proving evolution as just a "theory"

[BradB]

If it is Satan, why is he doing such a poor job? The theory of evolution only discomfits a minority of Evangelical Protestants, leaving the majority of Christians secure in their faith.

I think your not seeing the big picture. Millions reject the gospel of life because they think the book has no relevance. God says we are without excuse because He is clearly seen in the things He has made. (Rom.1:20) So Satan's task is not to try and steel souls. His task is to keep them deceived (still) so they never hunger or thirst after righteousness.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sorry you think so. But I know there's only one way the author intended it.

Opinion. Which you are entitled to.

 

[pitabread]

All you need do is point out that all all evolution has to support it are arguments based in similarities between the different forms.

It's not strictly about similarities. It's actually about patterns in the observed evidence; from the fossil record to genetics to development biology to biogeography. There are specific patterns that would hold if evolution were true and it's confirmation of those patterns that validates the theory.

Conversely, if life were independently created, we would expect an entirely different set of patterns which aren't observed in nature.

Which is why I often say if individual species were specially created, they were created to appear as if they evolved.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But that would be a lie - are you encouraging a fellow Christian to lie?

If he was he would be encouraging them to believe in evolution.

Dinosaurs in the bible?

Oh, like the one time a creature that hid beneath lotus leaves was mentioned?

Isn't it odd - horses, pigs, camels - these are mentioned dozens of times, but giant scary beasts of all varieties are only, sort, hinted at once?

You don't find that odd?

Why should they be? They died out when the earth became desolate and waste, and darkness surrounded the earth and it was entirely flooded. Not to be confused with Noah’s flood. But most Christians ignore the Hebrew word hayah too.

 

[Speedwell]

I think your not seeing the big picture. Millions reject the gospel of life because they think the book has no relevance. God says we are without excuse because He is clearly seen in the things He has made. (Rom.1:20) So Satan's task is not to try and steel souls. His task is to keep them deceived (still) so they never hunger or thirst after righteousness.

So all of those who reject your interpretation are doomed? Their belief in God and their faith in Christ will not save them?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's not strictly about similarities. It's actually about patterns in the observed evidence; from the fossil record to genetics to development biology to biogeography. There are specific patterns that would hold if evolution were true and it's confirmation of those patterns that validates the theory.

But that’s what I am trying to get you to understand. The fossil record does not support evolution. All fossil creatures remain the same from the oldest one found to the youngest one found, and new forms appear suddenly.

You know, like a Husky remains Husky and a Mastiff remains Mastiff, and the Chinook appears suddenly when they mate. You just can’t observe that mating from a pile of fossilized bones. The pattern is exactly what you observe, and neither Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

Evolutionists simply mistake what they see in the fossil record because they ignore the reality of how new forms appear.

What patterns in genetics? That the Asian remains Asian and the African remains African and only when those two mate is a new variation created in the species?

Conversely, if life were independently created, we would expect an entirely different set of patterns which aren't observed in nature.

Why? If I make a million vases, bowls and cups from the same basic materials, would you expect them to all be different at the atomic level? Or would you expect similarities and differences based upon the quantities of those materials?

Which is why I often say if individual species were specially created, they were created to appear as if they evolved.

You say that often, but have yet to show any reasoning why this is so. But saying something often doesn’t make it true, without empericial data.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

@Justatruthseeker
As promised yesteday I have returned to address your points regarding inbreeding. It is clear from your exchanges with tas8831, JimmyD and possibly others, that your understanding of inbreeding is confused, as is your understanding of the range of meaning for the phrase "close relationship".

You make assertions based upon the present. For example "Black bears mate with black bears and remain black bears". In doing this you ignore the fact, one I am confident has been explained to you more than once, that evolution of a new species, genera, or higher taxonomic order takes more than a generation or two.

That’s what you say, yet the Chinook was produced in 28 weeks. So I find your claim of variation taking generations opposite of what and how we observe variation to appear. We got over 100 dogs in just a few thousand years. But you refuse to accept dogs for what they are, the longest lasting, most comprehensive experiment for evolution. The results of which falsify it down to its very core.

Consequently you will not entertain the correct version of your statement: "Black bears mate with black bears and remain black bears, until such times as a sufficient number of beneficial mutations accumulate to justify classifying them as something else".

Such as the mutation to the ALX1 gene in finches?

Again so you keep claiming, yet despite generation upon generation upon generation being born with mutations, black bears remain black bears.

Ahh I see, I am supposed to pretend in my fantasies they become something else some unfalsifiable time in the future?

It is evident from your response to others that there are no circumstances in which you will open your mind sufficiently to objectively consider the evidence for this.

Agreed, there is no circumstance that would alter your mind sufficiently to objectively consider the evidence. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. Unlike you, I do have empericial evidence instead of just belief it’ll happen sometime in the undisclosed future.....

I have noted on other threads that I have no issue with individuals who choose to reject evolution because it conflicts with their faith. I believe it to be an unwise decision, but I respect their right to make it.

It conflicts with observational evidence. My faith follows the data, I don’t try to twist the data to follow my faith, as do evolutionists.

However, it is challenging for me to respect anyone who chooses to misinterpret, manipulate, misrepresent and consciously misunderstand the methods and findings of science in regard to evolution. Therefore, it is unlikely that I shall have further exchanges with you, unless to point out especially inaccurate statements. Thank you for your responses thus far.

If you can’t answer the evidence just say so. Excuses are a dime a dozen and worth less than a penny each.

Who misrepresenting the facts? Husky remains Husky, Mastiff remain Mastiff. When they mate the Chinook appears suddenly. Every fossil always remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest. New forms appear suddenly. It’s you that refuses to apply the observational reality to the fossil record. So I’d suggest you look in a mirror next time you rant and rave without addressing the issues.

But attacking the poster instead of the subject of the post is standard evolutionist garbage.

 

[BradB]

It's not strictly about similarities. It's actually about patterns in the observed evidence; from the fossil record to genetics to development biology to biogeography. There are specific patterns that would hold if evolution were true and it's confirmation of those patterns that validates the theory.

Conversely, if life were independently created, we would expect an entirely different set of patterns which aren't observed in nature.

Which is why I often say if individual species were specially created, they were created to appear as if they evolved.

Well friend your welcome to think Santa went down the chimney to rob the house if you like. The motive why to me would be of little interest in light of the discovery. You can't explain away the specificit so clearly observed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What do you mean by "two per phonetic trait"? That sentence makes zero sense. Do you mean phenotypic? And what do you mean by "two per"? We're dealing with alleles here (gene variations) which may or may not have anything to do with a specific phenotype.

allele | Learn Science at Scitable

“An allele is a variant form of a gene. Some genes have a variety of different forms, which are located at the same position, or genetic locus, on a chromosome. Humans are called diploid organisms because they have two alleles at each genetic locus, with one allele inherited from each parent. Each pair of alleles represents the genotype of a specific gene. Genotypes are described as homozygous if there are two identical alleles at a particular locus and as heterozygous if the two alleles differ. Alleles contribute to the organism's phenotype, which is the outward appearance of the organism.“

There are not just two, there are two at every genetic locus.

So basically the originally two created "kinds" had magic genomes with thousands upon thousands of extra gene variations to account for all the allelic variation we observe in existing populations.

Is that really your contention?

It was your contention inbreeding reduces genetic variability. Every animal alive participates in this. Black bears tend to mate only with black bears. Cardinals only with Cardinals. Loss of genetic variability implies greater variability before the loss. Again, if you wish to call science magic, that is your prerogative. But why you refuse to accept your own claims now that I pointed out it must have once meant greater variability is beyond me. You seemed to have no problem with it until the logical conclusion was pointed out to you.

Ahh, I see, you mean the magic of a random mutation fixing itself in the population, without only their descendants ending up the entire population? You evolutionists sure do like magic, I’ll give you that. I prefer science, but that’s probably why you have such a problem accepting reduction meant greater before reduction...

Let’s try something gradeschool, maybe you’ll understand.

If I have 5 apples and take away two, I had more apples to begin with, than I have now.

Likewise if genetic variability is decreased, it was once greater, yes?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

True.

The other option would be, you have zero clue about what the theory of evolution actually states and you are simply trying to protect a personal belief.

That’s probably because no one will say what it states without changing it every third post....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So all of those who reject your interpretation are doomed? Their belief in God and their faith in Christ will not save them?

Satan believes in God and Christ. The Pharisees believed in God and Christ, yet had him killed anyways because he threatened their positions.

But no, I can’t say for certain that’s what he meant, but that’s not what he said at all. He said it prevents those already lost from searching after righteousness. Because let’s be honest, shall we? Most who accept evolution do not believe in God. To them there is no God or reason to thirst after righteousness. They will remain deceived, because they can’t see that the works declare Him.

 

[pitabread]

There are not just two, there are two at every genetic locus.

Great, you Googled what "allele" means. Now, can you try answering my questions again?

It was your contention inbreeding reduces genetic variability.

Apparently you don't understand the definition of "inbreeding".

Inbreeding occurs when two closely genetically related organisms (think siblings, or parent and offspring) mate. It doesn't refer to members of the same species mating. You may need to spend some more time on the Google looking up more definitions before continuing to post.

