Creationist "arguments" - different karyotypes

[expos4ever]

Which again is an incorrect statement.

It is NOT incorrect. You are compounding your errors and distortions.

From Wikipedia:

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

 

[pitabread]

It is NOT incorrect. You are compounding your errors and distortions.

From Wikipedia:

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

You need to update your sources. It's now 98% per a 2014 AAAS survey.

Scientists and beliefs about human evolution

 

[miamited]

That's not quite how it works.

Scientists started by observing the fact that populations of organisms change over time (e.g. the process of evolution). If modern species were the result of an accumulation of changes over time, then there are expected patterns of what we would observe in nature based on the understanding of how the process of evolution and common ancestry works.

The patterns that are observed in fossils, genetics, developmental biology, biogeography, etc, can either confirm or refute those expectations. In the case of organisms having come about by evolution, the observed patterns confirm those expectations. Hence, it's a conclusion that life shares common ancestry based on what is observed in nature.

Hi pitabread,

Thanks for your response. I'm sure this is going to get pretty difficult if we continue, but I'd be interested in knowing exactly what those patterns that have been observed are. If you would be able to just post back the names of the processes, I'd do some investigating on my own.

I did find this:
Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology:

• Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).

Do we have any way of really proving that two different creatures share a common ancestor. It can't just be that of the thousands of living creatures that God made, He didn't create any that are very, very closely alike but have never shared any historical ancestor?

• Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.

Here again, the assumption seems to be that because two creatures share some DNA traits, then they must have common ancestry. Can we prove that? Have we found the creature from which both of the studied creatures shared? Is there really any scientific evidence that two creatures with similar DNA traits have to have a common ancestor.

• Biogeography. The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.

Again, how do you prove that? Let's take some island creature and you tell me what it evolved from.

• Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.

We actually have some extinction going on today, do we have the animals that they have evolved into?

• Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).

I think we can certainly see some adaptation and probably some micro-evolutionary characteristics, but it's a big step to get from a snail to a whale.

Of course, one of the greatest problems for me, is that evolution, as explained in the scientific model takes millions and billions of years. The Scriptures don't seem to allow that the planet has existed for that length of time. So, I will agree that my worldview likely has a lot to do with how I see the issue, but I have yet to really see any hard evidence that absolutely refutes the truth of my worldview.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

This is a common straw man misrepresentation of evolution. If the first of those examples was possible, it would falsify evolution - dog and cat evolution can only extend their own respective lineages. For the second, birds are the descendants of avian therapod dinosaurs, so they are already part of the dinosaur lineage.

Hi FB,

Well, birds already being descendants of avian therapod dinosars, is exactly the issue we are trying to prove. Can you prove that birds do have in their ancestral lineage avian therapod dinosaurs, beyond any shadow of a doubt? Or, can you only assume that birds have avian ancestral lineage based only on some commonality of organism construction?

You see, for me, that's the whole of the argument. Proving what we know, or merely assuming assumptions based on what we know.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi pitabread,

Thanks for your response. I'm sure this is going to get pretty difficult if we continue, but I'd be interested in knowing exactly what those patterns that have been observed are. If you would be able to just post back the names of the processes, I'd do some investigating on my own.

I did find this:
Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology:

• Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).

Do we have any way of really proving that two different creatures share a common ancestor. It can't just be that of the thousands of living creatures that God made, He didn't create any that are very, very closely alike but have never shared any historical ancestor?

• Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.

Here again, the assumption seems to be that because two creatures share some DNA traits, then they must have common ancestry. Can we prove that? Have we found the creature from which both of the studied creatures shared? Is there really any scientific evidence that two creatures with similar DNA traits have to have a common ancestor.

• Biogeography. The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.

Again, how do you prove that? Let's take some island creature and you tell me what it evolved from.

• Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.

We actually have some extinction going on today, do we have the animals that they have evolved into?

• Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).

I think we can certainly see some adaptation and probably some micro-evolutionary characteristics, but it's a big step to get from a snail to a whale.

