How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Hieronymus]

And we already know that mutations occur, even in humans.

Of course.
But you believe it can perform miracles despite the fact that it's data corruption.

 

[Reasoning]

Dank je wel !
It's another naturalist conjecture then.
It's been refuted too.
Without mutations there would be nothing to select, so mutation is what brings the changes.
Selection usually kills off mutations, quite immediately or eventually.

Yes, random mutation brings the change, and if it is beneficial to a species' survival, natural selection favors this choice thus creating alterations in the species over time, eventually creating what we would call new species.

But now i have this experiment, where i have several simple pieces of working software.
Then i randomly corrupt the data, by sloppy copying.
But none of the programs upgraded by this process.
Most of them don't run anymore, so i stopped copying them.
A few still run, but with serious problems.
What did i do wrong?

I don't see the comparison with evolution by natural selection

Exactly. And that's why naturalistic popular science NEEDS bazillions of years.
But they don't tell you about the stuff that contradicts that assumption.
(and neither will i, because i would have to look things up.... sorry...)

I would love to see that 'stuff'. By the way, evolution needs generations passing on genes. If mammals for example only produce one generation each year, it is not strange why we have to consider billions of years. But with bacteria for example, which reproduce by the minute, we can actually see it happening in front of our eyes.

hat's just a ridiculous statement.
Humanity even copies design found in nature.
In living nature we find tonnes of purposeful traits, like ALL organs, which are efficient and genius (smarter than mankind anyway).

It's not. The complexity can be explained by evolution, no designer needed. Plus, and I'm sure you know, organisms are full of 'design flaws' that an actual designer would carefully avoid. The cones that act as photo-receptors in the human eye are a good example of this (and there are many, many more). That humans copy certain things that are found in nature is no argument for design at all.

Darwin???
He didn't even know about DNA......I'm stooped....

I was obviously referring to the 'from something simple can come something complex' statement. Darwin had no knowledge about DNA at all of course.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course.
But you believe it can perform miracles despite the fact that it's data corruption.

You have never shown that it is data corruption, and you have never shown why it is miraculous. All you have are your unfounded and unsupported opinions about subjects you know nothing about.

 

[Hieronymus]

You have never shown that it is data corruption,

It's obvious enough i.m.o.
What else is random mutation of data called?

and you have never shown why it is miraculous.

It's you who hasn't looked then.
Don't blame me.

All you have are your unfounded and unsupported opinions about subjects you know nothing about.

Well, then you can dismiss all i said.
That must make you very happy.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's obvious enough i.m.o.

Why should your opinion count for anything? You don't even know what a nested hierarchy is, and that is one of the most basic parts of biology. Now you are commenting on genetic mechanisms that you don't understand.

What else is random mutation of data called?

Just that, random mutation (with respect to fitness).

It's you who hasn't looked then.
Don't blame me.

I blame you for not being able to muster evidence to support your claims.

Where is the evidence demonstrating that it is miraculous?

Well, then you can dismiss all i said.
That must make you very happy.

Is there any reason that we should take anything you say as being important in the field of genetics? It seems that you have a lot of opinions, but understand next to nothing about the actual science.

 

[Reasoning]

Maybe it would be interesting for Hieronymous to outline why he is so opposed to accepting the fact of evolution. It cannot be the evidence, since that is simply more compelling that the existence of the Roman Empire and Napoleon.

Wouldn't it be so much better to try and incorporate the facts into your faith, instead of going about denying these? Skepticism is admirable, especially in science, but when the evidence is just all there to see (just go to any good museum or university) there is a point where ignorance turns into ridiculousness.

Doesn't the catholic faith incorporate evolution for example? They believe the hand of god is the driving factor. That is still complete unfounded nonsense of course, but at least it's not directly denying facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe it would be interesting for Hieronymous to outline why he is so opposed to accepting the fact of evolution. It cannot be the evidence, since that is simply more compelling that the existence of the Roman Empire and Napoleon.

Wouldn't it be so much better to try and incorporate the facts into your faith, instead of going about denying these? Skepticism is admirable, especially in science, but when the evidence is just all there to see (just go to any good museum or university) there is a point where ignorance turns into ridiculousness.

Doesn't the catholic faith incorporate evolution for example? They believe the hand of god is the driving factor. That is still complete unfounded nonsense of course, but at least it's not directly denying facts.

With many creationists, it is more about not understanding the evidence that evolution would produce, what the observations are, or even the basic scientific concepts tying it all together. For the most part, we see people in these threads who have half read some really misleading articles on creationists websites, and from this pseudo-knowledge, they think they can refute 150 years of science supported by millions of scientists who actually do understand the science.

