Open Questions Concerning Darwinism

[mark kennedy]

I'm just going to ask a series of questions, they are intended to be true or false but of course you can respond as you see fit:

1) Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered?

2) If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection would absolutely break down?

3) Is Human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA greater then 98% the same?

4) The Scriptures (Old and New Testament) clearly teach that Adam was the first human and we are all sinners because of the sin of Adam and Eve?

That should get us started, there are many more but these are the most substantive. As a warning, in case someone is thinking about trolling the thread, I have an answer for evolutionist trolling tactics whether you have substantive answers for these questions or not.

To Creationists and casual observers, I would appreciate a response to the poll question.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm just going to ask a series of questions, they are intended to be true or false but of course you can respond as you see fit:

1) Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered?

Yes.

2) If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection would absolutely break down?

Yes.

3) Is Human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA greater then 98% the same?

No.

4) The Scriptures (Old and New Testament) clearly teach that Adam was the first human and we are all sinners because of the sin of Adam and Eve?

No.

That should get us started, there are many more but these are the most substantive. As a warning, in case someone is thinking about trolling the thread, I have an answer for evolutionist trolling tactics whether you have substantive answers for these questions or not.

What's that, may I ask?

 

[Freodin]

I have to disagree with Wiccan Child on question 2: if we found such an organ, it would not break the Theory of Evolution. It would just show that we would need a different explanation for that certain object.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have to disagree with Wiccan Child on question 2: if we found such an organ, it would not break the Theory of Evolution. It would just show that we would need a different explanation for that certain object.

The question asked if it broke Charles Darwin's theory, not the modern theory. Such a discovery would break the former, I think, but not the latter. I would have qualified my response to clarify as such, but I wanted to stick to the 'yes/no' requested by the OP.

 

[elahmine]

I'm just going to ask a series of questions, they are intended to be true or false but of course you can respond as you see fit:

1) Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered?

2) If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection would absolutely break down?

3) Is Human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA greater then 98% the same?

4) The Scriptures (Old and New Testament) clearly teach that Adam was the first human and we are all sinners because of the sin of Adam and Eve?

That should get us started, there are many more but these are the most substantive. As a warning, in case someone is thinking about trolling the thread, I have an answer for evolutionist trolling tactics whether you have substantive answers for these questions or not.

To Creationists and casual observers, I would appreciate a response to the poll question.

Grace and peace,
Mark

1. Yes

2. Yes most likely, it would depend on many variables.

3. From what little I know about chimp DNA. Yes.

4. Literaly? No. Figurativley? Yes.

 

[Blayz]

1. False. Darwinian Evolution was superseded by the modern synthesis decades ago
2. Maybe. It would depend on the the source of the organ.
3. True or False, depending on your metric
4. It's not clear to me, Don't know about others.

 

[mark kennedy]

1. False. Darwinian Evolution was superseded by the modern synthesis decades ago

Do you mean this Modern Synthesis?

modern synthesis (noun Biology)- a consolidation of the results of various lines of investigation from the 1920s through the 1950s that supported and reconciled the Darwinian theory of evolution and the Mendelian laws of inheritance in terms of natural selection acting on genetic variation. (Modern Synthesis)​

2. Maybe. It would depend on the the source of the organ.

The source of the organ or the source of the change in the organ. If the latter, I would agree.

3. True or False, depending on your metric

Base pairs in whole genome sequences.

4. It's not clear to me, Don't know about others.

That was aimed at theistic evolutionists but in case your interested I have Romans 5, I Corinthians 15 and the genealogy in the Gospel according to Luke in mind. It would be of no significance to someone who does not believe the New Testament in the first place.

BTW, it's been a while, how have you been?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

1. Yes

Then it's not a conclusion, it's an a priori assumption.

2. Yes most likely, it would depend on many variables.

What I have in mind is the human brain as compared to our nearest living relative.

3. From what little I know about chimp DNA. Yes.

Latest findings are right around 96%

4. Literaly? No. Figurativley? Yes.

I'll let that one go for now but thanks for your candor. These are questions, not intended to be confrontational.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Blayz]

Do you mean this Modern Synthesis?

Yep. Although I am not sure on the "evolution is a logic" phrase. "Evolution is a process" would be better wording. Whether it applies to extra terrestial biosystems, I have no idea. Just because I personally cannot conceive of an alternative naturalistic process apart from imperfect replication under selection doesn't mean there isn't one. My imaginative limitation is not a yardstick by which to measure reality.

The source of the organ or the source of the change in the organ. If the latter, I would agree.

either/or.

Base pairs in whole genome sequences.

Not enough to go on. How do you handle indels and other unaligned sequences? Which alignment algorithm are you using? Are you taking genetic distance into account? If so, which substitution model do you favour?

That was aimed at theistic evolutionists but in case your interested I have Romans 5, I Corinthians 15 and the genealogy in the Gospel according to Luke in mind. It would be of no significance to someone who does not believe the New Testament in the first place.

OK.

BTW, it's been a while, how have you been?

Busy. Company closed down my site but got a great job at a nearby RI. Evolution continues to serve me well, and because the job is kind of academia I get published now.