Of course, one of the greatest problems for me, is that evolution, as explained in the scientific model takes millions and billions of years. The Scriptures don't seem to allow that the planet has existed for that length of time. So, I will agree that my worldview likely has a lot to do with how I see the issue, but I have yet to really see any hard evidence that absolutely refutes the truth of my worldview.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

That's the thing. For those without your "worldview" the theory of evolution is plausible, makes useful predictions, has practical applications and although the evidence is incomplete, there is none which contradicts it. In short, it stands on the same epistemological foundation as any other scientific theory so there s no reason not to accept it--provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted.

 

[miamited]

Hi expo,

If you don't mind my stepping into a conversation you were having with someone else. You wrote:

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

That is actually a statement that I agree with 100%. Yes, I imagine that somewhere around 97% of the scientific community does accept evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. That 'fact' doesn't make the 'theory' true. There was a time that most medical practitioners believed that using leeches to suck blood out of sick people would heal them. Turns out, that wasn't true.

Yes, I know that we are way past that generation in all of our neat little technological gadgets, but we are still subject to making incorrect 'assumptions' in our systematic studies of today. Just because we now use a million dollar machine doesn't allow it to prove things that it cannot prove. The factual evidence of commonality, which everyone can see within many different creatures living upon the earth, isn't only answered by common ancestry.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

That's the thing. For those without your "worldview" the theory of evolution is plausible, makes useful predictions, has practical applications and although the evidence is incomplete, there is none which contradicts it. In short, it stands on the same epistemological foundation as any other scientific theory so there s no reason not to accept it--provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted.

Hi speedwell,

I absolutely 100% agree with your statement here also. For those without my worldview, the theory of evolution is plausible.

But that's as far as my agreement goes because there is contradictory evidence: the Scriptures.

They declare that God created birds and fish when He first populated the earth. So, any idea that birds 'evolved' from something is in direct contradiction to God's claim that He made them.

Yes, I would agree that (the theory of evolution) stands on the same epistemological foundation as any other scientific theory. Yes, for most, that would then mean that there is no reason not to accept it provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted. You will get no argument from me as far as that applying to the general population at large. However, none of that makes either the theory of evolution of any of those other theories, true.

We have microwave ovens because of proven scientific methodology. We have a lot of things today that have been created through the use of proven scientific methodology and I have no problem with science as a field of study and I do absolutely agree that it does give us knowledge of a lot of things in the world around us. However, there is a difference to me, of what is 'proven' scientific principles that lead to an increase in our knowledge of things vs. possible theories that might explain some phenomenon, but haven't actually been proven to be the answer to that phenomenon.

Both you and expo do seem to understand, that so far, what we know about evolution is based on purely theoretical understanding. That the theories that we have so far do seem to give us possible answers, but as far as being able to definitively say that this equals that...we aren't there yet.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[pitabread]

We have microwave ovens because of proven scientific methodology. We have a lot of things today that have been created through the use of proven scientific methodology and I have no problem with science as a field of study and I do absolutely agree that it does give us knowledge of a lot of things in the world around us. However, there is a difference to me, of what is 'proven' scientific principles that lead to an increase in our knowledge of things vs. possible theories that might explain some phenomenon, but haven't actually been proven to be the answer to that phenomenon.

The modern theory of evolution is an applied science. Companies even file patents based on applications derived from the theory of evolution.

If the above is your benchmark for "proven scientific methodology" then the modern theory of evolution more than qualifies.

 

[miamited]

The modern theory of evolution is an applied science. Companies even file patents based on applications derived from the theory of evolution.

If the above is your benchmark for "proven scientific methodology" then the modern theory of evolution more than qualifies.

Hi pitabread,

Yes, there is a chart in my sons school room that shows the suspected evolutionary chain. Down at the bottom, in fairly small print, it reads: patent applied for.

Maybe you have some other patent applications you could share with us that are based on these 'applications derived from the theory of evolution'.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[pitabread]

Yes, there is a chart in my sons school room that shows the suspected evolutionary chain. Down at the bottom, in fairly small print, it reads: patent applied for.

