Creation by natural processes is just a theory

[paulm50]

There is strong evidence from genetics that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

If humans were created separately from all the other species on the face of the Earth, then they would have needed to be created complete with a faulty gene, which prevents them from synthesising their own vitamin C.

The evidence is also in bones and DNA. We mated with Neanderthals. Our DNA link with chimps is something like 99%.

The bones discovered are illustrating the Hominid tree, from the time our early ancestors came down from the trees to walk upright, but maintained the ability to grasp tree limbs with their feet. Probably to escape predators.

There's nothing circumstantial about it, evolution can't work like that. It rests on the ability of the young to grow to the age of maturity to reproduce and pass their genes on. Which is why in hard times, climate change, the young die quickest and the new generation become scarce and then extinct. Even in good times, the strongest in the litter grow up to reproduce and pass their genes on. This has updated Darwin's theory.

 

[paulm50]

You do not know, and I do not know, what sources the biblical writers had available to them. That information is simply not recoverable.

No the evidence is there, it's in the stories of events happening before the invention of writing. Most biblical scholars put it down to oral stories.

Of course if the evidence isn't recoverable, it wasn't written down was it?

But if you have evidence the Earth was created after we learned to write. I'm more than willing to change my mind. Scientists are evidence led. They don't even believe what the previous generation believed, which is why they're continually testing, searching and discovering new evidence.

 

[paulm50]

The problem for Creationists is the mindset and ambitions of all scientists.

They dream of making a new discovery that can't be disproven. Being the next Einstein, Hawkings. Darwin is their wet dream. For one of them to slam dunk evolution with real evidence of god made creation. Would make them the number one scientist of all time. Putting Newton, Galileo and the rest to shame.

The problem is there's no evidence to find and all the evidence point in the opposite direction.

List of creation myths.

10 Creation Myths As Strange As The Bible

Not even similar enough to have a common origin.

 

[lesliedellow]

No the evidence is there, it's in the stories of events happening before the invention of writing. Most biblical scholars put it down to oral stories.

How exactly does the fact that Genesis 1 refers to some premordial time, imply that the biblical writers couldn't have had some version of it available to them in written form? Even more to the point, given that maybe 80% of the OT addresses itself to events within recorded history, how is it that the biblical writers couldn't have had written materials available to them. Even more to the point, when, like Jeremiah, they were living through the evenys they were writing about, how is the question even relevant?

But if you have evidence the Earth was created after we learned to write. I'm more than willing to change my mind.

Methinks you are making an unwarranted assumption.

Scientists are evidence led. They don't even believe what the previous generation believed, which is why they're continually testing, searching and discovering new evidence.

Really? So Maxwell didn't believe a word Newton had said? That could have got him into quite some difficulties. Coulomb as well for that matter.

 

[lesliedellow]

The problem for Creationists is the mindset and ambitions of all scientists.

There goes your unwarranted assumption again.

 

[SamuelTP1977]

The known dangers of cigarette smoking and what is known about creation:

We know cigarettes are dangerous because of the numerous experiments that have been done. The results time and time again can be repeated and clearly shown to be dangerous.

We can't do that with creation, we do not have quadrillions of gallons of chemicals, nor do we have billions of years of time to see if life can come crawling out of the stars like science teaches. Unfortunately when it comes to a lot of these scientific theories they really don't know. That doesn't mean they give up and say we will never know but instead they keep trying to figure it out. Trust me science will never have all the answers it is just way too mysterious.

By the way if the universe is 14 billion years old, what is so strange about saying it is 5 minutes old? Either way it doesn't sound like it has been around forever, and has a beginning and probably an end to it too.

 

[lesliedellow]

By the way if the universe is 14 billion years old, what is so strange about saying it is 5 minutes old? Either way it doesn't sound like it has been around forever, and has a beginning and probably an end to it too.

There is nothing to suggest the former is true, but there is evidence to suggest the latter is true.

 

[variant]

Yes but that's still just circumstantial, there are plenty of circumstantial cases where gradual evolution cannot possibly explain the complexity of the end result as they only work as a complete set of parts so individual bits evolving would serve no purpose.