Even Don Quixote would think twice about charging that windmill.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, random mutation brings the change, and if it is beneficial to a species' survival, natural selection favors this choice thus creating alterations in the species over time, eventually creating what we would call new species.

Hold on, you're getting ahead of yourself.
it is certain that the not-mutated organism will survive.
Some mutations will survive too, if they don't cause too many problems.
Most mutations will not procreate.

You still have to make a case for beneficial mutations, that become dominant and bring an advantage or new trait.

I don't see the comparison with evolution by natural selection

That's not my fault.
But i don't believe you can not see the comparison.
Your nickname would be a sad joke if you can't.
Seriously.

I would love to see that 'stuff'.

Then why do you not investigate what creationists have to say?
They're happy to point these things out to you.
You have internet, so what's your excuse?

By the way, evolution needs generations passing on genes. If mammals for example only produce one generation each year, it is not strange why we have to consider billions of years.

Exactly.
It's an assumption you have to make plausible, otherwise you can forget the whole idea.

But with bacteria for example, which reproduce by the minute, we can actually see it happening in front of our eyes.

I know, and they either degenerate or keep on being bacteria.
And in a few cases they seem to be successful bacteria, despite the mutation(s).
But Darwin's conjecture is that this process can produce purposeful organs, complete complex systems (like flight), new 'kinds' of organisms.
We're waiting for proof some 150 years now.
In the mean time we only discover more complexity and genius in living nature (as they say: the miracles of nature), evolutionists have to explain away.

It's not. The complexity can be explained by evolution, no designer needed.

Soyou really believe blind dead things can perform miracles, or at least are way better at it than all of humanity combined?
Well, i'd say: An extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence.
Where is it?
All i see is assumptions stacked on top of eachother, based on a careful selection of scientific evidence.

Plus, and I'm sure you know, organisms are full of 'design flaws' that an actual designer would carefully avoid.

No man ever has come even close to designing an manufacturing something like an organism.
Man dabbles with nano-technology, but the dead unconscious forces and laws of nature have mastered it fully.
Do you think that's likely?

The cones that act as photo-receptors in the human eye are a good example of this (and there are many, many more).

I think you need education about the human eye.
You're clearly underestimating it.

That humans copy certain things that are found in nature is no argument for design at all.

Of course itis.
It means what i already said, that in your belief-system dead unconscious things outperform any human completely.

I was obviously referring to the 'from something simple can come something complex' statement.

It is a foolish statement.

Darwin had no knowledge about DNA at all of course.

Had he known, he wouldn't have assumed his assumption.
I think he even wrote something like that in his book.

 

[Hieronymus]

Maybe it would be interesting for Hieronymous to outline why he is so opposed to accepting the fact of evolution. It cannot be the evidence, since that is simply more compelling that the existence of the Roman Empire and Napoleon.

You are crazy.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why should your opinion count for anything? You don't even know what a nested hierarchy is, and that is one of the most basic parts of biology.

i do now, it's a 'stamboom', so stop crying.

Now you are commenting on genetic mechanisms that you don't understand.

there's a difference between disagreeing and not understanding.
So i suggest you stuff your bluff.

Just that, random mutation (with respect to fitness).

Gotcha!
it's with respect to DNA, which is data.
you know what data is, don't you?
it is a language with characters that mean something.
And the idea of junk DNA was debunked some 9 years ago, so there.

I blame you for not being able to muster evidence to support your claims.

Iḿ not taking the blame for your lack of interest in these things that make your belief-system tremble.

Where is the evidence demonstrating that it is miraculous?

Same answer.
You have no excuse.

Is there any reason that we should take anything you say as being important in the field of genetics? It seems that you have a lot of opinions, but understand next to nothing about the actual science.

Well, then stop whining and be happy i have nothing sensible to say.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm sorry guys, we probably would have a good time with some drinks somewhere.
But here we completely disagree and personally i'm confounded by your ways of thinking.
It's incredible... (to me)

 

[Reasoning]

Hold on, you're getting ahead of yourself.
it is certain that the not-mutated organism will survive.
Some mutations will survive too, if they don't cause too many problems.
Most mutations will not procreate.
You still have to make a case for beneficial mutations, that become dominant and bring an advantage or new trait.

Very simple example: there is a green forest, with brown frogs. One day, a mutation causes a frog to be more green than brown, giving it an advantage over the rest of the population since it is less easy to spot by predators. Hence, it can procreate, passing on the gene for green skin to its future generations, who also get this advantage. Over the course of time, the green frogs will become more dominant in the population, because they are eaten not as often, thus procreate more and passing on the genes.

This example is not at all covering all aspects, but it illustrates what it comes down to. Given the billions of years plus the vast amount of species, it is not so hard to grasp at all in my opinion.

