Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

Loudmouth · Jan 6, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
Ok. I have one article so far:

https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...enes-shared-mistakes-between-primate-genomes/

I am searching for a second, but in the meantime, I propose we agree on the following ground rules:

Just as a warning, the discussion won't last long if you use that article. A nested hierarchy (i.e. phylogeny) is evidence of evolution whether the DNA used to form the nested hierarchy is functional or non-functional. Finding a function for a proposed pseudogene in no way invalidates that evidence. We have found genomes that contain barely any junk DNA, and we still find evidence of evolution in those genomes in the form of phylogenies.

We each take the facts presented in the articles and research them objectively.

Proof is considered beyond reasonable doubt.

We both realize that we cannot likely change the other's mind. Therefore, this will be a discussion on whether or not the other's view is possible, and not an argument.

The facts being discussed is whether or not evidence supports creation or evolution, and especially whether nested heirarchy is based on solid evidence and does in fact only support evolution.

The discussion may be more productive if we at least describe the type of evidence that could prove each of us wrong. For example, you could describe a genetic marker or fossil that, if found, would falsify creationism. I could do the same.

Loudmouth · Jan 6, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

If you do use that article, I will need to see examples of changes in DNA that you would accept as being increases in information.

Subduction Zone · Jan 6, 2016

Loudmouth said:
If you do use that article, I will need to see examples of changes in DNA that you would accept as being increases in information.

I doubt if she will be able to. Even though there are clear cut cases of that. Gene duplication as you know leads to new information, unless she is using some strange definition of "new information".

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 6, 2016

Loudmouth said:
If you do use that article, I will need to see examples of changes in DNA that you would accept as being increases in information.

There are possible mutations that result in an increase in DNA, such as insertion or point, but almost zero that add information that correlates to gained function. While one or two cases may be argued, there is not the vast amount of evidence we would expect if a single cell is the supposed ancestor of all living things.

TLK Valentine · Jan 6, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
It comes down to a fairly basic question: are you going to interpret God through science, or science through God?

Better question is, how useful a tool is the Bible in interpreting God?

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 6, 2016

TLK Valentine said:
Better question is, how useful a tool is the Bible in interpreting God?

It's the ultimate tool.

TLK Valentine · Jan 6, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
It's the ultimate tool.

Says who?

Loudmouth · Jan 6, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
There are possible mutations that result in an increase in DNA, such as insertion or point, but almost zero that add information that correlates to gained function. While one or two cases may be argued, there is not the vast amount of evidence we would expect if a single cell is the supposed ancestor of all living things.

Just one or two cases? What about the millions of mutations that are responsible for making humans and chimps different from each other?

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 6, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Just one or two cases? What about the millions of mutations that are responsible for making humans and chimps different from each other?

There's no evidence for them. Science tells us 99.9% of mutations don't add function. The ones that do are usually a repressive mutation that allows a different but beneficial trait to show up.

Subduction Zone · Jan 6, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
There's no evidence for them. Science tells us 99.9% of mutations don't add function. The ones that do are usually a repressive mutation that allows a different but beneficial trait to show up.

You don't understand the nature of evidence. I can help you with that.

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 7, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
You don't understand the nature of evidence. I can help you with that.

There's circumstantial evidence. There's the fact that we are only a few percents removed from certain apes, and evolutionists have worked backwards to recreate a theoretical tree. But this is not proof of anything.

In order for evolution to be true, we would have to see continual mutations. Ones that add new, usable data. Ones that add some new function. And ones that are driving a species towards a new and different species. A mutation that changes coat color or immunity to disease is not evidence for humans evolving from apes.

Subduction Zone · Jan 7, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
There's circumstantial evidence. There's the fact that we are only a few percents removed from certain apes, and evolutionists have worked backwards to recreate a theoretical tree. But this is not proof of anything.

There is scientific evidence that backs the theory of evolution. Scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis, usually of a empirical nature. There are literally mountains of this sort of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Creationists cannot even come up with a testable hypothesis of their beliefs, much less show evidence that supports them.

In order for evolution to be true, we would have to see continual mutations. Ones that add new, usable data. Ones that add some new function. And ones that are driving a species towards a new and different species. A mutation that changes coat color or immunity to disease is not evidence for humans evolving from apes.

Yes and no. We do see continual new mutations that add new information. Your demand that it shows a drive towards a new species is wrong. It only shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. There is no "goal" in the sense of forming new species to evolution. New traits and even new species are just a result they are not a goal. The existence of people was never a goal of evolution. People are just a result. You are trying to make a strawman argument by incorrectly stating what the theory of evolution says.[/QUOTE]

Loudmouth · Jan 7, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
There's no evidence for them.