Maybe you have some other patent applications you could share with us that are based on these 'applications derived from the theory of evolution'.

When I speak of applications, I'm not talking about something like the patent of a chart. I'm talking about the patent of a methodology based on the theory of evolution which is directly used to achieve an end result (e.g. solve a problem in biology and the like).

If you want an example, here is a real-world biotech company which literally derives is name and underlying technology from the Theory of Evolution: Evolutionary Genomics, Inc.

If you want to see the patents they have filed (and been granted) you can view them here: Google Patents

 

[expos4ever]

What makes you think they are all atheists?

As I suspect you know, he is engaging in a little rhetorical game. Hoping to smear evolution supporters with the stench of those who would countenance killing the unborn. Abortion, yay or nay, is an entirely disconnected issue.

 

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

I absolutely 100% agree with your statement here also. For those without my worldview, the theory of evolution is plausible.

But that's as far as my agreement goes because there is contradictory evidence: the Scriptures.

But the Scriptures are not scientific evidence. That's not a denigration of Scripture, it's a matter of definition. Genesis is a book. As such it is no more evidence of creation than Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.

They declare that God created birds and fish when He first populated the earth. So, any idea that birds 'evolved' from something is in direct contradiction to God's claim that He made them.

Yes, I would agree that (the theory of evolution) stands on the same epistemological foundation as any other scientific theory. Yes, for most, that would then mean that there is no reason not to accept it provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted. You will get no argument from me as far as that applying to the general population at large. However, none of that makes either the theory of evolution of any of those other theories, true.

We have microwave ovens because of proven scientific methodology. We have a lot of things today that have been created through the use of proven scientific methodology and I have no problem with science as a field of study and I do absolutely agree that it does give us knowledge of a lot of things in the world around us. However, there is a difference to me, of what is 'proven' scientific principles that lead to an increase in our knowledge of things vs. possible theories that might explain some phenomenon, but haven't actually been proven to be the answer to that phenomenon.

Both you and expo do seem to understand, that so far, what we know about evolution is based on purely theoretical understanding. That the theories that we have so far do seem to give us possible answers, but as far as being able to definitively say that this equals that...we aren't there yet.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Yet we are a good deal of the way. Evolution proceeds by repeated speciation, a phenomenon which has been observed.

 

[pitabread]

As I suspect you know, he is engaging in a little rhetorical game. Hoping to smear evolution supporters with the stench of those who would countenance killing the unborn. Abortion, yay or nay, is an entirely disconnected issue.

Is there an equivalent of Godwin's law, but for abortion instead of Hitler?

 

[pitabread]

Thanks for your response. I'm sure this is going to get pretty difficult if we continue, but I'd be interested in knowing exactly what those patterns that have been observed are. If you would be able to just post back the names of the processes, I'd do some investigating on my own.

We can certainly get into things. But before we do, may I ask what your general knowledge and comfort level is with respect to biology, genetics, evolution and so on?

I ask because evolution is a broad and heady topic. It's easy to throw someone in the deep end when it comes to material, but if it comes off like a bunch of Greek, it doesn't do anyone any good.

This is where my suggestions for material will be based on your relative comfort with biology, evolution and science in general.

 

[coffee4u]

Handling with Kid gloves, 'in your face', etc.... Doesn't seem to matter.

That's because we already like who we are and what we believe. We don't need or want to change, the same way that you don't want to change.
So no, we do not need your 'help'. Thank you very much.

The scripture is very clear about 6 day creation and no death before sin. If any science goes against that then its the science that is mistaken. As the Bible says God will send a strong delusion.

