How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

You would also have to include why some animals thought life would be better in the water after all....and then crawl back into the water and become a dolphin once again reorganizing its lungs and legs.

Can you at least try not to form a strawman when you make a post?

Why life left the sea can be explained to you. So can why some life went back to the sea. There is no problem at all explaining these observed events. As I sad all of the time, when you don't understand ask questions politely. That means no opinions in your questions. Just a simple question of what you don't understand and would like the answer to.

 

[pat34lee]

Can you at least try not to form a strawman when you make a post?

Why life left the sea can be explained to you. So can why some life went back to the sea. There is no problem at all explaining these observed events. As I sad all of the time, when you don't understand ask questions politely. That means no opinions in your questions. Just a simple question of what you don't understand and would like the answer to.

You realize that you almost have to revert to Lamarckian evolution for
that, don't you? Like the giraffe got the long neck by stretching for the
leaves at the top of the trees. Discredited many years ago.

But coming back anyway, it seems. Zombie evolution theory.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/

 

[Subduction Zone]

You realize that you almost have to revert to Lamarckian evolution for
that, don't you? Like the giraffe got the long neck by stretching for the
leaves at the top of the trees. Discredited many years ago.

But coming back anyway, it seems. Zombie evolution theory.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/

What makes you think that? All I am pointing out is that this experiment demonstrates natural selection and it could be very useful. It does not support the theory of evolution directly, but then there is no need to. By any legal standard of "proof" the theory of evolution was proven beyond a reasonable doubt over a hundred years ago. "Yeast" is not always just a colony of fungi. He obviously had some bacteria in his and the environment that supported the bacteria that could breakdown plastic were clearly at an advantage. You had to misinterpret my post to try to bring in Lamarck.

And your link only refers to epigenetics. That is misinterpreted as Lamarckism by creationists, but long term changes do not occur due to epigenetics.

 

[Zosimus]

No, the article says that he added yeast. Yeast are fungi and the active agents were bacteria. They are in a totally different biological kingdom. Your claim would be akin to claiming that he added animals when he added plants. The bacteria may have had a boost by the yeast, but it seems that they "added" themselves. Natural selection, not artificial.

Well, if the bacteria added themselves by having the audacity to be in the landfill dirt the kids added to the mix, then I might agree with you. Personally, however, I view that when you add dirt hoping to find bacteria in it, that shouldn't count as bacteria adding themselves. From the article "The Record reports that Burd mixed landfill dirt with yeast and tap water, then added ground plastic and let it stew." Learn to read.

What makes you think that this experiment is not repeatable? And it may have very useful information. Now you are merely clutching at straws trying to put down a very nice piece of work.

What the hell does repeatability have to do with whether a theory can make novel predictions? Nothing. Pay attention.

There is no "theory of natural selection" that I know of. It is merely an observed fact. Yes, natural selection almost seems tautological, as I said it is an observed fact. It is not a theory. Why did you make that error?

Natural Selection. "Many theories have been put forward to explain how evolution happens. The theory accepted by most scientists is the theory of natural selection. This was first proposed by Charles Darwin."

The theory of natural selection is definitely a theory. It's just not a scientific one.

 

[Zosimus]

They probably did. Again, I have not seen anyone claiming that this is an example of evolution. It demonstrates one of the driving forces of evolution.

Tautologies need demonstration now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tautologies need demonstration now?

At times yes. You don't seem to understand how this was simply a case of natural selection . Weren't you one of the people falsely claiming that this was not natural selection? If so for you at the very least this seems to be the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if the bacteria added themselves by having the audacity to be in the landfill dirt the kids added to the mix, then I might agree with you. Personally, however, I view that when you add dirt hoping to find bacteria in it, that shouldn't count as bacteria adding themselves. From the article "The Record reports that Burd mixed landfill dirt with yeast and tap water, then added ground plastic and let it stew." Learn to read.

I read it. There is a difference between the two of us. I understood it. You didn't. But then you have demonstrated poor reading comprehension in the past.

What the hell does repeatability have to do with whether a theory can make novel predictions? Nothing. Pay attention.

Once again, you are the one not paying attention. Repeatability is key for a test being scientific.

Natural Selection. "Many theories have been put forward to explain how evolution happens. The theory accepted by most scientists is the theory of natural selection. This was first proposed by Charles Darwin."

The theory of natural selection is definitely a theory. It's just not a scientific one.

Hmm, no links. And in a scientific discussion if a theory is not a "scientific one" then it is not a theory. You just contradicted yourself, again. And you forgot a valid source that supports your claim. Source please.

 

[Zosimus]

At times yes. You don't seem to understand how this was simply a case of natural selection . Weren't you one of the people falsely claiming that this was not natural selection? If so for you at the very least this seems to be the case.

So if I put out some horse food and capture any wild horses that wander by to eat that food. Then I breed those horses to make more, that's an example of natural selection?

 

[Zosimus]

Once again, you are the one not paying attention. Repeatability is key for a test being scientific.

We're not discussing whether the experiment is scientific. We're discussing whether the theory of natural selection is scientific. Imre Lakatos put it this way: "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."

However, if you have a demarcation criterion, I'm all ears! Lay it on us!

Hmm, no links. And in a scientific discussion if a theory is not a "scientific one" then it is not a theory. You just contradicted yourself, again. And you forgot a valid source that supports your claim. Source please.

There was a link right there in the text. It's that blue part that you can click on.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

We're discussing whether the theory of natural selection is scientific.