There is evidence galore. The 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps are perfect examples.

Science tells us 99.9% of mutations don't add function. The ones that do are usually a repressive mutation that allows a different but beneficial trait to show up.

The mutations that cause chimps and humans to be both different and well adapted speak otherwise.

Loudmouth · Jan 7, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
There's circumstantial evidence. There's the fact that we are only a few percents removed from certain apes, and evolutionists have worked backwards to recreate a theoretical tree. But this is not proof of anything.

It is proof that DNA sequences can change, and those changes can result in beneficial adaptations.

In order for evolution to be true, we would have to see continual mutations. Ones that add new, usable data. Ones that add some new function.

Those are the mutations that separate us from other species of ape.

lasthero · Jan 7, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
There's circumstantial evidence.

What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? Most evidence is, in fact, circumstantial.

RickG · Jan 7, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
In order for evolution to be true, we would have to see continual mutations. Ones that add new, usable data. Ones that add some new function. And ones that are driving a species towards a new and different species. A mutation that changes coat color or immunity to disease is not evidence for humans evolving from apes.

Continual mutations are completely unnecessary for validating evolution. All you need to do is look at the fossil record throughout geologic time and ask how did they get distributed throughout the geologic column without evolution. If evolution were invalid, would we not see fossils of all life forms in all layers of geologic strata?

Paul of Eugene OR · Jan 8, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
In order for evolution to be true, we would have to see continual mutations. Ones that add new, usable data. Ones that add some new function. And ones that are driving a species towards a new and different species. A mutation that changes coat color or immunity to disease is not evidence for humans evolving from apes.

You mean, like a mutation that allows adults to digest milk? As for your remarks about "coat color" or "immunity" . . . it would merely take enough of them that, taken together, result in a big enough change.

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 10, 2016

Paul of Eugene OR said:
You mean, like a mutation that allows adults to digest milk? As for your remarks about "coat color" or "immunity" . . . it would merely take enough of them that, taken together, result in a big enough change.

None of those is proof of macroevolution. It is proof that a species can change over time, but regardless of those changes, each species is still genetically its own.

Subduction Zone · Jan 10, 2016

Sister_in_Christ said:
None of those is proof of macroevolution. It is proof that a species can change over time, but regardless of those changes, each species is still genetically its own.

Wrong, they are evidence for evolution. I go a bit nuts when I see the word "proof". That is a mathematical term. In science, as in a criminal trial, ideas are based upon evidence. Nothing is ever irrefutably proven in either one. That is why science will change and at times people are found not guilty (which is not the same as innocent) after they are convicted. The best that science will do on any idea is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is what has happened to the theory of evolution. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In fact there is a special type of evidence used in science called "scientific evidence". Creationists to date have failed to provide any scientific evidence for their ideas. To have scientific evidence one must first have a scientific theory or hypothesis. That means that the idea must be testable. Creationists are too afraid to form such a concept. It is one of the "put ups or shut ups" of science. To date creationists have chosen to shut up.

So those concepts are evidence for evolution. They are explained by evolution and support the concept of evolution. They do not support creationism in any way at all.

Sister_in_Christ · Jan 10, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
Wrong, they are evidence for evolution. I go a bit nuts when I see the word "proof". That is a mathematical term. In science, as in a criminal trial, ideas are based upon evidence. Nothing is ever irrefutably proven in either one. That is why science will change and at times people are found not guilty (which is not the same as innocent) after they are convicted. The best that science will do on any idea is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is what has happened to the theory of evolution. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In fact there is a special type of evidence used in science called "scientific evidence". Creationists to date have failed to provide any scientific evidence for their ideas. To have scientific evidence one must first have a scientific theory or hypothesis. That means that the idea must be testable. Creationists are too afraid to form such a concept. It is one of the "put ups or shut ups" of science. To date creationists have chosen to shut up.

So those concepts are evidence for evolution. They are explained by evolution and support the concept of evolution. They do not support creationism in any way at all.

No. They support natural selection. Which, hypothetically, supports how one species became another. It also supports the creationist view that a common ancestor of a species spawned different breeds of that species.

It has been observed that one species can evolve into a different breed within its species. That is what creationists expect to see. It has not been observed where one species evolves into another, which would support the evolutionary theory.

Creationists do have theories, and testable hypotheses, and scientific evidence. In fact, there are institutes and research programs devoted to the idea who employ many respected scientists.

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

Contributor

Contributor

Regular Member

Active Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Active Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Contributor

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Finally Old Enough

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency