• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Is evolution a fact or theory?

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by mathinspiration, Jan 8, 2018.

  1. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    An good test will be a repeatable, verifiable test to show under what condition fusion occur, i.e. via viru injection.

    However for you it will be more difficult, it has to shown how it can happen under natural conditions, because you are trying to make evoluation a fact, and part of that will be shown how this fusion happens under natural conditions.
     
  2. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,041
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I just told you: chromosome fusion does happen under normal conditions. It's observed. You don't have to figure out exactly how (although that's no great mystery -- two double-stranded breaks followed by nonhomologous end joining repair) to know that it happens.
     
  3. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Can you show me the link? I need to read and see if the experiment is authenticate or just another assumption :)

    Thanks!
     
  4. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,475
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Authentic^

    Not "authenticate". It could be authenticated, you can authenticate something, or it could be authentic. It could not be authenticate, as authenticate is a verb, not an adjective or noun.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
  5. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    mind to show the actual research? Thanks!
     
  6. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,637
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    But there are transitionals between cats, dogs and bears. And between frogs and salamanders, and between dinsosaurs and birds and (long list). The massive number of predicted transitionals in the fossil record is strong evidence for evolution. But even stronger is the absence of transitionals were the the theory doesn't predict the. No fish-dogs, no hippo-birds, no snake-gazelles. If there were, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.

    Nope. The Ediacaran biota in Precambrian rocks gives lie to that. And we see Cambrian body plans already in rudimentary form in the Ediacaran deposits.

    Nope. In the Cambrian, there are no vertebrates, no trees, no spiders, no flowering plants, no birds, no turtles, no mammals of any kind, no... long list. You really didn't know that?

    You've got that wrong, too. It's "missing lynx." And they found it:
    [​IMG]

    Seriously, though. Let's test your belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have a transitional form.

    What have you got?
     
  7. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Just noticed this was lost in all the messages.

    I agree the above looks reasonable, and we have observed that mutations happen. However are we so sure that all mutations can happen and verified as facts?
     
  8. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,475
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    A lot of young earthers will state that, because the ediacaran biota went extinct, they do not serve as...pre cursors to animals of the cambrian explosion. But the reality is, even if we ignore the ediacaran, arthropod traces, and microscopic shelled life, bivalves, mollusks, brachiopods and corals, among others, still predate the cambrian explosion by up to 100 million years.

    Cloudinidae - Wikipedia
    Sinotubulites - Wikipedia
    Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
  9. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,637
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Anything that can result from a change in the genome can happen. Hence point mutations, inversions, gene duplication, chromsome breakage or fusion, etc.

    At the molecular level, it's all chemistry, and not controversial.
     
  10. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,041
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Chromosome fusion is easy to observe: it's seen in ~1 / 1000 human births. Just look up "Robertsonian translocation" and you'll find lots of info. The specific kind of chromosome fusion that occurred in the human lineage -- telomere-telomere fusion -- is less common, but can readily seen in the lab, e.g. in this paper.
     
  11. AFrazier

    AFrazier Well-Known Member Supporter

    +319
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    How about throughout the entirety of chapter fourteen of On the Origin of Species? Ever read it?

    Here are a few choice quotes that relate directly to what I said of Darwin:

    "That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny."

    "On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. ... I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe."

    "As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. Hence the canon of `Natura non facit saltum,' which every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to make more strictly correct, is on this theory simply intelligible."

    Darwin spends most of his concluding chapter discussing the glaring arguments that can be made against his theory, admitting in numerous instances that he has no actual proof, only speculation, and doing the best he can to convince his readers to put aside their "ignorance" and embrace an open-minded approach to what to them must seem like a ridiculous conclusion, all things considered.

    The examples were exaggerated to make a point. We don't have anything in the fossil record showing the transition between species. There are no dogs with the evidence of wings forming. There are no elephants with necks beginning to extend. We have animals that are improved versions of their ancestors, but not animals that clearly evolved from an alleged ancestor.

    And this, in evolutionary terms, is the blink of an eye. Prior to the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record is little more than micro-organisms. The existence of complex life in the pre-Cambrian period is speculation, not fact.

    This is nothing more than confirmation bias. The scientists created the "phyla" for organization purposes. I don't care what they say, it can't be proven that this is the ancestor of a human being.

    Proof please. Saying it doesn't make it so.

    We survive in every climate on the planet, with artificial aid. We are not talking about survival of the most aided by technology. We are talking about survival of the fittest. Without heat (fire), shelter, and other modern aids, human beings will die in most climates from exposure. It's a fact.

    But to put my original point into a more appropriate context, what I was essentially saying is this. Our evolutionary plan has us going from being bigfoot (assuming for the fun of the argument that they exist), who can survive in sub-zero temperatures without fire or shelter, see in the dark, who are strong enough to break trees with their bare hands, and who can kill animals without weapons or tools of any kind ... and then one day there was this tiny, hairless, weak, defenseless, BUT SMART, baby bigfoot. And it survived, despite all odds, in the mountains, in freezing temperatures, with a mother who couldn't make fire. Then one day, it grew up to be a smart bigfoot who figured out how to make fire and shelter for itself, so that its offspring would be able to survive.

    That's the ridiculousness of the evolutionary argument. The REAL evolution would have been a nine-foot tall, hairy, strong, healthy bigfoot who was smart enough to figure out how to make fire. All "slight" modifications to our ancestors that would allegedly lead to what we are today would make each successive generation weaker, not stronger. It's contrary to the whole argument of natural selection.

    Sorry, but I call shenanigans on this one. This is as ridiculous as Darwin's argument of animal being born with wings so it can fly, all relative to its environment. As I said before, giraffes didn't grow long necks so they could eat the leaves on tall trees. They eat the leaves on the tall trees because they have long necks. If the island is sinking beneath your feet, you don't develop gills so you can live in the water. You just drown.

    A qualifying mutation has to be inconsequential, but helpful. And it will always be a minor change, and that minor change will give the animal an edge over others of the same species, until the change becomes a dominant trait. No species is going to be miraculously born with wings, eyes, or anything else, that it does not already possess in some form. You can't prove otherwise. Like everything else with evolution, it's all speculation.

    My qualifications are that I've read some books on the subject, from both perspectives. These scientists are not infallible gods. They are men and women who look at the evidence, and then draw conclusions from that evidence. In most cases, I find that they are drawing conclusions based on speculation, not fact. Just because they believe that there is a link between this species and that, it doesn't make it so. Just because they speculate that we all descended from a single amoeba, that doesn't make it so.

    It is also worth noting that there are plenty of accredited scientists who do not agree with evolution. There are too many questions that just can't be answered.

    But in any case, I gave my two cents. You responded and asked questions. I answered the best I could. I have some other things to do, so I don't really care to continue this back and forth debate. It think your cup might be a little too full for my taste.
     
  12. AFrazier

    AFrazier Well-Known Member Supporter

    +319
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    lol
     
  13. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married

    Thanks and you are right on that. Read up on that and it says it is more likely on 13 and 14, 14 and 21, and 14 and 15, so some are easier to happen (still rare) and some are harder.

    So I did more research, and found that actually there are new research back in 2013 that showed the location of the fusion is at a very unlikely place by Dr. Thompins. (New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion | The Institute for Creation Research)

    Here is a blog of peer reviews. Most are negative (due to the data is over 5 years old), but other than that his main points are not rebuked. Thoughts on "New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion" IMO 2008 is not that old, consider the idea the chromsome fusion from primates are much older than that.

    So basically with new research, it shows that intelligence design is more likely unless you can have some experiments that can verifiable and repeatably show how human chromosome #2 is fused under natural conditions.
     
  14. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,041
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Darwin summarizes both arguments for his thesis and arguments against it. His conclusion is, "I have now recapitulated the chief facts and considerations which have thoroughly convinced me that species have changed, and are still slowly changing by the preservation and accumulation of successive slight favourable variations." That is not a statement that he considers his theory to be mere speculation.

    In any case, what Darwin thought of evolution is only of historical interest.
    See here for one example of one species turning into another.
    Why would there be dogs with wings forming? And what does such a dramatic change have to do with the transition between two species? That kind of change spans many, many species.
    We've got all kinds of transitional species showing that kind of thing: whales with nostrils progressively farther back on their heads, and progressively smaller legs, proto-mammals with progressively smaller jaw bones until they eventually become inner ear bones, and now we even have a transitional giraffe, with its neck partly extended -- exactly the thing you said doesn't exist.
     
