Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design-Gallup Poll

[NannaNae]

none of the above.
He created us in a higher form with even a higher language skill and we fell to where we are today.
We have got to know and someday at least figure out that He did not create us this way !
for a thousand little reasons like just our teeth don't even last 50 years.
so this form we are now in , simply was not created to live forever.
1. we were created in another form ( similar but not the same ) and have fallen to where we are now and now science and humanity refuse to know , investigate , acknowledge and or understand that. Humanity hides from that fact.
2. or He created us to fall and die. and that can't be because he has proven he loves us too much . and hell death and the void between our ears was our choice , our creation .
3. or evolutionist are right and we came from a monkey, because in this form we could not live forever.
but really we know that evolution is just all kinds of wrong .
1st because dna makes that impossible. Just the very premise of evolution is completely backwards. the strongest don't survive but paranoid ,Schizophrenia and cowardly always do. which really explains how fast we have de-evolved .
you can google search "44 reasons evolution is wrong" for some good clues.

SO He had to have created us , but not in this form! so I pick , none of the above.

 

[Fascinated With God]

There is no a priori assumption of universal common descent.

Universal common descent is:
1) an inevitable logical conclusion from the theory of evolution, and
2) a conclusion justified by the evidence.

I have to differ with you here. Take for example the question of whether we interbred with Neanderthals, without the discovery of the Neanderthal genome this issue could never have been resolved. There is absolutely no way to tell the difference between change due to mutation in a single species vs change due to additional genetic input.

My grandfather was adjutant (head of office staff) for Gen. Lamay, AF Chief of Staff from Roswell to the Cuban missile crisis, and he let it slip a number of times that he knew UFO's are real, leading up to a deathbed confession.

Science has absolutely no means what-so-ever of making any determination of any kind about the possibility of other unexpected genetic sources.

Universal common descent is based on the fundamentally flawed assumption that we are the only life in the universe.

 

[Fascinated With God]

God is no where described as the Guider, God is worshiped and praised for being the Creator.

"Lead me not into temptation..." How is that not guidance by the Lord? You do not seek the Lord's guidance? That explains a lot about your very self-centered view of God. Your argument is really all about you needing to feel 100% correct and not about God at all.

 

[mark kennedy]

"Lead me not into temptation..." How is that not guidance by the Lord? You do not seek the Lord's guidance? That explains a lot about your very self-centered view of God. Your argument is really all about you needing to feel 100% correct and not about God at all.

Who do you think you are and more importantly, what gives you the right to judge my prayer life. I've seen some pretty shallow personal remarks but this one is scraped from the bottom of the barrel. There is a simple point there and I really don't recall the context the statement was made in, but God is Creator, that's really all there is to it.

It seems if I were obsessed with being right all the time I would be a Theistic Evolutionist. They can be right every single time and all they have to do is insult creationists.

 

[gluadys]

I have to differ with you here. Take for example the question of whether we interbred with Neanderthals, without the discovery of the Neanderthal genome this issue could never have been resolved. There is absolutely no way to tell the difference between change due to mutation in a single species vs change due to additional genetic input.

My grandfather was adjutant (head of office staff) for Gen. Lamay, AF Chief of Staff from Roswell to the Cuban missile crisis, and he let it slip a number of times that he knew UFO's are real, leading up to a deathbed confession.

Science has absolutely no means what-so-ever of making any determination of any kind about the possibility of other unexpected genetic sources.

Universal common descent is based on the fundamentally flawed assumption that we are the only life in the universe.

That really doesn't change anything. Horizontal gene transfer, which is how we got DNA from viruses in our genome, doesn't put viruses among our ancestors or impact on common descent. So even if, at some time or another, extra-terrestrial DNA was introduced into humans, it would be the same sort of situation.

btw, the ordinary meaning of common descent only applies to this planet, not to the universe as a whole. If life has originated on other planets, those life forms would have their own tree of common descent for each planet.

 

[mark kennedy]

That really doesn't change anything. Horizontal gene transfer, which is how we got DNA from viruses in our genome, doesn't put viruses among our ancestors or impact on common descent. So even if, at some time or another, extra-terrestrial DNA was introduced into humans, it would be the same sort of situation.

