Does equating evolution with atheism prevent creationists from understanding God's Creation?

[Aussie Pete]

What were you specifically taught about evolution and creation? I'm curious to see what a curriculum that teaches evolution alongside creationism would look like.



In general, I've understood adaptation to the be the result of evolution as opposed to one and the same thing. IOW, the process of evolution leads to adaptation based on environmental pressures.

But can you clarify what you mean by the above? What you do mean by a "range of genetic information"? What genetic information are you referring to specifically?

I'll answer your first question now. I was taught evolution pretty much from "Origin of Species". It included trips to the Natural History Museum in London, courtesy of my Grandmother. There you could see the now discredited evolutionary progression of horses from creatures the size of a sheep to the the giant carthorse. All very logical and plausible. Just wrong. The now known to be fake Haeckel drawings were also in our textbooks.

OOL was also taught from a Darwinian perspective. I was taught that the first cells were extremely simple
and evolved into complexity. It is now well known that those "simple" cells are incredibly complex. The teacher was unable to explain how a collection of chemicals in a toxic soup could spring to life. That issue was simply avoided. 70 years of OOL experimentation have yet to provide an answer. I realise that evolutionists jump on anyone who mentions OOL and evolution in the same sentence. That was not the case 54 years ago. It was a natural progression according to what I was taught.

Creation was taught directly from the Bible by the same teacher. I did not get the sense that he was biased one way or the other. This was in New Zealand, not an especially "Christian" nation. I don't know exactly why I chose to believe Creation over evolution. I had no religious reason for doing so. Somehow the idea that life could just spontaneously arise for no plausible reason led me to conclude that it must have been created. It was not a "lightbulb" moment. It made no difference to me one way or another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I happened to find out that modern dog breeds were derived from mongrels. Every breed of dog was in their genes. Breeders began to selectively breed dogs that showed a particular characteristic. So a dog that showed some pug characteristics was bred with another dog that had Pug characteristics and so on for every modern breed. Some breeds, Pugs for example, should never have been bred, but there is no accounting for taste. I'm no sure that the Chihuahua can be classified as a dog.

The genetic information for the other breeds is lost, of course. So the world, which was once Pug free, is now blighted with one of the ugliest critters on the planet. Or blessed with Collies, Afghans, German Shepherds, if you prefer.

And this is plain ignorance and denial. Different breeds of dogs are different also because they have unique genes.

Why do creationists pretend that mutations do not occur?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll answer your first question now. I was taught evolution pretty much from "Origin of Species". It included trips to the Natural History Museum in London, courtesy of my Grandmother. There you could see the now discredited evolutionary progression of horses from creatures the size of a sheep to the the giant carthorse. All very logical and plausible. Just wrong. The now known to be fake Haeckel drawings were also in our textbooks.

OOL was also taught from a Darwinian perspective. I was taught that the first cells were extremely simple
and evolved into complexity. It is now well known that those "simple" cells are incredibly complex. The teacher was unable to explain how a collection of chemicals in a toxic soup could spring to life. That issue was simply avoided. 70 years of OOL experimentation have yet to provide an answer. I realise that evolutionists jump on anyone who mentions OOL and evolution in the same sentence. That was not the case 54 years ago. It was a natural progression according to what I was taught.

Creation was taught directly from the Bible by the same teacher. I did not get the sense that he was biased one way or the other. This was in New Zealand, not an especially "Christian" nation. I don't know exactly why I chose to believe Creation over evolution. I had no religious reason for doing so. Somehow the idea that life could just spontaneously arise for no plausible reason led me to conclude that it must have been created. It was not a "lightbulb" moment. It made no difference to me one way or another.

Oh my!! How was horse evolution ever discredited?

 

[Aussie Pete]

And this is plain ignorance and denial. Different breeds of dogs are different also because they have unique genes.

Why do creationists pretend that mutations do not occur?

Why do evolutionists make such sweeping statements without any basis? Of course mutations occur. Most of them are harmful. Some are a reaction to an environmental impact. Hence bacterial resistance to antibiotics. However, that is NOT evolution.

 

[pitabread]

I happened to find out that modern dog breeds were derived from mongrels. Every breed of dog was in their genes.

What do you mean by every breed of dog being in their genes? Can you explain how the genetics would work regarding that?

 

[Aussie Pete]

What do you mean by every breed of dog being in their genes? Can you explain how the genetics would work regarding that?

The theory is known as genetic pooling. So a mongrel dog may have Dachshund, Collie, Poodle, etc. genes. Wiki states "Most breeds were derived from small numbers of founders within the last 200 years. As a result, today dogs are the most abundant carnivore species and are dispersed around the world."

