolution occurs), but there is not debate around that it does occur nor that life shares common ancestry.

Also Darwin has been dead for over 100 years.

 

[xianghua]

I keep seeing creationists claiming there is no evidence for evolution. I wonder how many of them have ignored this comprehensive TalkOrigins article: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

lets start from the beginning. choose your favorite evidence and we will discuss about it. if this suppose evidence will not hold water then the rest should be meaningless too.

 

[pitabread]

if this suppose evidence will not hold water then the rest should be meaningless too.

That's not how it works. Even if a particular line of evidence didn't hold up, that doesn't automatically invalidate everything else.

Nice try, though.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You appear to confuse debate around mechanisms versus debate on whether or not evolution occurs in the first place.

I do not know of anyone that denies evolution takes place. The question is: What is evolution and the definition changes for that constantly. Sort of like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. If you do not like what is on the menu today stop back tomorrow for a whole new selection.

The big question has to do with macro vs micro. For me the big question has to do with random vs predetermined. Also the huge weakness in evolutionary theory is they do not take the fallen condition of mankind into consideration and God's plan to restore all of creation to His plan and purpose.

 

[pitabread]

I do not know of anyone that denies evolution takes place.

Creationists do. Or at the very least, they deny that life shares ancestry as a result of evolutionary processes.

What is evolution and the definition changes for that constantly.

That's not true at all.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Even if a particular line of evidence didn't hold up

There are lots and lots of hypothesis and seldom are they able to verify them. In Darwin's case he was working with a hypothesis that has been around sense aristotle. He just wanted to develop it enough to sell a book and support his family. He was happy that it all caught on as much as it did.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Creationists do. Or at the very least, they deny that life shares ancestry as a result of evolutionary processes.

Frances Collins does a nice job to reconcile the differences between Evolution and Creation. I just do not know of anyone that disagrees with basic 101 evolution. Creationists may object to the more advanced stuff but not as much and to the degree that evolutionists disagree with each other. The real issue is to get two evolutionists to agree on just what evolution really is.

 

[pitabread]

Frances Collins does a nice job to reconcile the differences between Evolution and Creation.

Francis Collins is not what I would consider a "creationist".

The real issue is to get two evolutionists to agree on just what evolution really is.

I have never seen this to be an issue. You won't find evolutionary biologists debating over the basics of biological evolution. At least not to the extent that creationists argue about it and/or reject it.

Heck, there's far more variation in views of creationism than there are about evolution. Some creationists can't even agree on how old the Earth is (i.e. YECs vs OECs).

 

[joshua 1 9]

Francis Collins is not what I would consider a "creationist".

Theistic evolution is just as valid Creationism as anything else. People insist that the Bible tells us why God does what He does and Science tells us HOW God does what HE does.

I have never seen this to be an issue. You won't find evolutionary biologists debating over the basics of biological evolution. At least not to the extent that creationists argue about it and/or reject it.

They do, they just do not make as big of a deal about it as they do when they argue with creationists. Quote a few Evolutionists disagree with Dawkins selfish gene approach. Still they are more interested in selling their books than making an issue out of their different paradigms.

Heck, there's far more variation in views of creationism than there are about evolution. Some creationists can't even agree on how old the Earth is (i.e. YECs vs OECs).

All of the various creation theories have their own perspective or relativity. In fact Gerald Schroeder's OEC is pretty much based on Einstein's theory of relativity.

No doubt Creationism has been refined by the new evidence that modern science is able to produce - both natural and artifacts. I tend to be a dispensationalist but I have no problem with a literal approach. It does not matter how many hundreds of million of years it takes God to do something. There is still an exact precise moment in time and a place where God is finished with His work and that is a time and a place we can meet him. Jesus entered into the world at an exact time and place. He died on the cross and said: "It is finished". All you need for something to be literal is an exact time and place. Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden in an exact time and place. All the people that descended from them: Abraham, Moses, Noah, David, Jesus: they all lived in an exact moment of time in a exact location. That makes them literal and real people. If people understand their story or not

Science is the champion at producing artificial counterfeit products. So you will have to excuse if I am skeptical when they try to tell me something is real or healthy when someone else with all the same degrees tells me just the opposite.

 

[xianghua]

That's not how it works. Even if a particular line of evidence didn't hold up, that doesn't automatically invalidate everything else.
.

so you basically agree that any evidence by itself is meaningless?

 

[pitabread]

Theistic evolution is just as valid Creationism as anything else

Theistic evolution is not creationism. If you're going to use private definitions of the the term "creationism" that aren't in common usage with everyone else here, then communication is going to be a problem.

They do, they just do not make as big of a deal about it as they do when they argue with creationists. Quote a few Evolutionists disagree with Dawkins selfish gene approach. Still they are more interested in selling their books than making an issue out of their different paradigms.

Again, arguing about the mechanisms behind evolutionary change is not the same thing as disagreeing with biological evolution outright.

No doubt Creationism has been refined by the new evidence that modern science is able to produce

No it hasn't. If we're traditional, young-Earth creationism with its blatant rejection of everything scientific that conflicts with its views, it hasn't been refined at all. It merely has a bigger pool of science to reject.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Theistic evolution is not creationism.

Does that ruin your game to call theistic evolution creationism? It does not matter - theistic evolution is still theism as compared to anti theistic evolution like Dawkins. Right now Francis Collins the leading expert on DNA is also the leading spokesman for theistic evolution and he goes along with a lot of evolution stuff that I would not go along with.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No it hasn't. If we're traditional, young-Earth creationism with its blatant rejection of everything scientific that conflicts with its views, it hasn't been refined at all. It merely has a bigger pool of science to reject.

Again you are shot down again by Francis Collins when he makes statements like: "God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation. He is not threatened by our scientific adventures."
Read more at 'God Is Not Threatened by Our Scientific Adventures'

You are also shot down by Bishop Ussher's book written over 500 years ago. Because there is nothing in his book that conflicts with science. You can not get anymore YEC than Ussher. The simple fact is that YEC deals exclusively with the last 6,000 years and they have nothing to say about what happens before we find Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden around 6,000 years ago. They are literal people that we meet at a time and a place the same way you have a meeting with anyone. If we do not have a time and a place then we would have a candidate for a metaphor. In this case we have an exact time and a exact place we can go there and see that Adam and Eve were real people that were the patriarch for people like Abraham, Moses, Noah, David and Christ.