 

[TheReasoner]

I'm just going to ask a series of questions, they are intended to be true or false but of course you can respond as you see fit:

1) Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered?

2) If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection would absolutely break down?

3) Is Human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA greater then 98% the same?

4) The Scriptures (Old and New Testament) clearly teach that Adam was the first human and we are all sinners because of the sin of Adam and Eve?

That should get us started, there are many more but these are the most substantive. As a warning, in case someone is thinking about trolling the thread, I have an answer for evolutionist trolling tactics whether you have substantive answers for these questions or not.

To Creationists and casual observers, I would appreciate a response to the poll question.

Grace and peace,
Mark

1) I assume you mean the theory of evolution as a general theory, as it is today. It has changed a lot over the decades, Darwin might not recognize it at first today.
We have not discovered anywhere else where life has evolved. The model is extremely likely followed in other places as well. I fail to see how it could not be. I cannot envision another general description of life's development, this model makes too much sense on too many levels. It is, one might say, very in line with the way the universe works even in non-biological systems. Even so: As none are found and observed it would not be prudent to say that 'yes it is!'. We need more than one data point to make a general statement. Preferably as many as possible. However, we only have one; Life on earth. Here it fits, and it fits on all life forms plus viri. Hence it most likely will elsewhere too though. So my response is: Probably.

2) No. Irreducible complexity does not mean it has not arisen from precursors. The bacterial flagellum can at first glance appear irreducably complex. But it is still developed through an evolutionary process. As a worst case scenario it will modify the theory, but it would not invalidate data which is already collected and tested.

3) Base pair by base pair? No. As has been said, it depends on your metric.

4) You appear to make a statement, not a question. So I'd say you're presenting at best a leading question here. Tut tut tut
Anyway, as very many Christians and Jews have for millennia I understand that to be an allegory, not a literal story. Adam and EVe may have been real people, but they were not the first humans. If they were; Why do their sons leave them and find cities, and furthermore, why is there no evidence for their role as such in the human genome. There appears to be no support for the literal translation and an allegorical one makes at least just as much sense when the bible is seen as a system excluding non-biblical data - and makes significantly more sense when one considers creation as well as the bible.

I'd like to quote Origen of Alexandria (who lived roughly 184-254 AD) on this:
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally"

 

[elahmine]

Then it's not a conclusion, it's an a priori assumption.



What I have in mind is the human brain as compared to our nearest living relative.



Latest findings are right around 96%



I'll let that one go for now but thanks for your candor. These are questions, not intended to be confrontational.

Grace and peace,
Mark

1. How is it a prior assumption; however, if you were trying phrase the question into whether or evolution was a conclusion of scientific discoveries etc as opposed to being the prior assumption in science then I misunderstood the question.
2. Still many variables
3. Human, chimp DNA differences
Like I said DNA isn't my main squeeze, but 99% is what I've always heard and read.
4. Let that one go? You said true or false but that it was okay to say more. My answer was not confrontational.

To be honest your questions seem like trick questions. Perhaps you could rephrase in a more specific way?

 

[Split Rock]

I'm just going to ask a series of questions, they are intended to be true or false but of course you can respond as you see fit:

1) Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered?

1. What do you mean by an "artifact of the earth?" Do you mean man-made?
2. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a "logic."
3. I suspect that the theory of evolution can be applied to life on other worlds, but right now we only have one world to examine, so it may be persumptive to assume this is the case.

2) If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection would absolutely break down?

If it could be demonstrated that any complicated organ exists that could not possibly have been formed by numerous sucessive genetic modifications, then yes I would agree that Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection would absolutely break down. A single genetic modification (mutation) can produce a phenotypic change that one may describe as more than "slight."

3) Is Human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA greater then 98% the same?

That depends on what exactly you are comparing, and you should know that by now.

4) The Scriptures (Old and New Testament) clearly teach that Adam was the first human and we are all sinners because of the sin of Adam and Eve?

The scriptures clearly relate such a story, but it is a story, not a literal history.

To Creationists and casual observers, I would appreciate a response to the poll question.

Grace and peace,
Mark

How about a poll question asking abiout the questions, rather than the answers?

 

[metherion]

Then it's not a conclusion, it's an a priori assumption.

To paraphrase a famous movie:

You keep on using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Also, is GRAVITY an a priori assumption instead of a conclusion if we say it affects planets and stars, even those we haven't been to yet?

Metherion

 

[keith99]

I'm just going to answer the first 2.

1) No, evolution only applies to a system with certian properties. The most important is reproduction with imperfect replication. There are other imaginable situations. I'd still bet it applies to any forms of life we may ever find.

2) Yes. Darwin said as much. Well kind of. It would show that organ did not result from evolution. If for example we humans figured out a way to engineer a lifeform that had such an organ it then would not invalidate evolution, it would invalidate it as the ONLY way life forms change.

Also there is a huge difference between any possible series of small steps and any series of small steps that we can imagine or figure out.

Going way back on that issue. It seems many could not imagine an organ as complex as the human eye developing by small steps. Darwin not only came up with such a set of steps he provided existing examples of each of theos steps in the Mollusk family.