proving evolution as just a "theory"

Jimmy D · Nov 2, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Let’s test both theories. Take 1000 rabbits. Blast 50 with radiation to cause random mutations. Only those descended from that specific rabbit will possess this mutation. Unless all the others die, leaving only its descendants, it will not fix in the population.

LOL, Why invent fantasy hypotheticals when there are thousands of pages of research with empirical evidence to back it up? Right. Because it would demonstrate that you are completely wrong, yet again.....

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

Identifying the genes underlying adaptation is a major challenge in evolutionary biology. Here, we describe the molecular changes underlying adaptive coat color variation in a natural population of rock pocket mice, Chaetodipus intermedius. Rock pocket mice are generally light-colored and live on light-colored rocks. However, populations of dark (melanic) mice are found on dark lava, and this concealing coloration provides protection from avian and mammalian predators. We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice. Interestingly, another melanic population of these mice on a different lava flow shows no association with Mc1r mutations, indicating that adaptive dark color has evolved independently in this species through changes at different genes.

Jimmy D · Nov 2, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Only when they mate with another subspecies, does variation in the species occur.

As demonstrated above..... WRONG

BradB · Nov 2, 2017

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

No I'm talking about those that reject God and place no faith in Christ based on the clear teachings of Genesis 1 that says God created each kind and to reproduce after their own kind. Satan has deceived them into thinking you can't trust the Bible "after all science has proved it wrong."

bhsmte · Nov 2, 2017

BradB said:
No I'm talking about those that reject God and place no faith in Christ based on the clear teachings of Genesis 1 that says God created each kind and to reproduce after their own kind. Satan has deceived them into thinking you can't trust the Bible "after all science has proved it wrong."

Does this mean, all those christians that agree with evolution, are not true christians?

BradB · Nov 2, 2017

bhsmte said:
Does this mean, all those christians that agree with evolution, are not true christians?

Jesus said whoever does not help gather with me helps to scatter abroad. Matt.12:30 The gospel message is that sin entered the world through one man's sin (the first Adam) and righteousness through one man's grace (the last Adam). Rom.5:17 and 1Cor.15:45 If you don't believe that the first man was a real living being who God created at the beginning (Mk.10:6) how can you accept that the last man was a real being? If you reject that sin and death entered the world by one man's transgression then you have made the purpose of the cross pointless. Or if death existed in the world for millions of years before Adams sin then you either make God a liar or a sadist because that means during creation He looked down on all that death He had created and said that "it is good."

So you tell me can someone be saved just by calling themselves a Christian and doing Christian things... or do they actually have to receive the gospel of Christ?

bhsmte · Nov 2, 2017

BradB said:
Jesus said whoever does not help gather with me helps to scatter abroad. Matt.12:30 The gospel message is that sin entered the world through one man's sin (the first Adam) and righteousness through one man's grace (the last Adam). Rom.5:17 and 1Cor.15:45 If you don't believe that the first man was a real living being who God created at the beginning (Mk.10:6) how can you accept that the last man was a real being? If you reject that sin and death entered the world by one man's transgression then you have made the purpose of the cross pointless. Or if death existed in the world for millions of years before Adams sin then you either make God a liar a sadist because that means during creation He looked down on all that death He had created and said that "it is good."

So you tell me can someone be saved just by calling themselves a Christian and doing Christian things... or do they actually have to receive the gospel of Christ?

Doesnt answer my specific question.

In your opinion, can someone agree with evolution and be considered a christian?

BradB · Nov 2, 2017

bhsmte said:
Doesnt answer my specific question. In your opinion, can someone agree with evolution and be considered a christian?

To you what does it mean to be a Christian?

tas8831 · Nov 2, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
No, two per phonetic trait. Let’s get that cleared up, not two per individual.

These audible traits - two per individual locus. OK.

They were there from the beginning. Which you would understand if you accepted the fact of inbreeding reduces genetic variability. So they are certainly not increasing.

And yet your entire bible-based scenario is nothing BUT inbreeding.

But back to your genetic strains - 2 allies per locus, and you believe that this original genetic strain diversity of allies is sufficient to generate all the human 'races', all cats, all beetles, etc.

OK.

You do know, do you not, that the loci that govern things like outward appearance (e.g., skin color) do not and cannot simply mix and match with genetic strain allies for something like the an allie for an enzyme or something.

You understand that, right?

So the allies for fur color can only mix with each other.

The allies for fur density, length, distribution, etc, only mix and match with their counterparts for fur density, length, distribution.

You understand that, right?

Ophiolite · Nov 2, 2017

BradB said:
No I'm talking about those that reject God and place no faith in Christ based on the clear teachings of Genesis 1 that says God created each kind and to reproduce after their own kind. Satan has deceived them into thinking you can't trust the Bible "after all science has proved it wrong."

When I was a Christian there was no conflict.

The Bible was the word of God and the tale of creation in Genesis was, especially as rendered in the King James version, a beautiful, moving poetic expression of those events. It mattered little whether those events were literal, or if Gensis was a metaphorical description of creation. The important message was God created.

But God did not just write the tale of creation through human agency, he also wrote it in the galaxies, stars, planets and living beings. That tale could be read, with patience and dedication, in the starlight, the rocks and character of plants, animals and bacteria.

The concept of creation was presented in Genesis, the details were delivered in the world around us.

I'm sorry you are unable to see the balance and beauty of that view.

tas8831 · Nov 2, 2017

xianghua said:
according to some sources about 5% of all scientists believe in creationism.

What sources?

so we need to include also the id guys and i quite sure we will get about 10% that dont believe in a natural evolution or evolution at all.

Being sure about it and presenting more than the usual handful of names is not the same thing.

check also this data:

On Evolution, Biology Teachers Stray From Lesson Plan

"At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism"

Is it really your position that high school teachers are scientists?

No wonder your posts never make sense.

tas8831 · Nov 2, 2017

BradB said:
No lie. Why would you initiate a conversation with someone you have never met by calling them a liar?

I did not call you a liar - I indicated that this:

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

is a lie.

If that is what you truly believe then you are profoundly ignorant.

Observe what Todd Wood, creationist, PhD, has written:

The truth about evolution
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

So what do you know that he doesn't?

tas8831 · Nov 2, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Such as the mutation to the ALX1 gene in finches?

You just demolished your whole silly 'Asians+African=Afro-Asian, no mutation' thing.

Bugeyedcreepy · Nov 2, 2017

BradB said:
Jesus said whoever does not help gather with me helps to scatter abroad. Matt.12:30 The gospel message is that sin entered the world through one man's sin (the first Adam) and righteousness through one man's grace (the last Adam). Rom.5:17 and 1Cor.15:45 If you don't believe that the first man was a real living being who God created at the beginning (Mk.10:6) how can you accept that the last man was a real being? If you reject that sin and death entered the world by one man's transgression then you have made the purpose of the cross pointless. Or if death existed in the world for millions of years before Adams sin then you either make God a liar or a sadist because that means during creation He looked down on all that death He had created and said that "it is good."

^^ This is why I'm not a Christian ^^ I simply can't set aside my critical faculties to accommodate this...

On another note, Jesus also said you have to hate everyone in your family, and yourself too (Luke 14:26) - do you hate everyone and yourself, or do you have an 'interpretation' of that passage?

BradB · Nov 2, 2017

Ophiolite said:
When I was a Christian there was no conflict.

The Bible was the word of God and the tale of creation in Genesis was, especially as rendered in the King James version, a beautiful, moving poetic expression of those events. It mattered little whether those events were literal, or if Gensis was a metaphorical description of creation. The important message was God created.

But God did not just write the tale of creation through human agency, he also wrote it in the galaxies, stars, planets and living beings. That tale could be read, with patience and dedication, in the starlight, the rocks and character of plants, animals and bacteria.

