Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

But we're not disputing creation, which is a theological doctrine.

You're not???

 

[pitabread]

You're not???

How does this come as a surprise that other Christians believe different things about how the world was created? I mean, even among creationists there are radical differences.

 

[sfs]

You're not???

I haven't read every sentence in the thread, but I'm certainly not. Evolution is entirely consistent with the Christian doctrine that the world and everything in it is the creation of God. Most Christian traditions have made their peace with evolutionary biology.

 

[inquiring mind]

But it's not lacking, maybe you don't want to acknowledge it, maybe you don't fully understand, but it's not lacking....

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."


http://www.beliefnet.com/news/scien...-threatened-by-our-scientific-adventures.aspx

You have responded reasonably and I appreciate that, but please answer one question just from your “gut” and looking from the other side of this board discussion. When you look in the mirror (no mockery intended at all), putting your macro evolutionary concept and bias on the back burner for a minute... and considering your complex thought processes, the emotional levels, the “you” you feel, the uniqueness above all of God’s other living creations; do you not in the least bit sense something different, beyond that of an evolutionary process of course?

I find it interesting that God’s Word says, “Let the ‘earth’ bring forth the living creature after his kind (if it had stopped there macro evolutionists would be able to jump all over it),” but it quickly goes on to say “And God made the beast of the earth after their kind...” And, then it says, “Let us make man in our image...” There seems to be no slip-ups in His Word that would allow or macro evolution; don’t you find that powerful for so-called archaic, ignorant storytellers?

 

[46AND2]

You have responded reasonably and I appreciate that, but please answer one question just from your “gut” and looking from the other side of this board discussion. When you look in the mirror (no mockery intended at all), putting your macro evolutionary concept and bias on the back burner for a minute... and considering your complex thought processes, the emotional levels, the “you” you feel, the uniqueness above all of God’s other living creations; do you not in the least bit sense something different, beyond that of an evolutionary process of course?

I don't use my gut to learn things about how the world works.

I find it interesting that God’s Word says, “Let the ‘earth’ bring forth the living creature after his kind (if it had stopped there macro evolutionists would be able to jump all over it),” but it quickly goes on to say “And God made the beast of the earth after their kind...” And, then it says, “Let us make man in our image...” There seems to be no slip-ups in His Word that would allow or macro evolution; don’t you find that powerful for so-called archaic, ignorant storytellers?

I find it amusing that in a paragraph where your gut tells you there is no slip up in the Bible, you reference a passage in the Bible which slips up and betrays the polytheistic roots of Judaism.

 

[inquiring mind]

I haven't read every sentence in the thread, but I'm certainly not. Evolution is entirely consistent with the Christian doctrine that the world and everything in it is the creation of God. Most Christian traditions have made their peace with evolutionary biology.

I used to think that way myself, before realizing that “God made us in some other kind and we evolved into another kind (man)” doesn’t align with what the Bible says (in my interpretation). "Kind" is emphasized over and over. If you’re going to hold God’s Word as the truth, you can’t begin by not believing the opening verses. I believe that however He did it, in the final analysis it will align with the Bible. And yes the potential is there for all of us to misinterpret.

 

[Job 33:6]

Have you never read of the large floating mats (capable of supporting animal life) on the lake near Mt. St. Helens?

The alleged global flood is believed to have metamorphosed rock and eroded thousands of feet of pure stone in a single year. Such conditions would incinerate any floating organics but yes, I have heard people talk about floating mats before.

Some suggest that only erosion of soft sediment has occurred in the case of stream valleys, but physics and chemistry indicate otherwise. I don't think I've heard anyone explain how the flood metamorphosed rock without burning every living thing alive. Or how rock could be metamorphosed while ice simultaneously advanced from the poles.

Some suggest that ice ages simply happened after the flood. But when there are deposits from multiple independent advances of ice...separated by deposition of sediment from warmer environments, this suggests very radical and rapid changes in the earth which also defy physics and chemistry.

 

[tas8831]

Im not entirely sure what your getting at here, is the weird cow picture the result of a single mutation?

Yes - note that its muscle mass is about double that in normal cows. Experiments have been done in mice with similar results.

It's been a while since I tracked down the myocine gene but an improved jaw is not the same thing as an enlarged brain. At least 60 unique brain related genes not found in chimpanzee genomes. HAR 1f allows 15 substitutions after only allowing 2 the previous 300 million years. That is not nearly as bad as the fact that there is no hominid line until 2 mya and the only transitional the previous million years is an obvious transitional to gorilla from the more gracial chimpanzee line. Then Turkaa boy shows up 100% anatomically human with a skull within the range of human variation.

