Challenge for YECs: What are the roles of population and species in evolution?

[xianghua]

Incorrect. Again, you are trying to simplify this down to an "A versus B" scenario, but reality and consequently hypotheses and theories about reality are far more nuanced than that.

and yet you still gave no other possibility rather then creation or evolution.

 

[pitabread]

and yet you still gave no other possibility rather then creation or evolution.

I feel like you are deliberately ignoring the point. "Evolution" for example is not a singular option, given the multitude of variations of it.

 

[KWCrazy]

That evolution takes place is actually a fact: it is demonstrable that each new generation slightly differs from the previous one AND that those differences can and will be inherited by off spring - who in turn adds their own differences etc.

Sorry, not even close.

We observe adaptation; a conservative process by which genetic information is copied or extinguished, but never originated. Evolution is a process of increasing complexity for which there is no mechanism in biology but for the hopeful monsters of "benevolent mutations."

There is nothing known in biology that would be any different if all living beings had the common ancestry of the ark as opposed to the claimed and scientifically impossible original progenitor.

There are NO theories of origination which conform to the laws of physics. Lacking a natural explanation for anything, it is more logical to accept a supernatural explanation than to believe that everything came from nothing without a cause.

 

[pitabread]

We observe adaptation; a conservative process by which genetic information is copied or extinguished, but never originated.

Genetic information is simply a result of the evolutionary process: copying and modification of DNA.

There is nothing known in biology that would be any different if all living beings had the common ancestry of the ark as opposed to the claimed and scientifically impossible original progenitor.

You mean besides everything? If the YECist "Ark" story were true, one would expect to find the same genetic bottleneck among everything on the planet. Not to mention the pattern of biogeography would look completely different and the relative diversity on the planet *a lot* smaller. That is assuming that the survivors of the Ark would be able to subsequently survive which given the complete lack of food sources would render than moot. The entire planet would have gone extinct.

Plus, there shouldn't be any Egyptian civilization. There mere existence of Egypt falsifies the entire flood scenario.

Lacking a natural explanation for anything, it is more logical to accept a supernatural explanation than to believe that everything came from nothing without a cause.

Did lacking an explanation for lightning mean that Thor was the cause?

All you've done is plug "god" into a gap in knowledge. Classic god of the gaps theology. The problem is that as gaps get filled in with knowledge, god gets squeezed out. Theological beliefs dependent on lack of knowledge seem tenuous and fragile.

 

[KWCrazy]

Genetic information is simply a result of the evolutionary process: copying and modification of DNA.

There is no evolutionary process. Evolution is a myth.

You mean besides everything? If the YECist "Ark" story were true, one would expect to find the same genetic bottleneck among everything on the planet.

So your premise is that a supernatural event can only happen if it follows natural expectations?
Can you show me where in the Bible it states that God did not replenish parts of the world by creating new species? It isn't mentioned one way or the other. God doesn't expect us to know how He does everything, only how to serve Him.

Not to mention the pattern of biogeography would look completely different and the relative diversity on the planet *a lot* smaller.

You are referencing the creation as having dominion over the Creator. If God hides something from you, you will never see it. The truth is hidden from the unsaved. The same God who made blind eyes see makes seeing eyes blind. I actually believe that the future will bring greater "evidence" of evolution and will lead millions to their own destruction.

That is assuming that the survivors of the Ark would be able to subsequently survive which given the complete lack of food sources would render than moot.

There would be no lack of food sources. God restored the world. The animals on the ark went forward and multiplied as commanded and in a short time all was well with the world.
It's God's world. He owns it. It functions according to His will.

Plus, there shouldn't be any Egyptian civilization. There mere existence of Egypt falsifies the entire flood scenario.

Not at all. The only question was when did the flood happen.

Did lacking an explanation for lightning mean that Thor was the cause?

Thor never existed. God is real. You could develop a relationship with Him if you wished.

All you've done is plug "god" into a gap in knowledge.