Not saying it is wrong, just that it has nowhere near the evidence of other scientific theories like relativity or the big bang which are for all intents and purposes, scientific fact.

It really isn't the genetic code itself has insertions by viruses shared by both species.

The only explanation for that circumstance is that they share common ancestry.

 

[variant]

Indeed one must bar contrary indications or interpretations to make it seem to be the explanation. I agree...! However doing so does not make the resulting conclusion correct. Homological reasoning was meant to be a system of taxonomic classification not evidence of one genomic family becoming an entirely different genomic family. Homology like Freudian Character types, or Astrological signs, is merely one way of grouping but not true. Is the act of "barring" alternative insights, interpretations, or contrary data, actually good science? When scientists today fudge data or discard indications that oppose their preconceived conclusions is this really being objective with the facts? Can the conclusions cast upon us based on these invalid derivations be counted on as true? Really, be honest.

If your argument is based upon the assertion "scientists are fudging their data to make evolution appear true" then we don't have anything to discuss.

Those unwilling or unable to see the mountain of evidence for common decent aren't worth my time.

Start here, come back to me when you're tired of being wrong.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=evidence+for+common+decent

 

[paulm50]

How exactly does the fact that Genesis 1 refers to some premordial time, imply that the biblical writers couldn't have had some version of it available to them in written form? Even more to the point, given that maybe 80% of the OT addresses itself to events within recorded history, how is it that the biblical writers couldn't have had written materials available to them. Even more to the point, when, like Jeremiah, they were living through the evenys they were writing about, how is the question even relevant?

I see your point now, the bible writers in Babylon had am earlier written version of the the oral stories. Yes very likely.

Yes much of the bible is from a time of recorded history. So how much of that historian recorded history, refer to bible characters?

A cataclysmic event like Moses and the Red Sea. Gets no mention from an Empire obsessed with keeping records. They do record various plagues ate various time, they put it down to their gods. Christians and Jews put it down their god. Explaining natural events as "Acts of gods" is common. We no longer do it, we have learned why things happen.

If your argument is based upon the assertion "scientists are fudging their data to make evolution appear true" then we don't have anything to discuss.

Those unwilling or unable to see the mountain of evidence for common decent aren't worth my time.

Start here, come back to me when you're tired of being wrong.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=evidence+for+common+decent

Those that only have straws to clutch, must reach for them.

Some of the arguments against evolution are extreme. Many of them show how little the poster knows how Googgle can be used. Before posting nonsense.

 

[paulm50]

Research how evolution is happening today. How it has changed humans in the last few 1,000 years. How it changes so many species today. Evolution is happening, it can't be denied. Maybe a god kicked off the big bang, started the first cell, gave an ape a bigger, better brain. We're on the verge of being able to do that now. We can manipulate evolution and have done unknowingly.

Evolution isn't a theory when scientists can create designer babies of many species, when our pets and food are designed. It's a profession.

 

[pshun2404]

I never made that "assertion" Variant, as an end all generalization, but the fact is (the fact) some are...

Those unwilling or unable to see the mountain of evidence for common decent aren't worth my time.

So be it (door to reasoning slammed tightly shut)! Similarity in design does not equal common descent. One section of our genome (about 50 genes) are shared in common with hummingbirds that are not shared with other birds nor with other primates. Another section governing vocalization is shared with Parrots and other vocalizing birds not shared with non-vocalizing birds or with apes. We also have a large sequence we share in common with pigs, and yet another with bananas. So what....that does not prove common descent it just proves we have genes in common with other living forms. Do you realize the mounting evidence against the Tree of Life fiction? There is much. Times are a changin...

Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, says "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

Dr John Dupré, philosopher of biology at Exeter University, said: "If there is a tree of life it's a small irregular structure growing out of the web of life…Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches…it's part of a revolutionary change in biology. Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure. We're clearly going to see evolution as much more about mergers and collaboration than change within isolated lineages."

Dr Michael Rose, evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, said: "The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

We will see because actually the jury is still out...but if you close the mind it cannot grow.

Paul

 

[variant]

We will see because actually the jury is still out...

Paul

Fiction.

The genetic data overwhelmingly upholds common decent.