The reference to this statement includes "Ostrander, Elaine A.; Wang, Guo-Dong; Larson, Greger; Vonholdt, Bridgett M.; Davis, Brian W.; Jagannathan, Vidyha; Hitte, Christophe; Wayne, Robert K.; Zhang, Ya-Ping (2019). "Dog10K: An international sequencing effort to advance studies of canine domestication, phenotypes, and health". National Science Review. 6 (4): 810–824. doi:10.1093/nsr/nwz049. PMC 6776107. PMID 31598383."

The process is known as artificial selection. Another Wiki quote: "In 2004, a study looked at the microsatellites of 414 purebred dogs representing 85 breeds. The study found that dog breeds were so genetically distinct that 99% of individual dogs could be correctly assigned to their breed based on their genotype, indicating that breeding barriers (pure-bred breeding) have led to distinct genetic units."

Please note that they are all dogs. No other creature evolved as a result of this process. Which is entirely what you would expect. Adaptation, variation within "kinds", for sure. Evolution? No.

By the way, I came across this information separately from Wiki. I know some people view Wiki as unreliable. If I am interested enough, I will check various sources on a particular subject. Which I have done in this instance.

 

[BobRyan]

pitabread said: ↑
In a scenario where God did in fact use evolutionary processes as a means to diversify life on Earth, would dismissing that process on the grounds of being an atheistic idea inherently prevent creationists from acknowledging the truth of how God diversified living things?

BobRyan said: ↑
Mutation and (a degree of ) speciation within a group of squirrels can be studied all day long.

direct observation of 50,000 generations of prokaryotes failing to leap up to the level of eukaryote did not get blocked at all by knowing that God created life on Earth.

And why would you expect that to happen?

The obvious.

1. Humans supposedly came about in fewer generations than that
2. Prokaryotes have a far more adaptive DNA design than we do

 

[pitabread]

The theory is known as genetic pooling. So a mongrel dog may have Dachshund, Collie, Poodle, etc. genes. Wiki states "Most breeds were derived from small numbers of founders within the last 200 years. As a result, today dogs are the most abundant carnivore species and are dispersed around the world."

So how does that actually work, genetics wise? How does a single "mongrel dog" posses genes of all those different breeds? Are any novel genes arising during the selective breeding of dogs? Or do the ancestral populations posses all possible genetic variants?

Pretend you're explaining this to someone who knows nothing about genetics. How would you explain the above?

Also, did you read through the reference you cited? And have you checked any of the citations in that particular reference? I asked, because I'm reading through a cited reference on how novel ACSL4 and IGSF1 gene variants arose. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that. How do you think those novel ACSL4 and IGSF1 variants arose? Analysis of large versus small dogs reveals three genes on the canine X chromosome associated with body weight, muscling and back fat thickness

(I'm also curious if you're a subscriber to the Noah's Ark/global flood scenario. I don't recall your views on this. E.g. do you believe that all current living animals were derived from a limited number about ~4000 years ago?

Also, do you believe that dogs are descended from wolves? E.g. humans domesticated wolves. Or do you believe there are separate wolf and dog kinds?)

The process is known as artificial selection. Another Wiki quote: "In 2004, a study looked at the microsatellites of 414 purebred dogs representing 85 breeds. The study found that dog breeds were so genetically distinct that 99% of individual dogs could be correctly assigned to their breed based on their genotype, indicating that breeding barriers (pure-bred breeding) have led to distinct genetic units."

So how does artificial selection affect the genetics in question?

Please note that they are all dogs. No other creature evolved as a result of this process. Which is entirely what you would expect. Adaptation, variation within "kinds", for sure.

Where did that variations come from though? For example, I cited a specific example above re: ACSL4 and IGSF1 gene variants. Where did those variants come from?

Evolution? No.

How is this not evolution? In terms of mechanisms, how is what you are describing different from evolution?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Regarding the origins of eukaryotes from prokaryotes and the generations required for them to come about:

The obvious.

1. Humans supposedly came about in fewer generations than that
2. Prokaryotes have a far more adaptive DNA design than we do

So how many times did eukaryotes come about in the past? When was that? Did involve mutations?

Are the types of prokaryotes that became prokaryotes still around?

Frankly if we fail to comprehend the origin process of complex cells, then our discussions will go nowhere.

 

[BobRyan]

So how many times did eukaryotes come about in the past? When was that? Did involve mutations?

1. once...
2. 6000 years ago
3. No

Are the types of prokaryotes that became prokaryotes still around?

It never happened so... "no".