Natural selection is not a theory. It's an observable fact.

Imre Lakatos put it this way: "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."

In 1973. Pulling 40+ year old quotes up looks like desperation. Would you agree that if a scientific theory makes accurate predictions, the strength of the theory is increased? Meet Tiktaalik Roseae. An accurate prediction that Dr. Shubin and his team made about where they would find the transition between fish and tetrapod. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if I put out some horse food and capture any wild horses that wander by to eat that food. Then I breed those horses to make more, that's an example of natural selection?

That was not what was done. Failed analogy, try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We're not discussing whether the experiment is scientific. We're discussing whether the theory of natural selection is scientific. Imre Lakatos put it this way: "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."

You are the only one that has claimed that it was a theory and you supplied no evidence that shows anyone else thinks that it is. It is simply an observed fact. And quotes without links are worthless. This is the internet, learn how to use it.

There was a link right there in the text. It's that blue part that you can click on.

To a BBC site? Are you kidding me? That is not even of Wikipedia quality. Try again.

 

[Zosimus]

Natural selection is not a theory. It's an observable fact.

Just as Marxists can find endless confirmations for their theories, so too Darwinists can find endless confirmations for their theories. What does that prove other than that the theory can accommodate all data it is fed?

In 1973. Pulling 40+ year old quotes up looks like desperation. Would you agree that if a scientific theory makes accurate predictions, the strength of the theory is increased? Meet Tiktaalik Roseae. An accurate prediction that Dr. Shubin and his team made about where they would find the transition between fish and tetrapod.

I disagree. Confirmations are at best neutral to the theory in question. There are invariably an infinite number of alternate theories that fit the data.

 

[Zosimus]

That was not what was done. Failed analogy, try again.

That's exactly what was done. Bacteria were taken from a landfill site, fed with plastic, and then harvested. No natural selection was involved.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Just as Marxists can find endless confirmations for their theories, so too Darwinists can find endless confirmations for their theories. What does that prove other than that the theory can accommodate all data it is fed?

Care to provide any data for evolution that you think means something else?

I disagree. Confirmations are at best neutral to the theory in question. There are invariably an infinite number of alternate theories that fit the data.

How would making a prediction and then having that prediction come true be neutral to a theory? Please explain these infinite number of explanations that fit the data of accurate predictions by evolution. I'm suspicious that you're a troll.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's exactly what was done. Bacteria were taken from a landfill site, fed with plastic, and then harvested. No natural selection was involved.

And you complain about others not paying attention. Those two bacteria would not have been the only ones introduced into the experiment. They were the two that thrived. That is natural selection at work in an artificial environment. One reason that experiments are done is to minimize the variables. He did that with an artificial "diet".

 

[Zosimus]

Care to provide any data for evolution that you think means something else?

You can't read, can you?

How would making a prediction and then having that prediction come true be neutral to a theory?

Simple. The theory of Christianity postulates that mankind will exist. Mankind exists. Does this confirmation make Christianity more likely or is it merely neutral to the theory?

Please explain these infinite number of explanations that fit the data of accurate predictions by evolution.

Take a remedial math class. Here's a starter:

Jorge bought some fruit at the market. He spent $600 on fruit. Bananas cost $1 each. Apples cost $2 each. Oranges cost $3 each. How many of each kind did he buy?

The problem is underdetermined. Jorge might have bought 600 bananas. He might have bought 300 apples. He might have bought 200 oranges. He might have bought 100 bananas, 100 apples, and 100 oranges. He might have bought 199 oranges, an apple, and a banana. I could sit around all day listing new possibilities for how many and what kind of fruit he bought.

That's the point of the word underdetermined.

 

[Zosimus]

And you complain about others not paying attention. Those two bacteria would not have been the only ones introduced into the experiment. They were the two that thrived. That is natural selection at work in an artificial environment. One reason that experiments are done is to minimize the variables. He did that with an artificial "diet".

The data do not support your conclusion.

How many and what kind of bacteria did he introduce? You don't know. The article doesn't say. You speculate that there must have been some other kind of bacteria. That's all it is–speculation.

At the end of the experiment, Burd isolated the microorganisms that were eating the plastic. You think that the other organisms might have been dead. You speculate at the very least that those microorganisms that were eating the plastic had become more numerous. That's all it is–speculation. The article doesn't say that. It doesn't say much of anything. I guess this is good for you. Why have your preconceived biases restricted by actual facts? Fact free environments make things much easier for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Care to provide any data for evolution that you think means something else?

Yes.

The data provided by evolutionists, to wit, fossils of subhumans, are actually humans that died of God's "wonderful [bone altering] plagues."

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

King David died under one (see Psalm 38), and I would assume if they dug his bones up today, he would be mistaken for Neantherthal Man or Cro-magnon.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Jorge bought some fruit at the market. He spent $600 on fruit. Bananas cost $1 each. Apples cost $2 each. Oranges cost $3 each. How many of each kind did he buy?

The problem is underdetermined. Jorge might have bought 600 bananas. He might have bought 300 apples. He might have bought 200 oranges. He might have bought 100 bananas, 100 apples, and 100 oranges. He might have bought 199 oranges, an apple, and a banana. I could sit around all day listing new possibilities for how many and what kind of fruit he bought.

That's the point of the word underdetermined.

I asked you to provide an explanation for your claim and you used an inconsistent comparison.
Please support your claim. Above is unrelated to the question. Just gibberish nonsense.

Take the data that applies to evolution by natural selection and provide these 'infinite number of alternate explanations'.