  15. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,041
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Do you remember what we're talking about? It was you who wrote, "The Cambrian layer shows the almost spontaneous existence of most known phyla of life, in almost the same forms as they exist today." If you didn't want to talk about phyla, why talk about phyla? More to the point, your claim was that most known phyla appear in the Cambrian in almost the same forms as they exist today. There is nothing remotely like a human, a lizard, a a snake, a tree, a fern, etc, etc, in the Cambrian.
    Sure, with artificial aid -- that we provide. Our fitness as a species includes our ability to employ technology to survive in a wide range of environments. What exactly you're trying to argue here I really can't figure out.
    You seem to have sketched the evolution of some other species on some other planet. It bears very little resemblance to hypotheses about human evolution. What species is this bigfoot supposed to represent? When did our ancestors live in subzero temperatures before mastering fire? In short, what on earth are you talking about?
    That's more or less true, and seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote.
    It's worth noting that there the number of accredited biologists who do not agree with evolution is really, really tiny, compared to the number who do -- and that includes believing scientists.
     
  16. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,041
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    General suggestion: when you read anything by Dr. Tomkins about genetics, ignore what it says. All of it. In his papers that I've looked at in detail, he's been completely wrong every time. On this subject, you might want to read some of the criticism, here, here, and
    here. In any case, I don't want to get side-tracked into a long discussion of chromosome 2, since I don't even think it's good evidence for evolution: it's good evidence that humans used to have one more chromosome, but that could be true regardless of whether we're related to the great apes or not.
     
  17. NobleMouse

    NobleMouse We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

    662
    +227
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    If I could have rated this as Agree, Like, and Funny all at the same time I would have! Do not be discouraged, it's the same song and dance in these debates with our more skeptical brothers and sisters that take a very liberal view of the Bible. Note how the discussion always goes down into deep technical scientific discourse rather than discussing what the word of God actually says. It is very self-revealing that some here place more weight on what Darwin and Dawkins has to say than what the Creator Himself has to say. The Bible is clear: 6 days of creating and resting on the 7th. Day 6 man was created and was fully human on that day. God bless -
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  18. dcalling

    dcalling Senior Member

    +266
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Well, my link is to Dr Tomkins' research on chromosome#2, and all your links seems to doing on some of his other works, or against some of his observations on statistics, but none really refuted his main point which is the fusion point on chromosome2 is not a normal one. Which if you read from other (different person) reviews I posted, that even thought they are against his idea of creationism, none refuted his main discovery.

    But let's get back to our case. If you no longer help chromosome 2 fusion as good evidence for evolution, what is? (here we are talking about macro evolution, or that humans/apps evolved from some same ancestry).
     
  19. KomatiiteBIF

    KomatiiteBIF Well-Known Member

    +1,475
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    @AFrazier

    As usual, i would just point out tiktaalik as a transitional.

    Fish like-
    fin rays
    gills
    scales

    Amphibian like-
    rotating wrist bones
    flat head
    robust shoulder bones
    head unfused from shoulder

    Location:
    Shallow marine bedding of the Devonian. The carboniferous is dominated by land animals, amphibians, reptiles. The Cambrian - Silurian is dominated by sea animals. Tiktaalik is appropriately in the middle of land and sea animals of the fossil succession, and it too shares traits of land an sea animals, fish and amphibian.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  20. AFrazier

    AFrazier Well-Known Member Supporter

    +319
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I said ...

    To which, you responded ...

    So I clarified ...

    And you repeated my statement, either clueless about the English language, or deliberately obtuse about my meaning ...

    Our species, according the evolutionary fiction, is that we went from stronger to weaker, survivable to frail. And the only explanation for the survivability of our frail versions today is our intelligence, which never would have survived without the technology derived from it, meaning that the intelligence never would have survived long enough to invent the artificial means of survival. We'd have died in the nest before figuring out how to rub a rock and stick together to make fire.

    Now, I've been on these forums long enough to know a know-it-all when I see one. I'm not going to argue with you. This exchange, even on just this one statement amongst several, is precisely why I said that I don't want to discuss it further in my last post to you. I don't believe that the exchange was difficult to understand, or the point being made. You choose to be difficult on a point well made. I just don't have the patience to deal with the fruitless back and forth.

    If you're a Christian, God speed to you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
Loading...