The loss of genetic variability comes from the reduction of total alleles in a population, and this can occur with a reduction in the size of a population.

Loss of genetic variability implies greater variability before the loss.

Greater variability implies a larger population and/or a greater distribution of alleles among said population.

It doesn't mean an organism with a magic super-genome that contains 1000 different alleles for a single gene. Genomes don't work that way.

This is why the inherent conclusion based on your (considerably flawed) understanding of genetics is one of two things:

1) Either God made pairs of organisms with some sort of magic super-genomes that don't work like anything we observe in modern biology; or,
2) The originally created "kinds" were actually huge populations. Instead of Adam and Eve, you're talking probably thousands of Adams and Eves.

Of course neither of this matters, because we already know how genetic variation arises: via mutations that occur in gametes during reproduction. Which is part of the evolutionary process which we observe today.

The end.

 

[pitabread]

Well friend your welcome to think Santa went down the chimney to rob the house if you like. The motive why to me would be of little interest in light of the discovery. You can't explain away the specificit so clearly observed.

I don't even know what the above is supposed to mean.

 

[Ophiolite]

That’s what you say, yet the Chinook was produced in 28 weeks. So I find your claim of variation taking generations opposite of what and how we observe variation to appear.

The following is not for your benefit. You have made it clear you are not listening. It is for neutral parties who may have the misfortune to be following the thread.

My words: "You make assertions based upon the present. For example "Black bears mate with black bears and remain black bears". In doing this you ignore the fact, one I am confident has been explained to you more than once, that evolution of a new species, genera, or higher taxonomic order takes more than a generation or two."

The Chinook is not a new species. It is not even a sub-species. It is a variant; a dog breed. Variations are ongoing from generation to generation. Any trend in those variations is determined by three things:

• Initial range of alleles in the population
• Additional alleles furnished by mutation
• Environmental changes favouring change in genotype/phenotype

In the absence of environmental change there will be little or no change in the organism. In the presence or environmental change it will take many generations for those changes to be sufficient to justify classification as a new species, genera, or higher taxonomic order.

Again so you keep claiming, yet despite generation upon generation upon generation being born with mutations, black bears remain black bears.

Ahh I see, I am supposed to pretend in my fantasies they become something else some unfalsifiable time in the future?

No. You are meant to recognise that they were something other than black bears in the past and may become something other than black bears in the future. You are prevented from doing this by a decision to ignore, misinterpret and misunderstand the evidence to this effect.

Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. Unlike you, I do have empericial evidence instead of just belief it’ll happen sometime in the undisclosed future....

My acceptance of evolution is not based upon some hypothetical future, but upon observed patterns of evolution from the geological record. (In passing, I'll note this is not some dry, academic knowledge acquired from text books. This is knowledge acquired through the personal collection of fossils in the field and their subsequent examination in the laboratory, plus the study of museum and teaching collections, and extensive reading of research papers by paleontologists, as well as lengthy discussion with noted palaeontologists. So, you may understand if I find your trite dismissal of mountains of evidence a mixture of sad and amusing.)

It conflicts with observational evidence. My faith follows the data, I don’t try to twist the data to follow my faith, as do evolutionists.

Come back and tell me that after you have done a summer season collecting specimens and a year studying them and I'll give your claim considerably more credence. At present you lack the knowledge to be reaching any conclusions of substance on these matters.

If you can’t answer the evidence just say so. Excuses are a dime a dozen and worth less than a penny each.

When you present evidence rather than endless, childish repetition of you nonsense about huskies I will address it.

But attacking the poster instead of the subject of the post is standard evolutionist garbage.

I have not attacked you. I have attacked your evidence, your unsupported assertions, your cavalier handling of information, your ignorance of basic principles, etc. You, I know nothing about. Since you are now on Ignore it is likely to remain that way.

 

[Speedwell]

Satan believes in God and Christ. The Pharisees believed in God and Christ, yet had him killed anyways because he threatened their positions.

But no, I can’t say for certain that’s what he meant, but that’s not what he said at all. He said it prevents those already lost from searching after righteousness. Because let’s be honest, shall we? Most who accept evolution do not believe in God. To them there is no God or reason to thirst after righteousness. They will remain deceived, because they can’t see that the works declare Him.

No, I'm just talking about Christians and those they can evangelize without recourse to a literal and inerrant interpretation of Genesis. All Christians witness for Christ and the Gospel by authority of scripture. But the authority of scripture rests on its divine providence, not its adherence to a particular literary genre.