Your quotes are also by scientists who believe in universal common decent...

Maybe you should actually go read the source material.

Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, says "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

This quote and the other is taken from here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

Hmm. That doesn't sound like he is against universal common decent but thinks the "tree of life" is a bad metaphor for how evolution works.

It's "interesting" how you could make such a basic comprehension mistake, it's almost as if you are being remarkably deceitful about those quotes...

So how much time do you think I should spend on someone with an agenda, unwilling to address the actual evidence, and willing to deceive to try to throw mud on the scientists that actually do work in the field?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I believe in evolution. I am not sure of the process though. It may just be copying.

 

[SamuelTP1977]

I will also say atheists are in a huge minority in the good old USA. Only 2% of the population is either atheist or agnostic. Are the other 98% really just totally wrong about where we came from and there being the possibility of an after life? We may not attribute natural phenomenon to Gods anymore and say things like "it is just like that," but still we are not made to know it is really a mystery. There is just too much you can't explain.

Sam

 

[pshun2404]

The genetic data overwhelmingly upholds common decent. your quotes are also by scientists who believe in universal common decent...Maybe you should actually go read the source material.

They believe it (accept it) but admit there is no proof. We share genes in common for many reasons. IN some instances, the same genes produce different results in different creatures and in others very different genes code for the same effect. Most of what is called "Junk" is actually the program necessary for life to be sustained by a form. Then of course dogs, bears, etc., share a bit more genes in common to relegate their forms and functions which differ from ape-kind in all its varieties which differ from human-kind, etc., but these have to do with differences of form and function (some of which many creatures share in common) but these to not necessitate common descent as if in the start of life single celled organisms after their miraculous development became multicellular organisms which became Metazoans and so on...as Catastrophe theorists and Punctuated Equilibrium theorists have noted species in the geo-column do not arise from a steady transformation from their ancestors but appear fully formed with all their functionally inter-dependent subsystems in place...no Nautilus then Nautilus...no fish then fish...this does not necessitate that Nautilus eventually became fish (or fish Amphibians, or Amphi's into reptiles, or reptiles into birds) it is just one way of interpreting the data (best guess based on the accepted theory)

Dolittle and Baptiste state "Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation."

The theory has been imposed on the evidence and most of it depends on the use of Homology and other such interpretive hypothesizing. All felines more than likely have a fewer base pairs of original species with the genetic capability to produce all this variety, Same with Canines but I do not see the evidence dictates Felines once shared a common ancestor with Canines (who also had their basic pairs capable of providing the information necessary to account for all their varieties.

 

[SkyWriting]

We cannot duplicate the results and leaves us in the dark as to if that really could happen all on its own. We do not have quadrillions of gallons of chemicals nor do we have billions of years to see if life would come creeping up out of the stars. It does explain a lot and there is evidence it did happen like that, but one cannot rule out the possibility that was the way God did it.

What I find important is that what we do have for foundational, life creating raw materials, is more opposed to the formation of life than supportive. You'd think we would see some move-toward-life with the non-living stuff we have all around us, but we don't. Infinitely close to zero movement toward life.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So what is the unit of evolution, the species, the ecosystem, or the organism, orrrrr the gene?

I dont think its the gene, because of emergence. DNA as a whole (most probably) has emergent effects. Like consicousness perhaps.... You cant put consciousness down to a gene, just like you cant put a car down to the drive belt on its own.

So we have things that are individually necessary, Genes being one of them amongst others, but jointly sufficient.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So what is the unit of evolution, the species, the ecosystem, or the organism, orrrrr the gene?

I dont think its the gene, because of emergence. DNA as a whole (most probably) has emergent effects. Like consicousness perhaps.... You cant put consciousness down to a gene, just like you cant put a car down to the drive belt on its own.

So we have things that are individually necessary, Genes being one of them amongst others, but jointly sufficient.

 

[paulm50]

What I find important is that what we do have for foundational, life creating raw materials, is more opposed to the formation of life than supportive. You'd think we would see some move-toward-life with the non-living stuff we have all around us, but we don't. Infinitely close to zero movement toward life.

You might as well say the Bronze Age should've created the Atom Bomb. We're on our way to finding out.