2 Thessalonians 2
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Genesis is not a science book and does not delve into genetics. If creationists are doing so, then it's an aside. Only scripture is firm, things on one side are speculation, theory, or possibility; or are only evolutionists allowed to speculate now? If we post a possibility it gets jumped on to be proved. Apart from the fact that faith and miracles can't be proved, neither can speculation. On the ark, for example, we can speculate that the animals hibernated, but we don't know if they did, but it seems like a logical assumption since we know many animals do today and we know there were only 8 people on board. Oh right, I'm a creationist, better not speculate hmm.
All the Bible says is that God created kinds, these kinds spread into what we have now and that the creation is groaning. Noah didn't have to worry about what kinds or breeds came aboard the ark, it says God sent them. We are told how things changed at the fall and again at the flood. That is pretty much it for firm truth.

If two animals can be breed, yes they are the same kind but genetics get lost and mutated so it's possible some who were the same kind originally can no longer breed together. It's an aside, something interesting to think on and nothing more. The creationist model expects to see organization and 'perfection' to degenerate into disorganization and mistakes. So we expect more birth defects and illnesses over time, we do not expect to see new life forms or for existing life forms to gain new useful body parts even if the world carries on for thousands more years.

As for snakes, I read somewhere that secular science says they did have legs at some point. Since the curse includes them crawling on the belly they can't have been doing that before the curse, so losing their legs makes sense.

 

[Speedwell]

That's because we already like who we are and what we believe. We don't need or want to change, the same way that you don't want to change.
So no, we do not need your 'help'. Thank you very much.

So why are you here?

 

[pitabread]

I find it odd that this,

The scripture is very clear about 6 day creation and no death before sin. If any science goes against that then its the science that is mistaken.

and this,

Genesis is not a science book and does not delve into genetics.

... seem to directly contradict. You're right that Genesis isn't a science book, so why treat it like one? That's essentially what creationists are doing when they try to override science with the literal reading of Genesis.

Just your claims about what "kinds" are and how they devolved, etc, you're making scientifically testable claims. And those claims having been tested are not supported.

So why make those claims in the first place? All you've really done is set up your belief seem system for falsification. Or, you're stuck with a philosophical position akin to Last Thursdayism.

 

[coffee4u]

The Bible says that sin caused death. So no death before sin. (animal and human)It says that Eve is the mother of all the living and that we all inherited original sin from Adam. Those are the firm facts the Bible lays out. It says God made man on day 6, breathed into his nostrils and he became a living being. He wasn't stupid or an ape-man, he was a man who could talk and reason.
Evolution teaches millions of years of death before mankind walked upright. That man slowly evolved into a thinking reasoning individual. Right? Those two world views conflict. You can't believe both.
For sure some Christians try and marry them together by coming up with other theories like a gap, that the first world was built on evolution and then another created in 6 days.

I don't treat it as one, but it gives a firm framework that I work inside such as no death before sin. If science says millions of years before mankind came about and along with it millions of years of death then I reject what science says about that. Doesn't mean I reject all science, so long as it isn't contradicting the firm principles of the Bible.

 

[pitabread]

If science says millions of years before mankind came about and along with it millions of years of death then I reject what science says about that. Doesn't mean I reject all science, so long as it isn't contradicting the firm principles of the Bible.

If you're adopting a typical Young-Earth literalist creationist position, then you are rejecting many aspects of the natural sciences including physics, geology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology, biology, as well as other areas of knowledge including archaeology, history, Biblical scholarship, etc.

Basically being a YEC requires eschewing large swaths of modern human knowledge. If you're comfortable with that, have at it I guess.

 

[Speedwell]

The Bible says that sin caused death. So no death before sin. (animal and human)It says that Eve is the mother of all the living and that we all inherited original sin from Adam. Those are the firm facts the Bible lays out. It says God made man on day 6, breathed into his nostrils and he became a living being. He wasn't stupid or an ape-man, he was a man who could talk and reason.
Evolution teaches millions of years of death before mankind walked upright. That man slowly evolved into a thinking reasoning individual. Right? Those two world views conflict. You can't believe both.
For sure some Christians try and marry them together by coming up with other theories like a gap, that the first world was built on evolution and then another created in 6 days.

Or that the Genesis stories were not intended by their author (God, ultimately, since Christians believe them to be divinely inspired) to be 100% accurate literal history.