I couldn't agree more about UFO theories but viruses in the human genome would be devastating, disastrous and fatally deleterious.

btw, the ordinary meaning of common descent only applies to this planet, not to the universe as a whole. If life has originated on other planets, those life forms would have their own tree of common descent for each planet.

That's simply not true, Darwinian logic applies to all life in the universe, whether it's been discovered or not. It's a poor choice, Darwinian rhetoric has failed miserably not because there is something wrong with the theory of evolution but because the rhetoric is riddled with fallacious flaws.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[BobRyan]

I.D. is a minimalist statement that simply admits that rocks cannot become self-ware or acquire the ability over time to improve their "logic".

It says very little more than that the area is offlimits to "Rock's can do that by themselves".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[gluadys]

I couldn't agree more about UFO theories but viruses in the human genome would be devastating, disastrous and fatally deleterious.

Just what do you think endogenous retroviral insertions are?

We have about 100,000 viral remnants in our DNA constituting about 8% of the human genome. And some of them have actually played an important role in making us what we are.


Mammals Made By Viruses : The Loom

That's simply not true, Darwinian logic applies to all life in the universe, whether it's been discovered or not.

Logic sure. But logic is not history. Logic tells us that any life that originated on another planet would evolve just as life here evolves. The same principles of evolution would apply to it.

But logic doesn't tell us that life on another planet would share a common ancestor with life on this planet. Each life-bearing planet could have its own independent origin of life with no connection to life on a different planet.

How life originated on another planet (independently or imported) is a matter of historical contingency, not logic. Only if it was imported would it share ancestry with life on the planet of origin.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just what do you think endogenous retroviral insertions are?

We have about 100,000 viral remnants in our DNA constituting about 8% of the human genome. And some of them have actually played an important role in making us what we are.


Mammals Made By Viruses : The Loom

Exactly how many germline invasions by retroviruses have been documented in our time? Show me a single example of an ERV being introduced to a living human system and we might have something to talk about.

Logic sure. But logic is not history. Logic tells us that any life that originated on another planet would evolve just as life here evolves. The same principles of evolution would apply to it.

Your philosophy of history may not require logic, but the theology of redemption history, and the epistemology of natural history as science demand it. Darwinian logic applies to all life, even life on other planets, even if it's undiscovered.

But logic doesn't tell us that life on another planet would share a common ancestor with life on this planet. Each life-bearing planet could have its own independent origin of life with no connection to life on a different planet.

How life originated on another planet (independently or imported) is a matter of historical contingency, not logic. Only if it was imported would it share ancestry with life on the planet of origin.

Not according to MIT professor of biology Robert Weinberg:

It's clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered.​

Fundamentals of Biology

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Exactly how many germline invasions by retroviruses have been documented in our time? Show me a single example of an ERV being introduced to a living human system and we might have something to talk about.

You could probably find out with a google search what recent ERV's are known. But remember, it's not an ERV until it has been inherited, so you can't take just any retroviral insertion in any living being as an example. By definition, an ERV is a retroviral insertion into a germline cell which becomes an egg or sperm which is involved in a reproductive event. That means there are three hurdles to pass between any old retroviral insertion and an ERV.

Your philosophy of history may not require logic, but the theology of redemption history, and the epistemology of natural history as science demand it. Darwinian logic applies to all life, even life on other planets, even if it's undiscovered.

My philosophy of history is quite irrelevant as I was not discussing any philosophy but the contingencies of actual history. Darwinian logic plays out in the contingencies of actual history, but it doesn't determine what those contingencies are. That is why you cannot deduce from logic alone what the historical pathways of evolution were or will be.

Not according to MIT professor of biology Robert Weinberg:

It's clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered.​

Fundamentals of Biology

Have a nice day
Mark

I agree entirely with Weinberg. But that doesn't tell us that life originates on other planets in such a way as to require interplanetary common ancestors. It doesn't even tell us that there may not be a planet in which the various forms of life do not have a single common ancestor, but are divided among several unshared ancestors. These scenarios would also be consistent with Darwinian logic.