That's not my fault.
But i don't believe you can not see the comparison.
Your nickname would be a sad joke if you can't.

You are talking about computer software. That does not have a natural selection element for as far as I know. The fact that mutations can be both non-beneficial and beneficial is clear and not the point right?

seriously.Then why do you not investigate what creationists have to say?
They're happy to point these things out to you.You have internet, so what's your excuse?Exactly.
It's an assumption you have to make plausible, otherwise you can forget the whole idea.I know, and they either degenerate or keep on being bacteria.And in a few cases they seem to be successful bacteria, despite the mutation(s).
But Darwin's conjecture is that this process can produce purposeful organs, complete complex systems (like flight), new 'kinds' of organisms.We're waiting for proof some 150 years now. In the mean time we only discover more complexity and genius in living nature (as they say: the miracles of nature), evolutionists have to explain away.

I do investigate that to an extent where claims are founded on empirical evidence and experiment, and those are hard to find. Most arguments I come across are based on ignorance or fallacies and in most cases both. But if you have some good suggestions, that would be more than welcome.

Bacteria show us before our eyes that a species can evolve over generations. We have done similar experiments with fish, or lizards on islands. The point where one species turns into another is not at all arbitrary of course. The chimp that would be considered a human in hindsight, was closer related to a chimp than a human at the time it was born, because the change is only very gradual.

Soyou really believe blind dead things can perform miracles, or at least are way better at it than all of humanity combined?Well, i'd say: An extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence.
Where is it?All i see is assumptions stacked on top of eachother, based on a careful selection of scientific evidence.No man ever has come even close to designing an manufacturing something like an organism.Man dabbles with nano-technology, but the dead unconscious forces and laws of nature have mastered it fully.
Do you think that's likely?

Of course I don't believe in miracles, please clarify what you mean with blind dead things. The evidence of evolution is all there, all it needs is you to come and check it out. The fact that you do not see it now does not change that. I did never claim that men manufactures organisms, using this as an argument for design is an ad ignoratiam.

I think you need education about the human eye.
You're clearly underestimating it.Of course itis.
It means what i already said, that in your belief-system dead unconscious things outperform any human completely.It is a foolish statement.

The human eye is a beautiful and complex organ, but it certainly has its flaws that would not logically be present when designed. Just google those cones I mentioned and you'll find out. I do not have any believe-system, I follow reason, empirical evidence and experiment, and I am happy to change my views the second new evidence presents itself. Please clarify what you mean with the 'dead unconscious things' as I do not recall claiming any such thing.

 

[RickG]

I'm sorry guys, we probably would have a good time with some drinks somewhere.
But here we completely disagree and personally i'm confounded by your ways of thinking.
It's incredible... (to me)

But have you looked at the geologic side? BTW, who's buying the first round and what are we drinking.

 

[Hieronymus]

Very simple example:

Please, i grew up with this stuff too.
And the past years i have seriously looked in to it, so please stop thinking i don't understand.
It's not that hard to get, you see.
It's just not realistic.
I'm trying to point out why, but YOU guys don't even seem to get a simple analogy with binary data.

I'm skipping the rest, sorry.

I do not have any believe-system,

You're a naturalist / atheist. 'nuff said.

I follow reason, empirical evidence and experiment,

Then why do you believe in this fairytale?

and I am happy to change my views the second new evidence presents itself.

Probably not, because your beliefs aren't based on them now.

Please clarify what you mean with the 'dead unconscious things' as I do not recall claiming any such thing.

This is what i mean.
I mean, just use that brain of yours.
Are the particles, forces and laws of nature conscious and alive?
That's a rhetorical question, obviously.

 

[Hieronymus]

But have you looked at the geologic side?

Probably.
Iḿ not sure what you're referring to.

BTW, who's buying the first round and what are we drinking.

Beer of course.
1st one is on me.

 

[Anthony1970]

Evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. The only Christians that will argue with that statement are fundamentalist types who interpret the Bible in a literal fashion. No big surprise here.

 

[Reasoning]

Please, i grew up with this stuff too.
And the past years i have seriously looked in to it, so please stop thinking i don't understand.
It's not that hard to get, you see.
It's just not realistic.
I'm trying to point out why, but YOU guys don't even seem to get a simple analogy with binary data.

I'm skipping the rest, sorry.

You're a naturalist / atheist. 'nuff said.Then why do you believe in this fairytale?Probably not, because your beliefs aren't based on them now. This is what i mean.I mean, just use that brain of yours.Are the particles, forces and laws of nature conscious and alive? That's a rhetorical question, obviously.

