I am stuck thinking I need to prove faith to Evolutionists, when the Bible says "they're deluded"

[The Barbarian]

In the real world, we constantly see evolution happening, as environments change, and populations change with them.

That's your perspective.

It's a very measurable phenomenon. No perspective required.

Mates may evolve,

No. Populations evolve. Individuals do not.
"People are usually down on things they aren't up on." - Everette Dirkson.

 

[Radagast]

• Darwin's claim that natural selection tends to increase fitness in a population. Confirmed.
• Darwin's prediction that a well-fitted population in a relatively constant environment would evolve very little or not at all. Confirmed

I'm actually a believer in theistic evolution, but you can't call those "confirmed." Those are tautologies. Fitness is defined to be whatever is selected by natural selection. "Well-fitted" is defined to be not evolving.

• Morgan's prediction that genetic analysis would some day confirm the phylogeny of life first discovered by Linnaeus (who didn't even know about evolution) confirmed.

I'm not sure if that one was confirmed either. Modern evolutionary theory has overturned Linnaeus to such an extent that half of what I learned in high school is obsolete.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm actually a believer in theistic evolution, but you can't call those "confirmed." Those are tautologies.

Would be, if it was after the fact. But such changes are predicted in advance, and almost always happen. For example, I can tell you that the length of breastbones in sparrows in Chicago will be longer by a millimeter or more, if there's an especially severe winter the year before.

I can tell you that any organism, entering a new area with many unfilled niches, will experience adaptive radiation, and eventually have a number of new species.

Fitness is defined to be whatever is selected by natural selection.

No. There are cases where natural selection can lead to extinction. An interesting case was a population of rodents where a mutation made males much more successful in mating, but resulted in non-viable offspring. The population died out. I don't see how that qualifies as "fitness." There's no magic in natural selection; it only tends to make populations more fit.

"Well-fitted" is defined to be not evolving.

Only if the environment remains constant. If not, then "well-fitted" means "recently evolved."

This is the basis of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, a test for selection pressure.

Morgan's prediction that genetic analysis would some day confirm the phylogeny of life first discovered by Linnaeus (who didn't even know about evolution) confirmed.

I'm not sure if that one was confirmed either. Modern evolutionary theory has overturned Linnaeus to such an extent that half of what I learned in high school is obsolete.

Well, let's take a look...

Pretty good, considering he was basing this only on phenetics. Biggest issues are not realizing that fungi comprise their own kingdom, and that embryological and genetic data show chordates and echinoderms are a closely-related group as opposed to other animals.

 

[Radagast]

There are cases where natural selection can lead to extinction. An interesting case was a population of rodents where a mutation made males much more successful in mating, but resulted in non-viable offspring. The population died out. I don't see how that qualifies as "fitness."

So how is the claim "that natural selection tends to increase fitness in a population" confirmed in that case?

And what does fitness mean, other than with reference to something that's selected for?

Only if the environment remains constant.

Over two or three generations (enough to display a shift in allele frequencies), it almost always is.

Well, let's take a look...

I stopped reading at the Bryophyta, which no longer exist. Nor are the fungi now seen as closely related to the Cormophyta.

 

[The Barbarian]

So how is the claim "that natural selection tends to increase fitness in a population" confirmed?

For example, my prediction on the length of breastbones in sparrows. A severe winter tends to kill off birds with smaller masses. So natural selection will tend to favor alleles that make the birds bigger. My hypothesis is that because mass increases as the cube of length, even a tiny increase in length means a significantly larger mass, and accordingly, a greater chance of survival.

And what does fitness mean,

Likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce. Darwin himself pointed out a way to show that natural selection is not a tautology. His reasoning:

The testable hypothesis that natural selection makes is, given:
1. a population in which individuals have traits that give different chances of survival

2. a way for offspring to inherit those traits from their parents

Those traits will increase in succeeding generations.

This is easy to test, and almost always turns out to be true.

 

[Radagast]

Likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce.

In that case, "survival of the fittest" translates to "survival of the survivors," right?

The testable hypothesis that natural selection makes is, given:
1. a population in which individuals have traits that give different chances of survival

2. a way for offspring to inherit those traits from their parents

Those traits will increase in succeeding generations.

This is easy to test, and almost always turns out to be true.

I don't think it's testable at all, in general, because the fitness of traits can't, in general, be known a priori.

It can, of course, be tested and demonstrated in silico.

 

[The Barbarian]

I stopped reading at the Bryophyta, which no longer exist. Nor are the fungi now seen as closely related to the Cormophyta.

Which is what I mentioned. Fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants.

 

[Radagast]

Which is what I mentioned. Fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants.

I missed the latter comment, sorry.

There's also the vanishing of the Bryophyta from modern taxonomies, though, and some radical changes among the algae.

I suspect that, if you did a full point-by-point comparison, many branches would now be drawn very differently.

 

[The Barbarian]

In that case, "survival of the fittest" translates to "survival of the survivors," right?

In the sense that the "top salesmen" of a company are the salesmen who sold the most product. That's not a very useful notion, is it? On the other hand, a good sales manager can make some accurate predictions about who will be most successful, by looking for traits that are useful for successful selling. And those hypotheses can be tested.

This is because "survival of the fit" ("top salesman") are terms for natural selection. But the hypothesis is not "what survives, will survive", but "those with traits useful for survival will tend to survive long enough to reproduce", which is quite a different thing.

And that hypothesis is testable.