I could go on and on with this, why nothing from the Darwinian camp except that pandas thumb scattergram and tangential anecdotal evidence? I mean I know I could make a formidable argument for chimpanzee human common ancestry, only problem is I could soundly refute it. Its all very puzzling and the history of TOE as it's developed over the decades since Darwin is the stuff of conspiracy theories. Esoteric on so many levels, profoundly philosophical in its orientation and most of you act like you've never heard of Charels Darwin or the Modenr Synthesis.

I'm not even annoyed anymore, just deeply puzzled.

You did not even try to answer my question.

I did not ask you to dismiss evolution's purported claims again, you do that on a regular basis on your own. I will re-state it:

Curious as to what you expect in terms of a molecular mechanism in terms of the human brain expansion.

That is, what do you think would have been required and why do you draw that conclusion.

...

I want to know, as do, I think, all of the evolution understanders here, what, exactly, you think would have had to happen if the "naturalistic view" were accurate.

There are many known mutations/duplications and such associated with brain size. According to you, how many must there have been and how do you, especially in light of the fact that there are cases of single mutations causing pronounced changes in morphology (another example is the mutation causing familial dwarfism - and please do not complain that dwarfism and muscular cows are not evolution - that is not my point, my point is the effects of mutation on phenotype are not as 1-to-1 as so many layfolk seem to think), know?

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't use my gut to learn things about how the world works.

Good luck with your weight then.

 

[sfs]

I used to think that way myself, before realizing that “God made us in some other kind and we evolved into another kind (man)” doesn’t align with what the Bible says (in my interpretation). "Kind" is emphasized over and over. If you’re going to hold God’s Word as the truth, you can’t begin by not believing the opening verses. I believe that however He did it, in the final analysis it will align with the Bible. And yes the potential is there for all of us to misinterpret.

Well, fine. As long as you recognize that plenty of theologians and Bible scholars disagree with you on this point. Getting back to the actual point in question, also recognize that "disagreeing with my interpretation of Genesis" is not the same as disputing creation.

 

[46AND2]

Good luck with your weight then.

 

[Job 33:6]

Im not entirely sure what your getting at here, is the weird cow picture the result of a single mutation? It's been a while since I tracked down the myocine gene but an improved jaw is not the same thing as an enlarged brain. At least 60 unique brain related genes not found in chimpanzee genomes. HAR 1f allows 15 substitutions after only allowing 2 the previous 300 million years. That is not nearly as bad as the fact that there is no hominid line until 2 mya and the only transitional the previous million years is an obvious transitional to gorilla from the more gracial chimpanzee line. Then Turkaa boy shows up 100% anatomically human with a skull within the range of human variation.

I'm not even annoyed anymore, just deeply puzzled.

I think I already addressed this but to confirm, we do have proto chimpanzee fossils, and of course we have fossils like sahelanthropus and orronin that have chimpanzee traits dating back some 7 million years ago.

I think people forget that, there was once a time where we had no fossils at all. No transitionals from reptile to bird or reptile to mammal or fish to amphibian or amphibian to reptile or proto ape man. Horse transitions, elephant transitions, whales, turtles, frogs, chordates, arthropods, you name it.

Since those days, we now have all of the above and fossils are still coming out every year. We have transitionals being cleaned up and studied right now that haven't been released to the public yet as well.

So it's not a very wise idea trying to make any argument based on a fossil gap (particularly with the chimpanzee lineage). Because in 10 years we will have a whole slue of new fossils, and all it's going to do is make those people look like fools as it has been doing for the past century with people who used to criticize other areas yet to be overwhelmingly packed with fossils.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes - note that its muscle mass is about double that in normal cows. Experiments have been done in mice with similar results.


You did not even try to answer my question.

I did not ask you to dismiss evolution's purported claims again, you do that on a regular basis on your own. I will re-state it:

Curious as to what you expect in terms of a molecular mechanism in terms of the human brain expansion.

That is, what do you think would have been required and why do you draw that conclusion.

...

I want to know, as do, I think, all of the evolution understanders here, what, exactly, you think would have had to happen if the "naturalistic view" were accurate.

There are many known mutations/duplications and such associated with brain size. According to you, how many must there have been and how do you, especially in light of the fact that there are cases of single mutations causing pronounced changes in morphology (another example is the mutation causing familial dwarfism - and please do not complain that dwarfism and muscular cows are not evolution - that is not my point, my point is the effects of mutation on phenotype are not as 1-to-1 as so many layfolk seem to think), know?

Its staggering how much you guys don't learn about the life sciences while pontificating about them. Molecular mecanisms, actually single stranded rna, do any number of things as the cell is being built. From the 7th to the 17th week of the gestation period of the human fetus there is a regulatory gene known as HAR 1f, a crucial 118 nucleotide regulatory gene. It has allowed only 2 substitions in 400 million years then 2 million years ago it allows 18, only in humans. We will start with that since I don't jump though hoops for darwinians, but thanks for the convoluted rhetoric just the same.