Foolishness. Knowledge of God is the one true knowledge. Man has gaps in his knowledge because he looks to the creation to find the answers, not the Creator. While it may be true that something things like lightning were once attributed to God, the fact remains that God created the Hydraulic Cycle. Maybe He isn't tossing lightning bolts, but He still remains Lord of the rain as well as the sun.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry, not even close.

If you want to argue with the facts, be my guest.
But the facts won't change.

We observe adaptation; a conservative process by which genetic information is copied or extinguished, but never originated. Evolution is a process of increasing complexity for which there is no mechanism in biology but for the hopeful monsters of "benevolent mutations."

There is nothing known in biology that would be any different if all living beings had the common ancestry of the ark as opposed to the claimed and scientifically impossible original progenitor.

Except that in that case, there would have to be a universal genetic bottleneck in ALL species - which does not exist.

Also, in that case, evolution would have to go exponentially faster then what we observe. To the point that there would have to be more then 20 speciation events PER DAY, to end up with all the species that exist today as opposed to the very select handfull of species that supposedly were on the ark a couple thousand years ago.

So essentially, you'ld require a version of evolution on steroids, to explain the current extant diversification of life and how it was accomplished in such an astonishing short time of just a few millenia.

In reality, it took hundreds of millions of years to accomplish this level of diversification.

There are NO theories of origination which conform to the laws of physics. Lacking a natural explanation for anything, it is more logical to accept a supernatural explanation than to believe that everything came from nothing without a cause.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So your premise is that a supernatural event can only happen if it follows natural expectations?

The premise is that events that happen (no matter if they are natural or otherwise), will leave evidence behind, depending on the nature of the event.
In this case, the scale of a worldwide flood is so hugely vast and the after effect (99.99% of ALL LIFE BEING KILLED) so immense, that it WOULD leave evidence behind. And LOTS OF IT.

Looking at the claimed nature of this flood, we can make predictions about what evidence we would have to find today. NONE OF IT exists.

Can you show me where in the Bible it states that God did not replenish parts of the world by creating new species? It isn't mentioned one way or the other. God doesn't expect us to know how He does everything, only how to serve Him.

Can you show me where in the bible it states that God did not create the universe and everything it contains, including our memories of this conversation, 5 seconds ago?

Off course, if you are simply going to allow for "magic" and "unexplaineable miracles", then you can make any claim you want and pretend to be justified in believing it.
You can go ahead and do that, if it allows you to sleep at night. But personally, I don't see the point or merrit....

With such "reasoning", you can literally believe anything your imagination can produce. Including the idea that God created everything 5 seconds ago.

If God hides something from you, you will never see it.

So, God amused himself with shaping the earth in such a way that it looks like it has a history of 4.5 billion years which never was subject to a global flood?
He amused himself with going around the planet and putting fossils in the ground of creatures that never existed? Or he amused himself with building a chronology into the geological (and fossil) record, which doesn't match actual reality?

Why would you believe such things?

There would be no lack of food sources. God restored the world. The animals on the ark went forward and multiplied as commanded and in a short time all was well with the world.

So, how did kangaroo's and koala bears find their way from the middle east all the way to australia and ONLY australia?

It's God's world. He owns it. It functions according to His will.

Yes yes... and when you encounter something that doesn't fit this fantastical story... just invoke magic and pretend it's okay.

Not at all. The only question was when did the flood happen.

And the answer is: never.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Who? can you give me a name?

Jack Szostak, as an example of an acclaimed scientist that has active research in abiogenesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jack Szostak, as an example of an acclaimed scientist that has active research in abiogenesis.

Well, Jack's not going to find anything; or I suspect he would have found it by now.

I like to contrast research into abiogenesis with research into a global flood.

I always get, "A hundred and fifty years ago, they went looking for a global flood; and you know what they found? Nothing!"

