Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, that's the point. Biblical creationism makes an entirely different epistemological claim than science does. That which is "known" to creationists is not "known" to science, and vice-versa.Hi speedwell,
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, but something not 'being science' doesn't make the claim true or false.
Oh, ok. These are patents that they have applied for that cover a specific method that they have devised to test/examine/formulate various testing methods. I was thinking that you were inferring that these were going to be patents that were actually based on some finding of evolution itself.
Yes, Evolutionary Genomics, Inc. is a company whose reason d'tre is to continue study of the theory of evolution in hopes of some day being able to find the link or determine some positive proof that would move evolution from theory to fact.
I have no problem with such work, although I don't believe there will ever be found any such evolutionary trail.
But you offered several other alternatives for reconciling Genesis and evolution so thought I would mention this one as the oldest and most widely held, actually predating evolution as figurative interpretations of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself.
They are systematically misinformed about it.I have to wonder how many Biblical literalists actually know this (re: the history of non-literal interpretations of Genesis). In recent memory I've seen a lot of literalists that claim that a non-literal interpretation is a recent invention.
Do Biblical literalists not know the history of their own Bible?
Yes, that's the point. Biblical creationism makes an entirely different epistemological claim than science does. That which is "known" to creationists is not "known" to science, and vice-versa.
I have to wonder how many Biblical literalists actually know this (re: the history of non-literal interpretations of Genesis). In recent memory I've seen a lot of literalists that claim that a non-literal interpretation is a recent invention.
Do Biblical literalists not know the history of their own Bible?
I gave some in my post. All the gory details are out there if you can use Google search. My intent was to give you some idea of how multiple lines of evidece and fruitful predictions that are made from that evidence can result in confidence beyond a reasonable doubt in a hypothesis... what testable predictions have been made regarding the theropod to bird evolution?
We don't have a 'bazillion' fossils; for example, we have a perhaps a thousand specimens (many of them fragmentary) of around 120 species of birds in the Mesozoic (probably quite a few more since that was published).... As I've written in another post, why don't we find some intermediate evidence. A fully formed theropod, then a nearly fully formed theropod with some slight difference. Then the new theropod with another slight difference and another and another until we see, just like the scientific reproductions try to show us in animated character how the fully formed theropod morphed into the bird.
For me, with all of the bazillion fossil and skeletal remains that we have, surely there must have been found at least a dozen of these intermediary forms.
By comparing which ERVs are shared by different species (i.e. the particular sequence and its position in the genome), we can determine the order in which each species split from their common ancestor, and (roughly) how long ago.
Along with evidence of periodic viral infection? What would be the purpose of that?Hi FB,
So, exactly what is the 'hint' that tells us that the first chimp that God created on day 6 didn't have DNA that looked exactly like it does today and that Adam, also created on day six didn't have exactly the same DNA that he has today?
I mean, I understand that we share a lot of DNA data with the chimpanzee. I understand that as we look down a strand of DNA we can see where there are differences. What I don't understand is how we have categorically determined that these differences 'branched' off somewhere in the past and can't be just the way God created them to be. That's the part of your explanation that I've never understood. When you say that we can 'determine the order in which each species split from their common ancestor, and roughly how long ago', you seem to be making the claim that we know that it's impossible that these differences and these 'appearances' that they might have branched off could not have been in the initial DNA strand of whatever creatures are being looked at.
God bless,
In Christ, ted
I may not have explained it clearly, but it seems clear that, given that we know how genomes are inherited, there is only one scientific explanation for us sharing identical random ERVs with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans, and that is that we must have all inherited them from a common ancestor.So, exactly what is the 'hint' that tells us that the first chimp that God created on day 6 didn't have DNA that looked exactly like it does today and that Adam, also created on day six didn't have exactly the same DNA that he has today?
I mean, I understand that we share a lot of DNA data with the chimpanzee. I understand that as we look down a strand of DNA we can see where there are differences. What I don't understand is how we have categorically determined that these differences 'branched' off somewhere in the past and can't be just the way God created them to be. That's the part of your explanation that I've never understood. When you say that we can 'determine the order in which each species split from their common ancestor, and roughly how long ago', you seem to be making the claim that we know that it's impossible that these differences and these 'appearances' that they might have branched off could not have been in the initial DNA strand of whatever creatures are being looked at.
But we don't see more birth defects and illnesses over time, and we do see new life forms (species), and we see new adaptive traits in them (we haven't been around long enough to see new body parts evolve).
Your expectations are contradicted by the living world.
OK, so you'll accept the scientific evidence if it fits your preconceptions but not otherwise. It's fallacious reasoning, but I expect you knew that.
Not talking species here but something new.
Knowing someone on the spectrum was uncommon back then, today who doesn't know at least one or two people on the spectrum?
I may not have explained it clearly, but it seems clear that, given that we know how genomes are inherited, there is only one scientific explanation for us sharing identical random ERVs with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans, and that is that we must have all inherited them from a common ancestor.
