Evolutionary debate

[SkyWriting]

It doesn't matter. If boundaries exist, then we could find them. Phylogenetic analysis would have found them if morphological analysis did not.



You can think what you like, but the evidence refutes what you think. Birds are an excellent series of examples of exaptation. That is where a trait evolves for one purpose but then has a totally different purpose.

Feathers are modified scales. In fact, scales can be turned into feathers by the timing of expression of BMP:
5. Zou H, Niswander L , Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital apoptosisand scale formation. Science 1996 May 3;272(5262):738-41 "Expressionof dnBMPR in chicken embryonic hind limbs greatly reduced interdigital apoptosis and resulted in webbed feet. In addition, scales were transformed into feathers."

The scales on the chicken hind legs were transformed into feathers?
That's STUNNING!.
Holy Cow!

 

[Doveaman]

Not "speculation", conclusions. That whales still have leg bones is a holdover from land dwelling ancestors is not "speculation", but rather a conclusion or inference from the observation.

Okay, we can call them assumptions from the observations. How about that?

That's not the claim. Instead, the coccyx is a remnant left over from tailed ancestors.

To me, it’s just a bone.

But blind mole rats are not interfertile.

Perhaps their ancient ancestors were.

They are a viable species.

So is the mule.

What's more, a mutation of such interbreeding would apply only to a single individual, not every member of the whole population.

If you go back far enough you might find two such individuals, a male and his female. A population can then be reproduced.

Besides, which rat species would you have for the original interbreeding that lives its entire life underground?

The original rat species that Noah dug up from underground and kept on the Ark for safety. They might have even interbred on the Ark. Who knows.

This attempt to dismiss the vestigial eyes of the mole rats runs afoul of reality.

I’m not dismissing them. I’m explaining them.

Nice hypothesis, but testing it against available data already shows it to be wrong.

Well, I’m not convinced it is.

 

[Hespera]

Okay, we can call them assumptions from the observations. How about that?
To me, it’s just a bone.
Perhaps their ancient ancestors were.
So is the mule.
If you go back far enough you might find two such individuals, a male and his female. A population can then be reproduced.
The original rat species that Noah dug up from underground and kept on the Ark for safety. They might have even interbred on the Ark. Who knows.
I’m not dismissing them. I’m explaining them.
Well, I’m not convinced it is.

"to me, its just a bone" really says it all.

 

[Incariol]

Yes. DNA can never be proven. Evolutionists are obsessed with it because they always say ''chimps share 97% DNA with modern man'' etc. That's great, however you would then need to prove DNA is real.

Thank you, atomic force microscopy.

 

[ChiRho78]

I don't "believe" in evolution, because the data and evidence shows it to be the most likely scenario. No belief is required in science, you either have the data or you don't. I think Evolution is correct, but I have no "belief" in it.

 

[Jazer]

The scales on the chicken hind legs were transformed into feathers?
That's STUNNING!.
Holy Cow!

You do not change one cell into another. It is a question of what is turned on and what is turned off. So that one or the other type of cell is developed or produced.

 

[Sephsekla]

It always amuses me how so many Creationists will snub all kinds of evidence, corroborated research and the like, but will without a trace of irony refer to one book as absolute fact.

The Bible is full of passages which contradict both itself and the available evidence. At best it can be considered analogy. However quoting verbatim the uncorroborated thoughts of Jewish scholars thousands of years ago to counter modern scientific research is quite frankly insulting to the scientific method.

I have no problem with the Bible's messages of altruism and forgiveness, but it mystifies me how anyone can still bury their head in the sand and take it literally.

 

[AV1611VET]

It always amuses me how so many Creationists will snub all kinds of evidence, corroborated research and the like, but will without a trace of irony refer to one book as absolute fact.

That 'one book' is comprised of 66 independent books, written over a period of some 1500 years by 40-some authors in 3 languages from 3 continents, all corroborating each other.

 

[Sephsekla]

Apologies, perhaps I oversimplified to make my point. You're right that it's wrong to call the Bible one book, there being many books by many authors. Not that it should matter if it is the word of your God.

However I dispute that they all corroborate each other. Take Genesis for example, as previously mentioned. The "J" and "P" versions, as they are often called, differ in their narrative on the order of creation.

Similarly,

"Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand" (Exodus. 21:23, 24)

presented as literally the word of God, seems to directly contradict Jesus' teachings of forgiveness:

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times." Matthew 18:21-22

If God is truly omnipotent and omniscient, an all-wise creator, why the sudden change of heart?

Don't get me wrong, I personally find the Bible a fascinating read, and it would be difficult to argue that many of its moral laws could not be used as a basis for any moral code. All I'm saying is that as a scientific source it is far from untouchable as is the impression you seem to give.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God is truly omnipotent and omniscient, an all-wise creator, why the sudden change of heart?

There was no 'sudden change of heart'.

God works through what is called dispensations -- periods of time where man is expected to live under specific guidelines, or face judgement.

In the example you gave, you have to understand what has transpired.

The Jews have just been liberated from Egyptian oppression, and they are in the wilderness.

God is about to institute the dispensation of LAW, and here is what transpires, just before God gives it:

Exodus 19:1 In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.
2 For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.
3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.

Notice how the people responded:

Exodus 19:8a And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.

According to C. I. Scofield, that is one of the biggest mistakes they ever made. They should never have said that. Instead, they should have humbled themselves and told God that they are sinners and can't begin to measure up to His standards.

Nevertheless, they said what they said, and at that point, God takes on a new facet, and death takes on a new meaning.

There are three -- (and I hope I'm not wasting my time here) -- but there are three types of judgmental action:

1. justice = getting what we deserve
2. mercy = not getting what we deserve
3. grace = getting what we don't deserve

It is at this point that God institutes justice -- an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth.


The Jews lived under the dispensation of LAW up until Jesus Christ died on the Cross and the veil in the Temple was rent in twain from -- get this -- the top down.


At this point, the dispensation of LAW ended and the new dispensation of GRACE started, and we went from an eye for an eye to forgiving one another seventy times seven.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

How many times have I said this on this forum. Here it goes again:

There are 4 camps.
Camp 1: Christians who do not believe in evolution
Camp 2: Christians who believe in evolution
Camp 3: Non-Christians who believe in evolution
Camp 4: Non-Christians who do not believe in evolution

There is no one in Camp 4. If there was any scientific, objective evidence against evolution, there would be people in Camp 4. There aren't. The fact that no one is in Camp 4 tells you that the anti-evolution argument is highly biased and ideologically driven.

There are many people in Camp 2 meaning that evolution and Christian faith are clearly not incompatible.

If your whole faith in Jesus as a Saviour is founded on a literal interpretation of a few verses within a Bible which contains 20000+ verses then I feel like your faith has some shaky underpinnings.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no one in Camp 4. If there was any scientific, objective evidence against evolution, there would be people in Camp 4. There aren't. The fact that no one is in Camp 4 tells you that the anti-evolution argument is highly biased and ideologically driven.

No -- you know what it tells me?

It tells me that anything found would be summarily rejected.

After all, scientists make the rules, don't they?

In my opinioin -- and I can't prove it, but it's just a gut feeling -- I think rabbits are found in the Precambrian all the time; but since scientists say there is no such a thing, and since science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle, they either say it isn't a rabbit, or it isn't the Precambrian, or both.

Despite the Internet deniers here, I also believe scientists date fossils by the rocks they are found in, and date the rocks by the fossils found in them.

So for the record, my gut feeling is that evolution-denying evidence is found all the time, it's just reclassified.

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

After all, scientists make the rules, don't they?

This is the grossest misrepresentation of science I have ever seen. Scientists do not make up junk out of thin air and take it as facts without doing any experiments. Religious people are the ones that do that.

You ought to get a price for outrageous misrepresentation of science.

-- "Tell him what he's won, Bob!"
--"A free vacation trip to the "Creationist Museum."

 

[Jazer]

There is no one in Camp 4.

Most people are in the I could care less camp.
They tend to be pro science and pro religion.

 

[Jazer]

Scientists do not make up junk out of thin air

Some of it they get out of comic books.

 

[USincognito]

Some of it they get out of comic books.

As opposed to what? Chick Tracts?

 

[Miami Marlins 2012]

Some of it they get out of comic books.

You mean the bible?

 

[Ryal Kane]

How many times have I said this on this forum. Here it goes again:

There are 4 camps.
Camp 1: Christians who do not believe in evolution
Camp 2: Christians who believe in evolution
Camp 3: Non-Christians who believe in evolution
Camp 4: Non-Christians who do not believe in evolution

There is no one in Camp 4. If there was any scientific, objective evidence against evolution, there would be people in Camp 4. There aren't. The fact that no one is in Camp 4 tells you that the anti-evolution argument is highly biased and ideologically driven.

There are many people in Camp 2 meaning that evolution and Christian faith are clearly not incompatible.

If your whole faith in Jesus as a Saviour is founded on a literal interpretation of a few verses within a Bible which contains 20000+ verses then I feel like your faith has some shaky underpinnings.

Are you just refering to these boards or just in general? I can see where you're coming from bu there are plenty of non-christians who don't accept evolution. Granted these often come from theological positions, such as from certain Muslims and Hindus, but they're certainly not exclusively Christian.

I don't think you could even say that nonbelievers in evolution are all theists. There are a great number of misinformed people in the world. Atheism and ignorance are not mutually exclusive.

 

[sandwiches]

There was no 'sudden change of heart'.

God works through what is called dispensations -- periods of time where man is expected to live under specific guidelines, or face judgement.

In the example you gave, you have to understand what has transpired.

The Jews have just been liberated from Egyptian oppression, and they are in the wilderness.

God is about to institute the dispensation of LAW, and here is what transpires, just before God gives it:

Exodus 19:1 In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.
2 For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.
3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.

Notice how the people responded:

Exodus 19:8a And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.

According to C. I. Scofield, that is one of the biggest mistakes they ever made. They should never have said that. Instead, they should have humbled themselves and told God that they are sinners and can't begin to measure up to His standards.

Nevertheless, they said what they said, and at that point, God takes on a new facet, and death takes on a new meaning.

There are three -- (and I hope I'm not wasting my time here) -- but there are three types of judgmental action:

1. justice = getting what we deserve
2. mercy = not getting what we deserve
3. grace = getting what we don't deserve

It is at this point that God institutes justice -- an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth.


The Jews lived under the dispensation of LAW up until Jesus Christ died on the Cross and the veil in the Temple was rent in twain from -- get this -- the top down.


At this point, the dispensation of LAW ended and the new dispensation of GRACE started, and we went from an eye for an eye to forgiving one another seventy times seven.

Ah. So, God had a change of heart due to the circumstances. So much for absolute morality and and all that yakking we hear from internet theologians.

 

[sandwiches]

So for the record, my gut feeling is that evolution-denying evidence is found all the time, it's just reclassified.

For the record, your gut feeling can take a hike.