Yet, for some reason, they've been searching for the "answer" to abiogenesis for how many decades now?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, Jack's not going to find anything; or I suspect he would have found it by now.

He did in 2013, with protocells with the capacity to replicate forming in one of his abiogenesis experiments. I even posted an entire thread about it a while back.

I like to contrast research into abiogenesis with research into a global flood.

I always get, "A hundred and fifty years ago, they went looking for a global flood; and you know what they found? Nothing!"

It's not that they just found "nothing", but rather, significant signs of flooding on a global scale do not exist. Sediments laid down by floods are distinct from those laid down by other means, and the planet lacks the necessary layer of flood sediments world wide that would have formed in a global flood. Not to mention that life on this planet is too diverse for such a pervasive bottle neck to have occurred.

Yet, for some reason, they've been searching for the "answer" to abiogenesis for how many decades now?

Hmm, I'd say efforts in earnest started in the mid 20th century. So, within your lifetime.

 

[AV1611VET]

He did in 2013, with protocells with the capacity to replicate forming in one of his abiogenesis experiments. I even posted an entire thread about it a while back.

That's like saying he found a log cabin because he found a tree.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's like saying he found a log cabin because he found a tree.

It had a basic metabolism, had genetic material, and reproduced. For all intents and purposes, that's enough for a modern cell to evolve from.

 

[xianghua]

That's like saying he found a log cabin because he found a tree.

this suppose protocell doesnt realy work:

New Szostak protocell is closest approximation to origin of life and Darwinian evolution so far

"A working version of a complete protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting."

and this is even under a lab condition.

 

[AV1611VET]

this suppose protocell doesnt realy work:

Does it have to?

Scientists will claim anything, so long as it goes against what the Bible says, and they can force-fit it into a computer model.

If scientists wait long enough, the Antichrist is going to come and answer all their questions for them and give them a big boost in status.

 

[pitabread]

There is no evolutionary process. Evolution is a myth.

When you've adopted a position that involves blatant denial of demonstrable and observable processes, then I'm not sure what else there is to say. Do you also happen to believe the Earth is flat? Because the philosophical position you clearly are adhering to would not preclude such beliefs.

So your premise is that a supernatural event can only happen if it follows natural expectations?
Can you show me where in the Bible it states that God did not replenish parts of the world by creating new species? It isn't mentioned one way or the other. God doesn't expect us to know how He does everything, only how to serve Him.

The point is that the outcome of a supernatural evidence should (in theory) have demonstrable results. But the other problem is that since supernatural causes are inherently unbounded, then you can just make up whatever you want. As you appear to be doing.

Of course, such positions are neither scientific nor rational, so there isn't anywhere to go from here. It fallls into the same category of Last Thursdayism. You could be arguing in favor of that for all it would matter.

You are referencing the creation as having dominion over the Creator. If God hides something from you, you will never see it. The truth is hidden from the unsaved. The same God who made blind eyes see makes seeing eyes blind. I actually believe that the future will bring greater "evidence" of evolution and will lead millions to their own destruction.

All this suggests is that you believe in an inherently deceptive universe. No different than Last Thursdayism. It's not really a tenable philosophical position, though. You're welcome to it, but there's nowhere for the discussion to go from here.

There would be no lack of food sources. God restored the world. The animals on the ark went forward and multiplied as commanded and in a short time all was well with the world.
It's God's world. He owns it. It functions according to His will.

You can make up whatever you want to believe. They're your beliefs, not mine.

Not at all. The only question was when did the flood happen.

Per YECist timelines, the flood would have taken place during Egypt's 6th Dynasty.

Thor never existed. God is real. You could develop a relationship with Him if you wished.

Foolishness. Knowledge of God is the one true knowledge. Man has gaps in his knowledge because he looks to the creation to find the answers, not the Creator. While it may be true that something things like lightning were once attributed to God, the fact remains that God created the Hydraulic Cycle. Maybe He isn't tossing lightning bolts, but He still remains Lord of the rain as well as the sun.