That is too bad, I try to explain things with a pretty good elaboration and I made a case for those beneficial mutations. If you come forward with serious arguments I am more than happy to check them out an maybe learn a bit more (I have friends who are evolution-deniers and the more we discuss the better I understand them too imho). You should really look into my example about the eye though, it's very interesting.

The point is, you cannot just say 'It's just not realistic' with any way to back up that claim. That's just not how it works. I explained why I don't see your comparison with computer software, but I am not a software engineer so if I am missing something (the natural selection element) than please explain and I would be happy to listen )

What I think is true is based upon empirical evidence and experiments that can be retested by anyone, that's the beauty of science. I don't see how there can be anything more capable of explaining the world than that, but if you have suggestions let me know. Of course I don't think particles itself are alive, they are the building blocks of everything. When would I have claimed such a thing?

ps. I'm sure this conversations would be even more interesting with the addition of some good beers

 

[RickG]

Probably.
Iḿ not sure what you're referring to.Beer of course.

Evolution discussions tend to focus on details while ignoring the more obvious explanations. Why do we find dinosaurs only in the Mesozoic Era? Trilobites only in the Cambrian and early Devonian Periods, etc.?

1st one is on me.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You still have to make a case for beneficial mutations, that become dominant and bring an advantage or new trait.

Are you looking for examples?
Here is an example of a genetic mutation in Tibetans that allow their population to thrive at high altitudes
http://www.livescience.com/46636-how-tibetans-survive-high-altitude.html

Your nickname would be a sad joke if you can't.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Seriously.Then why do you not investigate what creationists have to say?
They're happy to point these things out to you.

Because creationists are notorious for misrepresenting science and lying. They also don't have any peer reviewed research that backs up their claims. You're allowing yourself to believe claims made by professional liars with no published papers in the field they are attacking over experts that have dedicated their lives to their field of study. Do you also bring your car to your dentist when you have a disagreement with your mechanic?

You have internet, so what's your excuse?Exactly.

Here is a helpful link if you'd like to read any of the peer reviewed research about evolution: https://scholar.google.com/ You'll be flooded with hundreds of thousands of scientific papers.

It's an assumption you have to make plausible, otherwise you can forget the whole idea.

Actually, this a confirmed fact from several different lines of study that all come to the same conclusion.

And in a few cases they seem to be successful bacteria, despite the mutation(s).

Because the mutations are beneficial, which is why that population of bacteria is successful. It's what we expect if natural selection is true.

But Darwin's conjecture is that this process can produce purposeful organs, complete complex systems (like flight), new 'kinds' of organisms.

How are you defining the word "kinds"?
A cool example of natural selection that has been observed in nature is the Italian Wall Lizards. 5 pairs were placed in a separate island and only after 30 years, the descendants of the pairs had stomach valves that were beneficial to digesting their new plant diet. They also had larger skulls.

Here is the peer reviewed research paper on this very experiment: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/

In the mean time we only discover more complexity and genius in living nature (as they say: the miracles of nature), evolutionists have to explain away.

Complexity is expected in evolution. There isn't a need to explain away anything. Complexity is not a surprise. This is the classic argument from incredulity. You can't imagine a natural process of evolution by natural selection that results in complex organisms so you resort to 'god did it'.

Soyou really believe blind dead things can perform miracles, or at least are way better at it than all of humanity combined?

Again, your logical fallacy is 'argument from personal incredulity'.

Well, i'd say: An extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence.

I agree. Happily, evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence from several different lines of study.
If you are saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then please provide this evidence for a designer.
This evidence must be observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. You will be subjected to the same process all science gets before it receives a consensus. Make sure you don't start at a conclusion and work backwards. Use the scientific method. If your hypothesis fails, then you have no reason to believe there is an intelligent designer. So, let's hear it.

Where is it?

The evidence for evolution? Oh geez, where to start? There is an abundance of it. What would you like to examine?
Comparative anatomy, genetic drift, geographical distribution of species, the fossil record, embryology, DNA and genetics, an abundance of observations made in the lab and nature?

I think you need education about the human eye.

So did Darwin, considering he admitted he couldn't explain it. He would be very excited to know that scientists have been able to explain the evolution of eyes. I find this video very educational.

Had he known, he wouldn't have assumed his assumption.

Geneticists didn't assume it either. In fact they found an anomaly between the chimpanzee and human genome. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. It would be impossible to survive losing a pair of chromosomes, considering they contain so much genetic material. Evolution makes a prediction that when we look at our genome, we should be able to see a chromosomal fusion. If we don't, common ancestry is falsified. Geneticists found this fusion in human chromosome #2.

Here is well respected cell biologist, Kenneth Miller talking about it. He's also a Christian.

 

[Reasoning]

Awesome addition Jon.