 

[Job 33:6]

Its staggering how much you guys don't learn about the life sciences while pontificating about them. Molecular mecanisms, actually single stranded rna, do any number of things as the cell is being built. From the 7th to the 17th week of the gestation period of the human fetus there is a regulatory gene known as HAR 1f, a crucial 118 nucleotide regulatory gene. It has allowed only 2 substitions in 400 million years then 2 million years ago it allows 18, only in humans. We will start with that since I don't jump though hoops for darwinians, but thanks for the convoluted rhetoric just the same.

Are you in awe of this? Or in doubt? What is your intent in stating them?

 

[pitabread]

Are you in awe of this? Or in doubt? What is your intent in stating them?

Argument from incredulity. That's what it always boils down to.

 

[Job 33:6]

It is widely known that rates of evolution can vary due to selective pressures. Our brain has put us at the top of the food chain. If there is any evolutionary feat that would be accelerated, it would be the evolution of the brain, especially in more recent times in which we can take advantage of it.

Whereas in the past, we would not be able to take advantage of it, as a fish or salamander or reptile cannot make use of tools. But something like an early hominid could.

 

[Job 33:6]

Research online indicates that comparison was done between the gene in chickens and cihmpanzee. Chickens were not around 400 million years ago, nor birds. Reptiles were not even around back then, so that 400 million year number appears to be inaccurate, 200-250 might be more in the ballpark.

 

[mark kennedy]

Are you in awe of this? Or in doubt? What is your intent in stating them?

In awe of what, it's impossible. Its something called functional constraint due to deleterious effects. This is in addition to 60 de novo brain related genes appearing out of nowhere with no viable cause.why bring it up? It's called the burden of proof, and that's on Darwinians who do nothing but beg the question of proof on their hands and knees

 

[DogmaHunter]

And yes the potential is there for all of us to misinterpret.

So.... wait a minute here....
This seems to suggest that you accept that there is a possibility that you are wrong in your interpretation?

If yes, then the logical question becomes: how can you find out if you are wrong in your interpretation?

Allow me to give a small suggestion...............
Your interpretation makes lots of claims about the world around us and its history.
Let's, for clarity, define the word "true" here... I'ld say that a "true" statement about the world, is a statement which alinges with the facts/evidence of reality.

Clearly, you should be aware that the actual evidence of the world, does NOT align with your particular religious beliefs... Assuming you believe in a literal Noah Flood for example... Surely you understand that this story isn't supported by ANY evidence and that the few testable predictions the story does make, completely fail when tested?

The evidence we have at our disposal, tells us that this flood NEVER occured.


So I can't help but wonder...............................


If you indeed acknowledge that you COULD be wrong about your religious interpretation.... And if you indeed realise that the evidence of reality doesn't agree with your particular intepretation....

Regardless of you agreeing or not with the scientific explanation of the evidence, why still hold on to the religious interpretation?

If it's nonsense... how do you determine that it's nonsense? If not by matching it up against the actual evidence of reality?

 

[inquiring mind]

So.... wait a minute here....
This seems to suggest that you accept that there is a possibility that you are wrong in your interpretation?

Yes, this is always a possibility if I am leaning totally on my own understanding in some areas.

If yes, then the logical question becomes: how can you find out if you are wrong in your interpretation?

By allowing the Lord to guide me, and not leaning totally on my own understanding.

Allow me to give a small suggestion...............
Your interpretation makes lots of claims about the world around us and its history.
Let's, for clarity, define the word "true" here... I'ld say that a "true" statement about the world, is a statement which alinges with the facts/evidence of reality.

That align with the facts/evidence of reality as you, and like-minded individuals, see it... No, thank you.

Clearly, you should be aware that the actual evidence of the world, does NOT align with your particular religious beliefs... Assuming you believe in a literal Noah Flood for example... Surely you understand that this story isn't supported by ANY evidence and that the few testable predictions the story does make, completely fail when tested?

The evidence we have at our disposal, tells us that this flood NEVER occured.

There's always the possibility the interpretation of these facts is wrong. Do you not agree with that?

So I can't help but wonder...............................

And this makes me wonder why I'm continuing beyond this point.

If you indeed acknowledge that you COULD be wrong about your religious interpretation.... And if you indeed realise that the evidence of reality doesn't agree with your particular intepretation....

Regardless of you agreeing or not with the scientific explanation of the evidence, why still hold on to the religious interpretation?

Abandon my faith and my inability (at this particular time) to understand God's Word, and the promises and assurance the Holy Spirit has given me, for your and like-minded individual's interpretation... No, I don't think so.

If it's nonsense... how do you determine that it's nonsense? If not by matching it up against the actual evidence of reality?

So I should reason that you, and like-minded individuals, have determined what is nonsense, discovered all the actual evidence and reality, and interpreted it correctly... uh, yeah, right.