You are using a circular argument. Try a more objective version.

==================================

As Dawkins pointed out "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."
‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network

==================hmmm a parable comes to mind

Child: “we observe that the Tooth fairy gave me this dollar.”
Adult: Really can we hide and watch him bring you the next dollar?
Child: “no you can never see it happen – but it is observed anyway”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do evolutionists make such sweeping statements without any basis? Of course mutations occur. Most of them are harmful. Some are a reaction to an environmental impact. Hence bacterial resistance to antibiotics. However, that is NOT evolution.

Because we understand the science. A couple of corrections for you. Most mutations are benign. A huge percentage of DNA is noncoding and a mutation in the noncoding area is almost always without any repercussions at all. Second I already explained what happens to the harmful mutations. Natural selection is constantly observable. It is so obvious that some creationists complain because it is almost a tautology. Natural selection removes the harmful mutations making them moot. And lastly you complain about evolution and say that it is not evolution. Evolution is merely a change in the gene alleles of a population. Those changes do add up over time.

Meanwhile you have not defended your earlier false claims that were challenged. That is the same as admitting that you were wrong. Once again, when has horse evolution ever been refuted? I must have missed that major headline news. If you do take care of that claim we can get to your other one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So how many times did eukaryotes come about in the past? When was that? Did involve mutations?

1. once...
2. 6000 years ago
3. No

It never happened so... "no".

You are using a circular argument. Try a more objective version.

It seems I didn't ask my question specifically enough, since I wanted to get your understanding of the science (or your version of it).

Starting from the bottom..
If you don't think it happened (pro->eukaryotes) then you really can't answer the questions and it didn't happen "6000 years ago".

As for the three questions, sometimes you get 2 out of 3 right without being correct.

The start of the eukaryotes is from the symbiotic merger of two prokaryotes. Mitochondria and chloroplasts were previously independent organisms. Mutations weren't directly involved in the merger, but subsequent mutations likely occurred that merged the two formerly independent organisms into one.

The eukaryotes started about 2 billion years ago. You are clearly using a creationist-genesis chronology, but there is nothing in that book that mentions pro- or eukaryotes, nor one forming from the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. once...
2. 6000 years ago
3. No



It never happened so... "no".

You are using a circular argument. Try a more objective version.

==================================

As Dawkins pointed out "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."
‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network

==================hmmm a parable comes to mind

Child: “we observe that the Tooth fairy gave me this dollar.”
Adult: Really can we hide and watch him bring you the next dollar?
Child: “no you can never see it happen – but it is observed anyway”

Do you realize that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?

 

[NBB]

Saying that copy errors "mutations" can build a brain is stupid. Evolution is not even trying 'it just happens'.

 

[pitabread]

Saying that copy errors "mutations" can build a brain is stupid. Evolution is not even trying 'it just happens'.

There is no reason that evolutionary processes couldn't produce a brain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Saying that copy errors "mutations" can build a brain is stupid. Evolution is not even trying 'it just happens'.

But no one is making that claim. You forgot about natural selection.

Creationists very very rarely can understand that natural selection and variation working together is how evolution works. If one pays attention to only one of these driving forces of course one can "refute" evolution. But one can't if one takes both into account.

 

[pitabread]

Creationists very very rarely can understand that natural selection and variation working together is how evolution works. If one pays attention to only one of these driving forces of course one can "refute" evolution. But one can't if one takes both into account.

I have noticed that the gestalt of the evolutionary process is something that many creationists fail to grasp. Of course, this could be understood if one was willing to learn about how it works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have noticed that the gestalt of the evolutionary process is something that many creationists fail to grasp. Of course, this could be understood if one was willing to learn about how it works.

There is an old joke: What do you call creationists that understand the theory of evolution?

Answer: Evolutionists.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have noticed that the gestalt of the evolutionary process is something that many creationists fail to grasp. Of course, this could be understood if one was willing to learn about how it works.

I frankly didn't properly get it until after my last biology course. It was at a time I was interested in anti-creationism and was reading various books that took apart the edifice of creationism. (I was never a creationist, but my acceptance of evolution was mostly by the authority of the leading scientists rather than proper comprehension.)

 

[NBB]

But no one is making that claim. You forgot about natural selection.

Creationists very very rarely can understand that natural selection and variation working together is how evolution works. If one pays attention to only one of these driving forces of course one can "refute" evolution. But one can't if one takes both into account.

I doubt the 'capacity' for natural selection to select, i 'know of the 'selection' part but you can't say mutations are not the ones building though, if mutation don't build there is nothing for selection to select. That was my point.