 

[mark kennedy]

You could probably find out with a google search what recent ERV's are known. But remember, it's not an ERV until it has been inherited, so you can't take just any retroviral insertion in any living being as an example. By definition, an ERV is a retroviral insertion into a germline cell which becomes an egg or sperm which is involved in a reproductive event. That means there are three hurdles to pass between any old retroviral insertion and an ERV.

Of course I've researched it and I have yet to see a single case reported in any of the scientific literature available from a Google search. The question remains, has medical science ever documented a single ERV insertion into a human germline in our time?

My philosophy of history is quite irrelevant as I was not discussing any philosophy but the contingencies of actual history. Darwinian logic plays out in the contingencies of actual history, but it doesn't determine what those contingencies are. That is why you cannot deduce from logic alone what the historical pathways of evolution were or will be.

Your philosophy most certainly is relevant if you think an illogical presupposition is warranted. The testing of hypothesis are quintessential logic, pass or fail, positive or negative, valid or null hypothesis. Evolution most certainly follows stepwise logic whether in theory or as phenomenon. That is the whole rational basis for it as science in the first place.

I agree entirely with Weinberg. But that doesn't tell us that life originates on other planets in such a way as to require interplanetary common ancestors. It doesn't even tell us that there may not be a planet in which the various forms of life do not have a single common ancestor, but are divided among several unshared ancestors. These scenarios would also be consistent with Darwinian logic.

So you, 'cannot deduce from logic alone what the historical pathways of evolution' but 'Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered.'

In other words Darwinian presuppositions transcend all life regardless of actual historical pathways. The duplicity is audacious.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Of course I've researched it and I have yet to see a single case reported in any of the scientific literature available from a Google search. The question remains, has medical science ever documented a single ERV insertion into a human germline in our time?

So what? The question is diversionary anyway, as it doesn't remove any of the 100,000 viral remnants currently in the human genome.

Your philosophy most certainly is relevant

It would be if the focus of the discussion was philosophy.
The focus was history, not philosophy, so philosophy is not relevant.

Again, this was merely a diversionary tactic on your part to evade the factual evidence provided.

Evolution most certainly follows stepwise logic whether in theory or as phenomenon. That is the whole rational basis for it as science in the first place.

You seem to think I am disputing this, though I have clarified twice that I am not. Comprehension problem or more evasion?

In other words Darwinian presuppositions transcend all life regardless of actual historical pathways.

No presuppositions needed as all the conditions required for evolutionary change have been observed and tested. You are getting far afield from the original issue you addressed: does evolutionary logic require that life originate only once in the whole universe or could it originate independently on different planets?

My position is that life could originate independently on different planets, but on every planet where life originated, it would evolve as it does on this one. So on each planet there would be common ancestry for that planet, but not interplanetary common ancestry. Why do you think that unreasonable?

 

[mark kennedy]

So what? The question is diversionary anyway, as it doesn't remove any of the 100,000 viral remnants currently in the human genome.

That's the whole point, they are protein coding genes with broken reading frames. Every living system comes from another and viruses had to have come from another living system. They are Transposable Elements which means they are self replicating protein coding reading frames with frameshift mutations. The presumption that they are the result of viral infections into the germline cells is not only unsubstantiated, it's ridiculous.

Not one single documented case of a a human germline invasion from a virus known to medical science and yet we are supposed to believe that 8% of the human genome is the result of them. You never did get the most basic problem with this, the deleterious effect of mutations.

It would be if the focus of the discussion was philosophy.
The focus was history, not philosophy, so philosophy is not relevant.

Natural science is a philosophy, it's actually epistemology (theories of knowledge). History has to have an epistemology, arguing otherwise is pointless, especially when it comes to natural history.

Again, this was merely a diversionary tactic on your part to evade the factual evidence provided.

I'm well aware of the factual evidence, being an evolutionist doesn't make you conversant in the sciences, it certainly doesn't make you an authority. I know exactly what ERVs are and every single one that I traced back turned out to be a psuedo gene.

You seem to think I am disputing this, though I have clarified twice that I am not. Comprehension problem or more evasion?

I'm having no problem shooting holes in this argument based on very basic details of the ERVs. I'm not trying to evade I'm just trying to prevent the argument from spiraling into the abyss of fallacious circular arguments but apparently, it's too late for that.

Ask yourself a fundamental question, what is the difference between an ERV and a protein coding gene or a psuedo gene.

I could never get you to understand what an indel is or why the deleterious effects of mutations were, I'm not overly optimistic that this exchange will be any different.

No presuppositions needed as all the conditions required for evolutionary change have been observed and tested. You are getting far afield from the original issue you addressed: does evolutionary logic require that life originate only once in the whole universe or could it originate independently on different planets?

Darwinian logic is nothing but presupposition.

My position is that life could originate independently on different planets, but on every planet where life originated, it would evolve as it does on this one. So on each planet there would be common ancestry for that planet, but not interplanetary common ancestry. Why do you think that unreasonable?

Because it's never been directly observed or empirically demonstrated, it doesn't need to because it's an a priori (without prior) assumption. The Modern Synthesis is a unified theory, which makes it transcendent (ubiquitous to all life), which makes it metaphysics not natural science.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

viruses in the human genome would be devastating, disastrous and fatally deleterious.

Really, mark? Why should anyone take your claim seriously? Would you care to provide support for that?

Your claim here is especially striking since ERV's have been fully explained to you, multiple times, by experts (including Christian experts), such as here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7799122-19/

You know as well as I do that it's clear ERV's are virusus, because actual experts have been able to get an ERV to produce virus particles again.

More to the point though, you took to all too common UCA denier tactic of making a claim, and then asking someone else to prove you wrong. Sorry, you made the claim, it is up to you to defend it, or retract it.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[gluadys]

You never did get the most basic problem with this, the deleterious effect of mutations.

On the contrary, you never got that the deleterious effect of a few mutations is not problematical to a species--though I grant that it is very problematical to the individual affected by one.

Natural science is a philosophy, it's actually epistemology (theories of knowledge).

Natural science is not a philosophy; it is knowledge about nature.
I grant that some epistemological principles undergird the method of obtaining and verifying this knowledge.

Ask yourself a fundamental question, what is the difference between an ERV and a protein coding gene or a psuedo gene.

An ERV contains viral DNA. Other genes, including pseudogenes, don't.

I could never get you to understand what an indel is

What do you mean by that? An indel is either an insertion or deletion of one or more contiguous base pairs in a DNA molecule. If, when comparing two similar genomes, it is found that a section of DNA occurring in one, does not occur in the other, and it is not clear whether bases were added to one genome or deleted from the other, the discrepancy is called an indel (from "insertion or deletion")

or why the deleterious effects of mutations were,

I am quite well aware of the deleterious effects of some mutations on those who carry them. I am especially aware that one of the common effects is to prevent that individual from being successful at mating and/or reproduction. What you have never understood is that this effect keeps deleterious effects in individuals from becoming problematical for a species.

Because it's never been directly observed or empirically demonstrated, it doesn't need to because it's an a priori (without prior) assumption. The Modern Synthesis is a unified theory, which makes it transcendent (ubiquitous to all life), which makes it metaphysics not natural science.

I grant you that life on other planets has not been directly observed or demonstrated. So why would you insist that all life-bearing planets (if any such exist apart from earth) would share a common ancestor with earth-born life? Why could life on a different planet not be completely independent from life on this planet and any further life-bearing planets? There would have had to have been some pretty spectacular space travel going on around 4 billion + years ago for the life forms on two or more different planets to share ancestors.

 

[mark kennedy]

On the contrary, you never got that the deleterious effect of a few mutations is not problematical to a species--though I grant that it is very problematical to the individual affected by one.

Not a single germline invasion documented in medical science and yet, we are supposed to believe 8% of the human genome was produced by them.

 

[mark kennedy]

mark wrote:


Really, mark? Why should anyone take your claim seriously? Would you care to provide support for that?

