Evolution is an ancient Creation dogma

[pitabread]

Think evolutionists already have that market cornered...

Do you agree with Aman's theology?

 

[lifepsyop]

Do you agree with Aman's theology?

Whatever it is, I can guarantee it's no more implausible than stardust blindly organizing itself into people.

 

[pitabread]

Whatever it is, I can guarantee it's no more implausible than stardust blindly organizing itself into people.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you agree with his theology.

 

[Brightmoon]

Stardust to people? Since it has already happened you can’t say that it’s implausible!

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
It also agrees with every discovery of mankind, history and God's Holy Word.

Coming up with a story that "agrees" with something doesn't make the story true.

The creation story is totally unique since it is the entire HISTORY of the creation of the perfect 3rd Heaven, at the end of the present 6th Day. Those who TRY to refute it (prove it wrong) FAIL miserably whether they try to refute it Scripturally, Scientifically or Historically. It's the only thing on this board which does that.

It would be like trying to refute Star Wars. What would be the point?

False analogy since Star Wars doesn't have to agree with every other discovered Truth, but Scripture does. The reason is that the Holy Spirit, the Author of Scripture, is also the Spirit of Truth, thus required to tell the Truth, and He does, completely in Genesis Chapter One. Unless God tells us the Truth, the entire Truth, and nothing but the Truth, the 3rd Heaven could never be. It's the secret of being immortal. God must be perfect or He can never have a perfect Heaven. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Stardust to people? Since it has already happened you can’t say that it’s implausible!

Amen. The Miracle is that Jesus knew it would be this way before He "inflated" our Cosmos, some 9 Billion years after the first Day. Genesis 2:4 It was late on the 3rd Day/Age since it was only 180 Million years, in man's time, from then until the FIRST Stars put forth their light on the 4th Day/Age Genesis 1:16 in the creation of the 3rd Heaven. http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/03/fingerprinting-the-very-first-stars

 

[Aman777]

Stardust to people? Since it has already happened you can’t say that it’s implausible!

Amen. Science and History AGREE. Wonder HOW ancient man, who some suppose wrote Genesis, knew and correctly wrote that? It's proof of God. God Bless you

 

[DogmaHunter]

*rolling eyes* here we go...

You're tripping all over yourself in your pedantic attempts to score points.

No. I just think it's important to get it correct.

Unless you're arguing the physiological organization of a giraffe bodyplan was always floating out in the aether since time began, then, yes... according to your own worldview, Evolution indeed "created" the giraffe. (create = bring something into existence) .. That organismal organization didn't exist, and then it did.

But "create" is the wrong word. "evolve" is the correct word.

Oh okay, "create from scratch" isn't reflective of the idea of all of the world's biodiversity coming into existence via primordial reproducing lifeforms?

Idd it's not.

... My goodness, just own your silly origins beliefs and stop pretending it's being mischaracterized because you don't like a particular language used.

If you use the wrong language, then you misrepresent the position.
You don't care about being correct/accurate?

Unless, off course, misrepresenting the position is exactly what you are going for.

You must really hate the term "natural selection", because after all, nature doesn't ACTUALLY intentionally select something!

Neither does it mean that.
Selection with intent, is artificial selection. Which is what breeders do.
Natural selection is a natural selection process. The "natural" part refers to surival and reproduction in term of fitness.

The terminology is correct.

Lets stop all discussion and whine about that term for awhile instead of dealing with the thrust of anyone's arguments.

If you use the wrong language, your arguments become strawmen.

 

[tas8831]

The evolutionary argument from homology is notoriously circular:

The anatomical structures are similar because they are derived from a common ancestor.
And we know they share a common ancestor because of the similarity of the anatomical structures.

Can you provide a non-creationist source in which evolutionists employ this logic?

And I see that you are knowledgeable of molecular analyses as every other creationist.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

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

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

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

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

 

[tas8831]

. Berlinski isn’t a a biologist or even a scientist! So his judgement of scientific papers is woefully lacking.
You misunderstanding of natural selection and how it can and does change organisms borders on pitiful

Berlinski is a joke.
Have you seen his claims regarding whale evolution? Comical, to say the least.

 

[tas8831]

Not even close.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

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

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

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

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

Pity that yet another YEC Dunning-Kruger desperado does not understand how homology is inferred - nor how these abstracts demonstrate that one need not even do so...

 

[tas8831]

Not even close.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

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

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

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

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

Pity that yet another YEC Dunning-Kruger desperado does not understand how homology is inferred - nor how these abstracts demonstrate that one need not even do so...

 

[Aman777]

Have you seen his claims regarding whale evolution?

Where did Whales have their origin?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where did Whales have their origin?

In land mammals.

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
Where did Whales have their origin?

In land mammals.

Provably false since the land dwelling ungulates which descended into Whales, had their origin in water according to Science.
Behold LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth ...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life...

Try again?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Aman777 said: ↑
Where did Whales have their origin?



Provably false since the land dwelling ungulates which descended into Whales, had their origin in water according to Science.
Behold LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth ...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life...

Try again?

Yes.

From sea to land and back to sea again.
So the statement that whales are descendents from land mammals, is a correct statement.
That land mammal itself is a descendents of even older sea life, that is also a correct statement.

 

[tas8831]

Whatever it is, I can guarantee it's no more implausible than stardust blindly organizing itself into people.

But less plausible than a tribal deity speaking an adult human male into existence all at once from silicates.

 

[Aman777]

But less plausible than a tribal deity speaking an adult human male into existence all at once from silicates.

More plausible is that Jesus (not man) made man from the dust, like a Potter molds the clay, and then gave him life. Only God can give life. The life of Humans (Adam's descendants is temporary and subject to death. Those who swap a few years of life on Earth for Immortality, are not smart, even though they THINK they know more than God.

 

[loveofourlord]

No, this isn't true at all. Forget alternative explanations, you are not even allowed to propose a LIMIT on the natural explanation, i.e. nature's supposed creative powers to explain the origin of things. To suggest natural processes are an insufficient explanation would be a total heresy to these institutions. Again, it's simply outside of the scientific establishment's philosophical parameters. There's no shame in admitting your own dogmatic boundaries.

why would anyone get to say there are limits on what can be explained? this is the biggest arrogance I find so often with other Christian and such, "Beyond this point science can never understand and shouldn't be allowed to understand." the point of time to say science can't figure something out, is after it's done everything it can to try to understand it, and so far it's doing a good job, it's not perfect, but we arn't just spinning our wheels unable to get anywhere.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Stardust to people? Since it has already happened you can’t say that it’s implausible!

Actually that is "earth dust" to people.....

Since planetary formation theories are now questionable, yes, you can say it is implausible from stardust...

Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says

RSR's List of Problems with Solar System Formation | KGOV.com

Our Very Normal Solar System Isn't Normal Anymore

""Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply." We had our frost line. We knew how solar systems formed. "It was a really beautiful theory," he says. "And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.""