The concept of creation was presented in Genesis, the details were delivered in the world around us.

I'm sorry you are unable to see the balance and beauty of that view.

"When" you were a Christian? Jesus said if you continue in my word then you will truly be my followers. John 8:31 What He means here is that there are some who do not continue, who start but don't become grounded in His teachings. Had you continued you would have seen that both He and His disciples all clearly taught that the Genesis account of creation was not just a metaphor but a literal historical event. The entire gospel of Christ is hinged upon that event being literal. You cannot believe sin literally entered the world through one man's transgression if you reject Genesis as literal. You cannot believe that therefore God literally promised us One would come who would crush the head of the serpent and be bruised in the process. You must make God a sadist because if death entered the world millions of years before the first man sinned then God looked down upon death and said "it is good." And without a literal transgression by Adam you render the whole point of the cross meaningless. Jesus came to save us from sin and "death." He came to correct the first Adam's mistake in the Garden and to be the last Adam through whom grace comes.

How can one be a Christian if they don't understand the gospel of Christ?

Ophiolite · Nov 2, 2017

BradB said:
How can one be a Christian if they don't understand the gospel of Christ?

You seem to have managed it.

tas8831 · Nov 2, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Let’s test both theories. Take 1000 rabbits. Blast 50 with radiation to cause random mutations. Only those descended from that specific rabbit will possess this mutation. Unless all the others die, leaving only its descendants, it will not fix in the population.

So is it your position that all humans alive today, being the descendants of Adam and identical Eve, with their A/A and A/A genetic strains, have only fixed 'allies' that Adam and eve possessed?

You seem to have finally admitted that mutant 'allies' exist, but insist that those in possession of the new 'allie' must all be direct descendants of the original mutant allie possessor, and that all others must die out.

You seem to forget that ALL members of a species contribute to the gene pool of that species. Down-the-line offspring that possess the 'mutant allie' will ALSO possess many allies that the mutant-father did not possess.

Yours is a common problem among creationists - you latch onto something you think is a great anti-evolution argument, but, lacking the relevant background knowledge, you fail to take into account any of the many factors that undercut your argument. and when these factors are explained to you, you have a cognitive meltdown and just double-down no matter what. Pretty common thing to see from creationists.

Pshun, for example, is still ranting and raving about how he thinks elephants have clavicles, for crying out loud... You people are a hoot!

Justatruthseeker · Nov 2, 2017

Jimmy D said:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed this post... otherwise I would have to draw attention to your intellectual dishonesty.

...................................................

Are you suggesting that two unrelated members of a species reproducing is "inbreeding"?

There is no such thing as two unrelated members of a species. It’s the fact that they are related that makes them the same species.

Do you accept the fact that animals actually avoid inbreeding?

They are each and every one of them distantly related.

I don't want to confuse you with facts but....

Wolf packs generally consist of a breeding pair and their maturing offspring that help provision and protect pack young. Because the reproductive tenure in wolves is often short, reproductively mature offspring might replace their parents, resulting in sibling or parent-offspring matings. To determine the extent of incestuous pairings, we measured relatedness based on variability in 20 microsatellite loci of mated pairs, parent-offspring pairs, and siblings in two populations of gray wolves. Our 16 sampled mated pairs had values of relatedness not overlapping those of known parent-offspring or sibling dyads, which is consistent with their being unrelated or distantly related. These results suggest that full siblings or a parent and its offspring rarely mate and that incest avoidance is an important constraint on gray wolf behavioral ecology

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255582185_Is_Incest_Common_in_Gray_Wolf_Packs

Please stop saying inbreeding if you mean breeding... they're different things.

Except as we just discussed, there is no such thing as a species that is unrelated to other members of that species.

.............................................

It's only one example amongst many others that refutes your nonsense.

Yes, if animals are inbreeding genetic diversity can decrease (although not always), however, as you have been told, inbreeding refers to inscestuous relationships amongst close siblings etc.... which is not the norm in the creatures you keep mentioning.