Your claim here is especially striking since ERV's have been fully explained to you, multiple times, by experts (including Christian experts), such as here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7799122-19/

And not one of them has been able to defend this dog and pony show of a homology argument:

ERVs put chimp/human common ancestry beyond any reasonable doubt.

Evolution is defined scientifically as the change of alleles in populations over time. Darwinism is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. The most common and persuasive argument for common descent the Darwinian has is homology or things the two lineages have in common, especially things that are identical. Homology arguments have been the cornerstone of Darwinian logic since Huxley (Darwin's bulldog) first started attacking the concept of creation. For a long time I found these arguments highly persuasive and regarded them as profoundly empirical until I discovered that the Achilles' heel of Darwinian logic was the role of mutations in their scenario of natural history.

Most of the time when a mutation occurs in the DNA it's neutral (does nothing), the vast majority of the time when it has an effect it's deleterious (harmful). The main cause of mutations is copy errors and there are quality control checks and DNA repair mechanisms throughout the life cycle of the cell that prevent the vast majority of them from getting though. When they do manage to get by the quality control checks natural selection eliminates them through the death of the carrier. In order for a mutation to be permanently fixed and passed on from one generation to another it has to be present in the germline cells. This is the last place you would want to have a mutation, it is no where more dangerous to the offspring.

Now through genetic drift it's a virus induced mutation, becoming permanently fixed in populations. No explanation how it got by the DNA repair mechanisms or wasn't purged through recombination. It's just there as the result of highly improbable germline invasions on a massive scale. That, during a time when our ancestors would have been diversifying into all the main categories of monkeys and apes and highly conserved genes would have been moving at an unprecedented rate toward fixation as well. Neither the major morphological traits have a viable cause nor does the ERV elements have a reasonable cause but we are supposed to assume they happened on an impossible scale simultaneously.

It's been explained to me numerous times, and it's been explained wrong.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Papias]

In the OP, mark wrote:

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design-Gallup Poll

The culture wars are over and it looks the whole evolution/creation controversy is fading away. Creationism is going up, atheistic materialism is remaining static and it appears Theistic Evolution is on the decline.

Soon after, in post #4, I replied:

Thanks for posting this, mark, it's interesting.

I think that some conclusions are warranted, but some others may not be.

For instance - I don't think one could say that (YE) creationism is going up long term. That last data point is no higher than several points farther back, and is only 2% higher than the first point.

I do think that one could say that TE is going down (with the caveat below), because that last point, at 32, is lower than it has ever been, over 11 separate polls.

As much as I'd like to say so, I don't think we can say that atheistic materialism is holding steady. ....

(and then in that same post - #4- gave a speculative reason why I thought that last creationist point at 46% was likely a fluke.)


OK, so now we have the next data point in all those lines on this same ongoing graph. Here is the updated data:

Based on these data, my conclusions are:

• Creationism - Probably staying steady. Perhaps going down (2 of the last 3 points are the lowest two points ever, and the same statement goes for 3 of the last 5).
• Theistic Evolution - clearly going down. What looked likely in the OP looks even stronger now, with another all time low %.
• atheistic materialism - clearly going up, and rapidly.

I appreciate this thread, and agree that going by the data itself helps us all.

With the predictions from my speculative reason (gay marriage, post #4) supported by these most recent points, I'd guess that we'll see these trends continue next time (creationism maybe down a little, TE down, a m up).

Also relevant is the recent Pew data on these same three options. It puts all of them near 30%, with the same trends, suggesting that within a few years, Pew will find a m highest. I'm guessing the difference between Pew and Gallup is due to methodology and wording, since they both find the same trends.

To me, this suggests that our work as Christians is to show that Christ is central to creation, and that how one sees the details of that creation is less important.


What do you think?

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

If Papias is still around I thought he might find this of interest:

Do You Believe the Theory of Evolution

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

If Papias is still around I thought he might find this of interest:

Do You Believe the Theory of Evolution

Yes, I do find that interesting. Thanks for showing me. Also, the previous post (#98) you may have missed - it was made just a few days ago.

Best-

Papias