Darwin's evolution theory?

[Donkeytron]

Please....now if you are going to say that we are being dishonest, then you must admit that a group COMPLETELY dedicated to arguing one point is biased.

Moreover, the articles I cited from origins magazine have extensive documentation, often from their own research or reputable journals.

So give it up. All sources are biased to one degree or another, but if you cannot even admit a clearing house for evolution is biased you need to step back a bit.

I added more articles to my previous post. Enjoy.

You can scream bias all you want, but the point of scientific journals is to eliminate bias through peer review. I have no problem with a group COMPLETELY biased towards objective science. For some strange reason, creationists just don't want to publish in journals that might be read by other scientists. I guess its a massive conspiracy, eh?

 

[tall73]

A. There is a point underlying evolution and that is long time periods.

B. Geology is separate. But if you can't prove long time periods then the biology is hopeless. The long-earth is inextricably tied to your theory.

C. Yes, of course I am reading it. My point is they have a sudden release of water carving out a huge crater with similarities. Now the fact that they attribute one to a flood ,but not the other is purely their view. The point is your articles said it wasn't possible. It clearly is possible.

And scholarly references? Again, the number of references per article I posted from the Origins site is 33.

 

[tall73]

You can scream bias all you want, but the point of scientific journals is to eliminate bias through peer review. I have no problem with a group COMPLETELY biased towards objective science. For some strange reason, creationists just don't want to publish in journals that might be read by other scientists. I guess its a massive conspiracy, eh?

So you are saying every article on talk origins is peer reviewed and published?

No, they like the creation sites take arguments from everywhere, only quote what they feel is advantageous to them etc.

Excuse me for speaking plainly, but holding to the view that a group dedicated to arguing one point is unbiased is simply making you look as dishonest as those you have been bashing.

If a group is dedicated to proving one view they will of necessity discount some ideas and promote others. And of course, creationists are often no exception. But you will find the sources I quote giving frequent admissions that they don't have all the answers. But no admissions of perplexities come from talkorigins. Is this because they have all the answers? Or just duck the hard questions?

If you cannot agree to that reality then I think everyone can see where you are at on this debate.

 

[Donkeytron]

A. There is a point underlying evolution and that is long time periods.

B. Geology is separate. But if you can't prove long time periods then the biology is hopeless. The long-earth is inextricably tied to your theory.

C. Yes, of course I am reading it. My point is they have a sudden release of water carving out a huge crater with similarities. Now the fact that they attribute one to a flood ,but not the other is purely their view. The point is your articles said it wasn't possible. It clearly is possible.

And scholarly references? Again, the number of references per article I posted from the Origins site is 33.

Long time periods are well established. The theory of evolution says nothing about length of time. Perhaps you're thinking that universeal common ancestry requires a certain amount of time? I don't know what you're talking about in this case.

My references say that the Grand Canyon was not formed via flood, not that no canyons are formed by flood. Nice try though.

I don't have the time or the expertise to demolish all of your points about catastrophism (made like 20 pages ago on this thread), so I'll copy your post over to the C&E forum. There are practicing geologists and biologists posting there, so if you really think you're onto something, enjoy.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2296705-an-evolution-debate.html#post19812372

Again, if the articles being written for Origins are on the level, they should be publishing them in reputable journals and lapping up those accolades as their flawless research demolishes longstanding paradigms of gradualism and evolution. Why aren't they doing that again?

 

[tall73]

Evolution does say much about long time periods. How do you propose a single cell organism goes from that to a hugely complex organism COMPLTELY BY MUTATION without long time periods? It is not possible.

 

[Donkeytron]

So you are saying every article on talk origins is peer reviewed and published?

No, they like the creation sites take arguments from everywhere, only quote what they feel is advantageous to them etc.

Excuse me for speaking plainly, but holding to the view that a group dedicated to arguing one point is unbiased is simply making you look as dishonest as those you have been bashing.

For the 80000th time, I plainly admit that talk origins is biased towards peer reviewed articles. I know creationists hate the site because it lists and demolishes (with references to real journals! whaddya know?!) every argument they make. Becaues a source proves you to be in error does not make it biased. This is the crux of the creationist argument-there are no objective absolutes, just different ways of interpreting evidence, and everyone has bias. You think that if you bleat that long enough, the lay person will have trouble distinguishing between science and pseduoscience, and they do.

 

[Donkeytron]

Evolution does say much about long time periods. How do you propose a single cell organism goes from that to a hugely complex organism COMPLTELY BY MUTATION without long time periods? It is not possible.

'
You're right! COMPLETELY BY MUTATION, whatever that means, may or may not be possible. But mutation combined with natural selection, and voila, complex organisms. Thanks for the rehashed argument from incredulity, though.

 

[tall73]

Ok, now please explain to me how natural selection brings about variety?

I am afraid you fail to understand how natural selection works. The key word is SELECTION.

And I am sure your friends even in the other sections of the forums will agree that long periods are in fact required.


I will let the talkorigins one go. I think everyone can see that they are a clearinghouse built by one sided ideologues.

 

[Donkeytron]

Ok, now please explain to me how natural selection brings about variety?

I am afraid you fail to understand the implications of your misunderstanding.

And I am sure your friends even in the other sections of the forums will agree that long periods are in fact required.


I will let the talkorigins one go. I think everyone can see that they are a clearinghouse built by one sided ideologues.

Brings about variety? I would think that pretty obvious. Consider the finches of the galapagos (you did read Origin of Species, right?). Darwin remarks on the variety of different beak shapes and functions sported by finches from the different isles. You understand how these and other changes come about vai natural selection, right?

It's hard to believe you are accusing me of misunderstanding when are having trouble with the basic mechanism of evolution.

 

[tall73]

Oh, I most certainly do. Now, lets examine it more closely.

What is it selecting from?

Natural selection eliminates those who can't adapt, and selects those who can. Selects from what? EXISTING variety. That variety must come from mutations.

Natural selection comes at the phenotype level, but change comes at the genotype.

This is why mutation is the change method in evolution. Natural selection just determins which make it and which don't in a given variety. When there is less competition--islands, etc. you see more making it. Why? Less chance of the odd, less capable ones dying. So you get flightless birds, wierd birds etc.

Notice the following from a wikipedia article on the subject:

The modern theory of natural selection is formulated in terms of genetic differences between individuals, resulting in differences in the frequency of alleles in a population over successive generations. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts are now understood to arise from random mutations.

 

[Donkeytron]

Oh, I most certainly do. Now, lets examine it more closely.

What is it selecting from?

Natural selection eliminates those who can't adapt, and selects those who can. Selects from what? EXISTING variety. That variety must come from mutations.

What is the point you're trying to make? You suggested before that mutation doesn't account for complexity, now you say natural selection does, I don't know what this thread is about anymore.

 

[tall73]

NO no, you have it backwards. Mutation is the only method by which you can bring about complexity from an evolutionary model.

Since I edited it late I will put it here too :

from wikepedia's article on natural selection:

The modern theory of natural selection is formulated in terms of genetic differences between individuals, resulting in differences in the frequency of alleles in a population over successive generations. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts are now understood to arise from random mutations.

Natural selection only acts on genetic variation already present through mutation. The same with genetic drift etc. All change must happen on the gene level. From there selection and drift etc. act on the predominance of particular alleles in a given population.

Evolutionists must prove that there is the possibility of having that many positive mutations in the given time period. This has been particularly debated in the realm of human evolution due to the time allowed.

Every step from one cell, to two cells, to specialized cells, to integrated systems, to complex bio-chemical processes are all brought about through mutation. The probability of that many positive mutations , in this case positive leading to more complexity, seems remote since each time there is a mutation

a. it is usually negative or neutral (the idea that junk DNA is not junk is questioning the neutral idea)
b. it must be able to be passed on to young
c. it must actually be passed on through reproduction
d. it must then be passed on in sufficient numbers to establish a new species population that is selected for survival.

The rate at which mutations occur, are adopted, etc. is what is in question. In any case long periods are a definite must. You can't have complexity through mutations in a short time.

 

[Donkeytron]

NO no, you have it backwards. Mutation is the only method by which you can bring about complexity from an evolutionary model.

Since I edited it late I will put it here too :

from wikepedia's article on natural selection:



[/b]Natural selection only acts on genetic variation already present through mutation. The same with genetic drift etc. All change must happen on the gene level. From there selection and drift etc. act on the predominance of particular alleles in a given population.

Evolutionists must prove that there is the possibility of having that many positive mutations in the given time period. This has been particularly debated in the realm of human evolution due to the time allowed.

Every step from one cell, to two cells, to specialized cells, to integrated systems, to complex bio-chemical processes are all brought about through mutation. The probability of that many positive mutations , in this case positive leading to more complexity, seems remote since each time there is a mutation

a. it is usually negative or neutral (the idea that junk DNA is not junk is questioning the neutral idea)
b. it must be able to be passed on to young
c. it must actually be passed on through reproduction
d. it must then be passed on in sufficient numbers to establish a new species population that is selected for survival.

The rate at which mutations occur, are adopted, etc. is what is in question. In any case long periods are a definite must. You can't have complexity through mutations in a short time.