 

[Radagast]

But the hypothesis is not "what survives, will survive", but "those with traits useful for survival will tend to survive long enough to reproduce", which is quite a different thing.

I'm not seeing the difference.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not seeing the difference.

One is a testable hypothesis. (after a cold winter, sparrows will tend to be larger) The other is merely a restatement of the fact. (those who survive, will survive)

I'm pretty sure a sales manager would disagree with you on his issue; they are pretty good at hypothesizing which sales people will be most successful.

 

[Gottservant]

I have come to the conclusion, its easier to wait for herd-evolution immunity.

If I am immune to whatever evolution might threaten me, evolution can go the way of dust.

The counter argument, that Evolutionists can wait for herd-creation immunity, just goes to show you can't trust Evolutionists for almost anything original.

 

[Gottservant]

Since having made the decision to wait for herd-immunity, I have come to realise that its not how you live to Evolution: it is how you die to Evolution.

The difference (between living and dying) is a polar opposite, to the world and the way it conducts itself (in principle).

I don't want to be "done" with the word, I want the word to be my everything, my one source, my burning hope - the end to my madness, in the cross, for all that these words stand for.

The world can trash its concept of itself, with bogus connections between species and monofocal intent to break from the norm, without delivering, but my words are going to stand out, have meaning and deliver from bondage, because Jesus words did, and my words echo what the words of Jesus did.

It will be hard, I will die more, I will have to wait longer for word to deliver me, but I will be delivered and I will full of rejoicing in Jesus, that He has done it: not that He has done everything, but that He has done everything He could and thereby made everything possible.

I am no longer a slave, to the fear of Evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

I actually got even further: I realised that you can actually anticipate "new selection pressures", without surviving - this means only faith makes Evolving possible, at its core.

 

[Tom 1]

Since having made the decision to wait for herd-immunity, I have come to realise that its not how you live to Evolution: it is how you die to Evolution.

The difference (between living and dying) is a polar opposite, to the world and the way it conducts itself (in principle).

I don't want to be "done" with the word, I want the word to be my everything, my one source, my burning hope - the end to my madness, in the cross, for all that these words stand for.

The world can trash its concept of itself, with bogus connections between species and monofocal intent to break from the norm, without delivering, but my words are going to stand out, have meaning and deliver from bondage, because Jesus words did, and my words echo what the words of Jesus did.

It will be hard, I will die more, I will have to wait longer for word to deliver me, but I will be delivered and I will full of rejoicing in Jesus, that He has done it: not that He has done everything, but that He has done everything He could and thereby made everything possible.

I am no longer a slave, to the fear of Evolution.

Could you explain what you mean by 'the fear of evolution'?

 

[Gottservant]

Could you explain what you mean by 'the fear of evolution'?

Fear that I will stay less than "evolved", beyond death - thus disqualifying me, for Heaven.

 

[Tom 1]

Fear that I will stay less than "evolved", beyond death - thus disqualifying me, for Heaven.

Less than evolved - how do you mean? Do you mean like personal development/growth, or something else?

 

[Gottservant]

Less than evolved - how do you mean? Do you mean like personal development/growth, or something else?

The subtext of Evolution, used to be that you had to either win the luck of life's lottery or change lead into gold - to be above survival.

The proof was always that at some point, we outgrew being apes and used the single word "Evolution" to describe all our success - which was fanciful, either way you looked at it.

As such a culture of indifference grew, that you couldn't change what a species didn't want you to (even if you were the human species) and you couldn't get back from what was done, something else - if you wanted it (which was a furphy: that what you get back was the point).

This left people with a selfish, uncommunicative outlook on life, the trust of which eroded (that is, eroded truth).

The subtext has now changed, and people are less interested in the results they once thought they were - thanks largely to the work of the Lord, in the lives of people, who have not adopted this snaring (this snaring of others who cannot discern the given from the predicted).

 

[Tom 1]

The subtext of Evolution, used to be that you had to either win the luck of life's lottery or change lead into gold - to be above survival.

The proof was always that at some point, we outgrew being apes and used the single word "Evolution" to describe all our success - which was fanciful, either way you looked at it.

As such a culture of indifference grew, that you couldn't change what a species didn't want you to (even if you were the human species) and you couldn't get back from what was done, something else - if you wanted it (which was a furphy: that what you get back was the point).

This left people with a selfish, uncommunicative outlook on life, the trust of which eroded (that is, eroded truth).

The subtext has now changed, and people are less interested in the results they once thought they were - thanks largely to the work of the Lord, in the lives of people, who have not adopted this snaring (this snaring of others who cannot discern the given from the predicted).

Perhaps what you have there is your understanding of evolution? If that's the case then it's your thinking about it that is developing, rather than something 'out there' in the world. I think you could see evolution itself as a subtext to life, it's something that happens, but over such long periods of time that it is beyond having any day to day relevance other than being how we got to this point.

 

[Brightmoon]

I have come to the conclusion, its easier to wait for herd-evolution immunity.

If I am immune to whatever evolution might threaten me, evolution can go the way of dust.

The counter argument, that Evolutionists can wait for herd-creation immunity, just goes to show you can't trust Evolutionists for almost anything original.

I’m not even sure what this means . Herd immunity just means that enough of a species individuals have caught and successfully fought off a disease organism so that the disease doesn’t infect vulnerable ones because it has trouble spreading . The only time evolution is involved in herd immunity is if enough individuals are immune to the disease organism that it goes extinct. OR the species can pass along a genetic resistance to the disease to their offspring.