 

[bhsmte]

Well friend your welcome to think Santa went down the chimney to rob the house if you like. The motive why to me would be of little interest in light of the discovery. You can't explain away the specificit so clearly observed.

Word salad.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Great, you Googled what "allele" means. Now, can you try answering my questions again?

I have, you just refuse to accept reduction means it was once greater.

Apparently you don't understand the definition of "inbreeding".

Inbreeding occurs when two closely genetically related organisms (think siblings, or parent and offspring) mate. It doesn't refer to members of the same species mating. You may need to spend some more time on the Google looking up more definitions before continuing to post.

I understand it perfectly. That’s why I have no problem accepting black bears remain black bears, because inbreeding set in its genetic traits.

Greater variability implies a larger population and/or a greater distribution of alleles among said population.

Are you sure? Are you saying an Afro-Asian is not more genetically diverse than either of its parents? And it just took two. You best rethink that.

So how many missing common ancestors magically randomly mutated exactly the same random mutation to create the entire human and ape populations?

It doesn't mean an organism with a magic super-genome that contains 1000 different alleles for a single gene. Genomes don't work that way.

And yet 98% of the genome is now non-functional because of errors in mutation.....

This is why the inherent conclusion based on your (considerably flawed) understanding of genetics is one of two things:

1) Either God made pairs of organisms with some sort of magic super-genomes that don't work like anything we observe in modern biology; or,
2) The originally created "kinds" were actually huge populations. Instead of Adam and Eve, you're talking probably thousands of Adams and Eves.

Or 3) Your just refusing to accept that reduction in variability means greater variability, combined with the 98% now non-functional genome because of mutational errors.

Of course neither of this matters, because we already know how genetic variation arises: via mutations that occur in gametes during reproduction. Which is part of the evolutionary process which we observe today.

The end.

No, it occurs when the Asian combines its genomes with the African and increases the genetic variability in its offspring. Variability that both lost during inbreeding. It occurs when Mastiff mate with Husky and produce a Chinook.

And regardless of how many random mutations either the Husky or Mastiff undergo, the offspring will always be Chinook, not some random breed. No, your mutation scenario lacks any credibility whatsoever.

That’s variability. The Asian is born with mutations at every birth over every generation and remains Asian. One of us sure doesn’t understand how variation enters the species, and it sure isn’t me that’s ignoring the empirical observations.

I understand you want it to be true, but desire has never outweighed empericial evidence and never will. You keep right on attacking the poster and maybe someday you’ll convince yourself you are not the one at error, but it’s not today, which is why you continually attack the poster and not answer the post.

 

[pitabread]

You keep right on attacking the poster and maybe someday you’ll convince yourself you are not the one at error, but it’s not today, which is why you continually attack the poster and not answer the post.

Right. Well, you can continue to believe that if you want.

Meanwhile, I'd encourage you to spend some time studying the topic of genetics and get a better understanding of how genes work, distribution of alleles, etc. Once you gain a better understanding, you'll understand where your misconceptions have occurred and will better appreciate how the distribution of genetic variability in populations works.

At this point, I don't see any point in continuing to go 'round in circles, especially since you just continue to repeat the same silly assertions over and over. We're done here as far as I'm concerned. Take care.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I'm just talking about Christians and those they can evangelize without recourse to a literal and inerrant interpretation of Genesis. All Christians witness for Christ and the Gospel by authority of scripture. But the authority of scripture rests on its divine providence, not its adherence to a particular literary genre.

The problem with a literal and inerrant interpretation of Genesis, is that most, if not all of us do not speak Hebrew as our native tongue, the language the Bible was given to mankind in. That the English and other languages have errors is IMO a certainty.

You can’t even translate a novel from Spanish to English or another language without taking liscence in interpretations and using words that may not have the exact same meaning as they do in the native tongue to someone that speaks only it and understands all the nuances.

I’ve repeatedly tried to make this point with hayah, the second word of the second verse of Genesis, yet people will ignore its true meaning anyways. The third or fourth word in English translations, depending if they insert both and and the. Or even worse and put in interpretations like “now the earth hayah.....”

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Right. Well, you can continue to believe that if you want.

Meanwhile, I'd encourage you to spend some time studying the topic of genetics and get a better understanding of how genes work, distribution of alleles, etc. Once you gain a better understanding, you'll understand where your misconceptions have occurred and will better appreciate how the distribution of genetic variability in populations works.

At this point, I don't see any point in continuing to go 'round in circles, especially since you just continue to repeat the same silly assertions over and over. We're done here as far as I'm concerned. Take care.

Like I said, never answers the post. Just attacks the poster. Typical evolutionist tactic when confronted with cold hard empericial data instead of fantasies of how they want it to be.