Ok I understand now what you're saying. I thought before you were totally unaware of the existence/processes of natural selection. Now that we've got that down...

I think we are both arguing against the wrong thing. What you are suggesting is that long periods of time are required for universal common descent? If so, that may or may not be the case. I think the point is moot anyway, since the age of the earth/fossils/etc. are pretty firm.

 

[GraceInHim]

Ok I understand now what you're saying. I thought before you were totally unaware of the existence/processes of natural selection. Now that we've got that down...

I think we are both arguing against the wrong thing. What you are suggesting is that long periods of time are required for universal common descent? If so, that may or may not be the case. I think the point is moot anyway, since the age of the earth/fossils/etc. are pretty firm.

No they are not - scienctist are taking another look at what they have believed all this time - so this is not firm - only to those who do not want to take another look - there is more and more things being found and studied to bring this to light - so we cannot say without a doubt that the earth is billions or thousands of years old....

 

[Donkeytron]

No they are not - scienctist are taking another look at what they have believed all this time - so this is not firm - only to those who do not want to take another look - there is more and more things being found and studied to bring this to light - so we cannot say without a doubt that the earth is billions or thousands of years old....

Yes, the universe is really really old and the earth is also really old. This is true almost beyond a shadow of any doubt. There are way too many lines of independent evidence that corroborate eachother for the earth to be "young". Same goes for the universe (not as many lines of evidence though, at least not that I know of.) Unless you can think of a mechanism for why this would be (except the ol' god made it look old!) then you're out of luck.

 

[GraceInHim]

EVIDENCE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH from 9 scientist

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee3.htm#Evidence%20from%20Beneath

1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., were erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.—pp. 29-30.

2 - Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased this genetic load.)—p. 30.

 

[A. believer]

Just a helpful hint: You can be a creationist/IDer/whatever and publish scholarly articles.

Oh, so these people are real scientists after all. I see.

I thought it was pretty clear that I meant they haven't published any articles ON ID or creationism in reputable journals.

Oh, so that's the objection, is it? Then let me continue from the post I cited above.

One more side note. Here are just a few papers from scientific peer-reviewed journals that relate directly to either design theory or scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution.

• “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, by Stephen C. Meyer, in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, August 2004
• “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”, by Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke, in Protein Science, The Protein Society August 2004
• “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems”, By: Michael J. Behe in Philosophy of Science 67 (March 2000), University of Chicago Press

Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin’s Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additionally peer-reviewed and peer-edited books addressing design theory have appeared with Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press respectively. There is also a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations.


​

Thus, the quote is question dead on. Additionally, I don't know what this paradigm nonsense is supposed to mean. You can keep pretending evolution isn't science, but it is. It works. Sorry to burst your cozy bubble of denial, but evolution isn't going away.

Evolution may not be "going away," but evolution-as-dogma, is. And if you don't even know what a scientific paradigm is and how paradigms work as interpretive frameworks, you'd do well to find out.

 

[Donkeytron]

EVIDENCE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH from 9 scientist

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee3.htm#Evidence%20from%20Beneath

1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., were erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.—pp. 29-30.

2 - Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased this genetic load.)—p. 30.

Ah, google. It hasn't been too good to you in this thread to date. Dendrochronologic ages beyond 4000 years (the oldest living tree is around that old, it's in california) are calculated by lining up rings on living and fossilized trees. It works.

Your second point is nonsensical. The deteriorated atmosphere after the flood? Increaesd solar radiation? What calculations? Where are these negative mutations now? Was this written by a teenager?

 

[GraceInHim]

Yes, the universe is really really old and the earth is also really old. This is true almost beyond a shadow of any doubt. There are way too many lines of independent evidence that corroborate eachother for the earth to be "young". Same goes for the universe (not as many lines of evidence though, at least not that I know of.) Unless you can think of a mechanism for why this would be (except the ol' god made it look old!) then you're out of luck.

sorry my big daddy made this earth as the Bible says and I listen to him - it is young... science will show the true lights of his creation - and do you think he likes people who make false statements about his creation??? From the beginning he was here - and I do think he was an ape who made Adam like him.

 

[GraceInHim]

Ah, google. It hasn't been too good to you in this thread to date. Dendrochronologic ages beyond 4000 years (the oldest living tree is around that old, it's in california) are calculated by lining up rings on living and fossilized trees. It works.

Your second point is nonsensical. The deteriorated atmosphere after the flood? Increaesd solar radiation? What calculations? Where are these negative mutations now? Was this written by a teenager?

ya you have a answer for anything you do not like - read about the scientist form Yellowstone Park - even they are looking at this again.