If you believe in an all-powerful supernatural entity, you could obviously claim that our genomes were deliberately created or modified in order to give the appearance of those exact evolutionary relationships (and likewise for all the other indications of close evolutionary relationship). But it must be obvious to you that this raises some very strange questions.
An explanation that has been given in these forums is that God was 'being efficient' by 'reusing' genomes... but this simply makes the result of creation exactly equivalent to evolution - under this interpretation we are still as closely genetically related as under evolution, only the mechanism is different.
Beaks are bony projections from the upper and lower jaw and covered with Keratin, the same material as hair, skin, fingernails and feathers are made of. Nothing new there, just different arrangements of existing structures and materials'You mentioned beaks earlier, how did an animal with a mouth gain a beak?
Or maybe He created a process called evolution to produce the diversity of life we see.So perhaps God was being efficient or maybe he had no need to deviate or maybe he wanted it to look the same, we don't know, we aren't told this. We can't exactly sit him down and ask his thoughts on it now.
Or maybe He created a process called evolution to produce the diversity of life we see.
Beaks are bony projections from the upper and lower jaw and covered with Keratin, the same material as hair, skin, fingernails and feathers are made of. Nothing new there, just different arrangements of existing structures and materials'
Exactly as evolution requires.I see cats breeding cats and dogs breeding dogs.
Plus ca change. 'Twas ever thus. But, as I said, "we don't see more birth defects and illnesses over time".I see a lot of conditions and illness caused by disease and mutation.
Given what I said in the post you're commenting to, what would you consider 'new' in this context, if not a new species?Show me one of these newly evolved creatures. Not talking species here but something new.
That's not what the evidence shows. Gene duplications are not uncommon and some species have evolved with multiples of the whole DNA of their parent species; it's called polyploidy. Such developments provide ample genetic material for mutations to modify and generate new protein variants.We fully believe in species coming from the kinds diverging and losing DNA.
That's not how evolution works; it modifies existing structures. In earlier times, it was not uncommon for species to duplicate whole body segments, but the advantages of that have been pretty thoroughly explored, e.g. arthropods (centipedes, etc).We are not talking about working parts changing shape either, but a creature with no working part, no DNA to create such a part, gaining a brand new a working part with DNA for it that it can pass on to its offspring.
By modification of the development of what had been a snout. More precisely, by modification of two of the chemical signalling pathways that determined embryonic development of the snout.You mentioned beaks earlier, how did an animal with a mouth gain a beak?
Humans are a significantly atypical species; I recommend that you drop the anthropocentrism and consider life in general. However, with autism, informed opinion has it that what has increased is not the incidence, but the recognition and diagnosis. The increase in human allergies is probably due to lifestyle changes and/or novel pollutants - other animals are not, in general, suffering more allergies. AIDS is just the latest of a long history of such diseases crossing species boundaries.We constantly see new diseases and mutations. How much more common is Autism? allergies, ADHD? The first case of AIDS was in 1979.
When they say a 'new' disease, they mean new to science, i.e. one they didn't know about before. Mutated gene variants arise at random in populations. If they're significantly disadvantageous, they don't generally spread across the population.A quick google pulled these up. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181018095358.htmese
Yup, looks like rare genetic diseases are more likely to be the father's 'fault'. So what?
Sure, and these diseases have been around as long as mankind... but look around you - does everyone now have CF or SCA? No, because such disadvantageous genes reach an equilibrium in the population. If you learn some genetics, you can discover how this happens and calculate the expected incidences.The more people have recessive genes for certain conditions the more it will spread, like cystic fibrosis or Sickle Cell Anaemia.
As before, don't confuse greater diagnosis with greater incidence.The average classroom today has far more children diagnosed with learning disorders or some disorder compared to the classroom in the 1970s. Knowing someone on the spectrum was uncommon back then, today who doesn't know at least one or two people on the spectrum? My son is on the spectrum, his two cousins are on the spectrum, two of my daughter's friends are on the spectrum. Her boyfriend has asthma, also way more common.
Plenty of people who believe in God see it as common ancestry.You choose to see that as common ancestry because you don't believe God exists. if God doesn't exist you don't have any other viable alternative. It isn't proof of anything, it just is. It's how a person views that same evidence that counts. A doppelganger may look like a twin and still have no family ties.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.Again you assume it has the appearance of evolution because this is your world view. It doesn't have the appearance of evolution to us but the appearance of the same creator.
You don't know, yet you insist that exactly what evolution predicts was not evolution at all but a miraculous creation because, er, 'God Works In Mysterious Ways'...So perhaps God was being efficient or maybe he had no need to deviate or maybe he wanted it to look the same, we don't know, we aren't told this. We can't exactly sit him down and ask his thoughts on it now.
True, but it's clearly not a rational argument. If I believed in God, I would follow the evidence of the natural world he created.We can't explain faith to you if you have none. You either have faith or you don't.
No, but such an event would cause great difficulties for the theory of evolution, which predicts that it couldn't happen.It doesn't matter that it's 'just a rearrangement' no child is going to be born with a working beak.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?