You're missing the point. What you are advocating is no different from someone ascribing lightning to Thor since they didn't have another explanation. The mindset is exactly the same: plug the supernatural into gaps in human knowledge.

It's just God of the gaps theology with an apparent helping of creationist fan fiction on the side and belief in a deceptive universe. If that's what you want to believe, that's up to you. They aren't my beliefs.

 

[KWCrazy]

When you've adopted a position that involves blatant denial of demonstrable and observable processes,

Evolution has never been demonstrated or observed. What planet are you on?

Do you also happen to believe the Earth is flat?

Can't you come up with foolish comments on your own?
I hear the same from all the evolution pushers.

The point is that the outcome of a supernatural evidence should (in theory) have demonstrable results.

How do you intend on demonstrating the consequence of a supernatural action? God make's an ax head float. You take it out of the water and dry it off. Now how do you prove it was ever there?
This is a Christian website and we accept that God is real. He is the creator of everything that has been created. If you had ever actually read the Bible you would know that there are 333 defined miracles within it's pages. We believe that to be the inspired word of God. That said, there are questions that are not answered within its pages, and speculation about those unanswered questions is perfectly acceptable so long as you don't pretend that speculation is Scriptural.

Of course, such positions are neither scientific nor rational,

Scientific and rational are not synonyms.

All this suggests is that you believe in an inherently deceptive universe.

No, I believe the unsaved are incapable of understanding the universe.

Per YECist timelines, the flood would have taken place during Egypt's 6th Dynasty.

The only accurate timeline in the Scriptures. I'm not a historian.

 

[VirOptimus]

Evolution has never been demonstrated or observed. What planet are you on?

Can't you come up with foolish comments on your own?
I hear the same from all the evolution pushers.

How do you intend on demonstrating the consequence of a supernatural action? God make's an ax head float. You take it out of the water and dry it off. Now how do you prove it was ever there?
This is a Christian website and we accept that God is real. He is the creator of everything that has been created. If you had ever actually read the Bible you would know that there are 333 defined miracles within it's pages. We believe that to be the inspired word of God. That said, there are questions that are not answered within its pages, and speculation about those unanswered questions is perfectly acceptable so long as you don't pretend that speculation is Scriptural.

Scientific and rational are not synonyms.

No, I believe the unsaved are incapable of understanding the universe.

The only accurate timeline in the Scriptures. I'm not a historian.

Not understanding science (ie physical reality) doenst make it untrue. The theory of evolution accurately describes physical reality, this isnt even debateble.

Mixing metaphysics with physics is bad science and bad theology.

 

[KWCrazy]

Not understanding science (ie physical reality) doenst make it untrue.

No offense intended, but your argument is idiotic.
I don't think there is anyone on this board who doesn't understand science.
I don't think there's an evolution proponent who hasn't penned this nonsense.
Learn this; live it; love it.
WE UNDERSTAND YOUR THEORY. WE REJECT IT.
God said He created man in his image. You say man evolved. Only one can be telling the truth, and it isn't you.
Rejecting a theory of origination does not equal rejecting all of science.

 

[Speedwell]

No offense intended, but your argument is idiotic.
I don't think there is anyone on this board who doesn't understand science.
I don't think there's an evolution proponent who hasn't penned this nonsense.
Learn this; live it; love it.
WE UNDERSTAND YOUR THEORY. WE REJECT IT.
God said He created man in his image. You say man evolved. Only one can be telling the truth, and it isn't you.
Rejecting a theory of origination does not equal rejecting all of science.

And rejecting biblical creationism does not equal rejecting God's authorship of our being.

 

[KWCrazy]

And rejecting biblical creationism does not equal rejecting God's authorship of our being.

The Bible doesn't just say that God created us, He told us how He did it.
Jesus told us that we should live by every word of the Scriptures. By what standard do we decide which passages of the Bible to accept and which to reject?