Just to reinforce the point here's a paper about the Black Bears you keep mentioning...

Sex-biased natal dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in American black bears as revealed by spatial genetic analyses.

We tested the hypothesis that sex-biased natal dispersal reduces close inbreeding in American black bears, a solitary species that exhibits nearly complete male dispersal and female philopatry. Using microsatellite DNA and spatial data from reproductively mature bears (>or= 4 years old), we examined the spatial genetic structure of two distinct populations in New Mexico from 1993 to 2000. As predicted, relatedness (r) and the frequency of close relationships (parent-offspring or full siblings) decreased with distance among female dyads, but little change was observed among male or opposite-sex dyads. Neighbouring females were more closely related than neighbouring males. The potential for inbreeding was low. Most opposite-sex pairs that lived sufficiently close to facilitate mating were unrelated, and few were close relatives. We found no evidence that bears actively avoided inbreeding in their selection of mates from this nearby pool, as mean r and relationship frequencies did not differ between potential and actual mating pairs (determined by parentage analysis). These basic patterns were apparent in both study areas despite a nearly two-fold difference in density. However, the sex bias in dispersal was less pronounced in the lower-density area, based on proportions of bears with male and female relatives residing nearby. This result suggests that male bears may respond to reduced competition by decreasing their rate or distance of dispersal. Evidence supports the hypothesis that inbreeding avoidance is achieved by means of male-biased dispersal but also indicates that competition (for mates or resources) modifies dispersal patterns.

“
We found no evidence that bears actively avoided inbreeding in their selection of mates from this nearby pool,”

So even though your trying to imply active avoidance, we find that there was no evidence this was so.
..............................................

Now, before you find an example to suggest that that closely related animals do sometimes reproduce, I'm not saying it never happens - but that such incidences are not the norm in general.

I don’t need to produce any, since you already understand every member in the species is related to every other member. Nor was I the one attempting to imply active avoidance, even when no evidence of such was found.

Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before you post your nonsense instead of just inventing things which you think will help your case, the amount of times on this thread your "ideas" have been refuted is getting embarassing.

Except you still haven’t refuted my ideas. You keep ignoring that Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. That for the genetic trait of Asian to be set into the population, the descendants must all come from one family.

Even you have to accept this, even under your own theory. Because for a mutation that benifits me and is passed to my descendants, then if it is fixed in the population, all the population must come from me and my descendants.

Or is this where you go into the realm of magic and start claiming random mutations magically fix themselves into the entire population without needing to be descended from the one with the mutation?

Justatruthseeker · Nov 2, 2017

Jimmy D said:
LOL, Why invent fantasy hypotheticals when there are thousands of pages of research with empirical evidence to back it up? Right. Because it would demonstrate that you are completely wrong, yet again.....

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

Identifying the genes underlying adaptation is a major challenge in evolutionary biology. Here, we describe the molecular changes underlying adaptive coat color variation in a natural population of rock pocket mice, Chaetodipus intermedius. Rock pocket mice are generally light-colored and live on light-colored rocks. However, populations of dark (melanic) mice are found on dark lava, and this concealing coloration provides protection from avian and mammalian predators. We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice. Interestingly, another melanic population of these mice on a different lava flow shows no association with Mc1r mutations, indicating that adaptive dark color has evolved independently in this species through changes at different genes.

Please show me where I ever claimed a mutation could not change skin color. As a matter of fact I stated that clearly. But the point you then ignored is for that mutation to fix in the population, all the population must be descended from the one with the mutation....

rjs330 · Nov 2, 2017

Speedwell said:
No. It was inspired by God. It is witness to the words of God, the Ten Commandments, for example, although Ex 20:11 is not a part of them.

Why do you believe anything the Bible says if it was written by men? Men claim they were inspired. Why do you believe the claim?

bhsmte · Nov 2, 2017

BradB said:
To you what does it mean to be a Christian?

I am asking you. My opinion on what it means to be a christian is irrelevant. Can you answer the question or not?

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency