proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

It’s the same evolutionary PR

When you are presented legitimate scientific evidence (after repeatedly claiming you're all about the scientific evidence) and then you handwave it away as "evolutionary PR", you just undercut your own position in the process.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But Jesus spoke Hebrew, not English.

Are you as sure of this as you are of your claims about genetics?

And just to be clear, do you mean "Jesus spoke Hebrew as his everyday language" or "Jesus was able to speak Hebrew"?

 

[Speedwell]

If you have faith in Christ who was God the Son manifest in the flesh, who died on the cross for your sins, and believe He rose bodily from the grave on the third day... then I absolutely regard you as a fellow Christian and a brother. But I'm still going to love my brother and tell him the truth when I have to.

Kind of you, and unusual for a creationist. But the truth is, that there are a variety of interpretations of Genesis held to by different Christian groups and they all lead to the faith position you outline above. In fact, it is for all practical purposes the same as that contained in the Nicene Creed, which is a statement of belief adhered to by close to two billion Christians around the world--most of whom reject your interpretation of Genesis. Personally, I don't care what creationists believe about the Bible, any more than I care that Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear special underclothing. I do care about the hostility and bumptiousness which seems an ill fit with the message of the Gospel.

 

[Speedwell]

But Jesus spoke Hebrew, not English.

Jesus spoke Aramaic as His native language and undoubtedly Koine Greek as well. He may have spoken Hebrew, though it was rapidly becoming a dead language; as a Torah scholar He could at least read it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why yes, three of them are interbreeding so profusely, they term it merging into one. That they havent yet, officially recognized it as a new one is understandable, being they’ll first argue amongst themselves for years, before finally declaring a new species.

But remember, every single one of those “claimed” species, is no longer the same as what Darwin originally recorded, because of interbreeding.

I’m not sure if you can distinguish the subtlety, but I’ll try. Africans have not inbred for multiple specific traits like we have with dogs. So when an African and Asian mate the difference in offspring is more subtle, but still distinct. Not like dogs which have repeatedly been bred for specific traits. So that when Mastiff and Husky mate, the difference is more dramatic. Each one contains less overall variability.

The same with finches, man has not interfered, so like all animals subspecies tend to mate only within the same subspecies for survival reasons. So when they do interbreed, the differences are also less dramatic.

But why are you asking, read the grants paper yourself.

Or the others where they too observed it right before their eyes. Granted they are simply confused about species and subspecies, but since you asked.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

But let’s notice with those finches it required a different subspecies to make it happen....

Interesting about the finches, and a good example of hybridaization thanks, I think you're a bit prone to exaggeration regarding their interbreeding but that's neither here nor there.

But it's illogical and incorrect to suppose that hybridization is solely responsible for speciation, you seem to be placing too much emphasis on it for some reason. There is just as much evidence for the much more common modes of evolution - particularly allopatric speciation.

I notice the page that you posted also has an article about the case Central European Black Caps. Do you also accept that as an example of the beginning of a speciation event?

 

[BradB]

The above seems a very "classical" way of viewing the universe, but may not apply based on what we know these days.

1) Laws in physics have specific scope in which they apply. They aren't necessarily universal in scope. For example, Newtonian physics break down at the quantum level; consequently, if the universe began as a singularity then traditional Newtonian physics laws like the laws of motion wouldn't apply.

2) Law of universal causation isn't a physical law. And in fact, when dealing with quantum mechanics, it's possible that classical views of causality may not even apply: Quantum correlations with no causal order

3) The idea of something being "external" to the universe if the universe is space-time itself doesn't really make much sense. Furthermore, you haven't really necessitated the existence of anything "outside" of the space-time.

I think in science we are supposed to base things mostly on observations aren't we? I understand the basics of quantum physics. However we aren't talking quantum physics here we are talking about the universe. Actually quite the opposite. We don't know that a singularity is even really a possibility. Maybe mathematically but reality is much different. Causation is an observed phenomenon or you might say a very well substantiated theory. Again let's just stick with what we actually observe, not what we think is possible. If we are going to go with what's possible one could say its possible a celestial leprechaun pulled the universe from his backside. Lol. As for the idea of something being external... of course we would nor ever will have any way of observing it. Here we are discussing the observations which agree with what the Bible says happened. The Bible says that God is a Spirit and we must adore and commune with Him in spirit. (John 4:24) We have no way to comprehend "physically" spiritual things. We don't know if it is another overlaying dimension above ours, an alternate universe that coincides with ours, we just don't know. So with the theory of creation we are only looking at the claims of scripture and testing what is feasibly testable in light of what we can observe. It says that in the beginning there was this God entity who existed somewhere before He formed the universe. We have no way to test this claim. It is completely beyond our reach. Likewise we can't test any claimed miracles in the Bible with the exceptions where the miracles would have left some physical remnants. In those cases we may be able to at least lend some validation to the claims. It describes this entity creating our known universe. Not only that we are told that through studying the physical things in the universe we can come to the sure and logical conclusion that God does exist. So much so that we are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20) So if the claims were true we predict that we would observe a universe that was finite in nature, and that its structure and inhabitants were all comprised of highly specified characteristics. Those are the only things that would "feasibly" be testable by us and this is exactly what we do in fact observe. Real science is the study of what is observed.

 

[BradB]

Kind of you, and unusual for a creationist. But the truth is, that there are a variety of interpretations of Genesis held to by different Christian groups and they all lead to the faith position you outline above. In fact, it is for all practical purposes the same as that contained in the Nicene Creed, which is a statement of belief adhered to by close to two billion Christians around the world--most of whom reject your interpretation of Genesis. Personally, I don't care what creationists believe about the Bible, any more than I care that Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear special underclothing. I do care about the hostility and bumptiousness which seems an ill fit with the message of the Gospel.

I understand that there are other interpretations. When I was a child I can recall coming home from school to a note from my mother that read "No TV before chores are done." I interpreted it to mean as long as my chores got done before she came home from work I could watch my favorite show "Gilligan's Island" now. However that's not what the author obviously meant. When interpreting the Bible we look at what the author was intending for his audience to understand, and we look at how his intended audience understood. The best sense is the obvious sense...any other sense is nonsense. There's obviously only one way that the author meant it and the best interpretation is always going to be the most obvious.

My stake in this matter is that I believe the Bible is entirely trust worthy and when we start monkeying around with it, it breaks down and those who need to trust in the parts that really matter most, wont do so because they see the instability of so called believers molding it to fit whatever new theory pops up. We don't have to defend the Bible. It stands just fine all on its own. God created the heavens and the earth and did all of His work in six days and rested on the seventh day. The same author goes on in Exodus to tell the Jewish people that they are to do likewise. If he meant that God spent six "day ages" creating then he must have been telling the Jews they only have to rest every 7 million years or so...right?

 

[tas8831]

Shows you want to add confusion factors when you cannot answer the questions.

If the people that existed prior to the flood were all descendants of 2 identical created middle eastern humans with perfect genomes (your words), then how did any new variants arise?

Why would you believe they were identical? Half the chromosomes were removed from Adam and placed into Eve.

So, here are the only options according to what you wrote:

1. Adam was tetraploid. That is the only way to take half of his chromosomes and make Eve, since humans are diploid (2 copies/sets of chromosomes). If half of Adam's chromosomes were used to make Eve, then he had to have 4 copies, and was thus tetraploid. This is lethal in humans.

2. You mean that one half of the diploid number was taken from Adam to make Eve. This means that Adam and Eve suffered from monosomy 1-23. Lethal.

3. You mean that one copy of Adam's chromosomes were copied and used to make Eve, meaning that there were a total of three "genetic strains" - 2 possibly heterozygous in Adam, and 2 identical copies in Eve, for a total of 3 possible 'genetic strains.'

which is it?

Their combined genomes held every racial attribute.

How is that possible?

Are you claiming that a grand total of no more than 3 'allies' can recombine to form all possible eye colors? Skin colors? General morphology? Height? weight?

Please do yourself a favor and take high school and then college genetics before you make your next utterly absurd and laughably ridiculous post on this subject.

This is like talking rocket science with a 3rd grader.

 

[Aman777]

We don't have to defend the Bible. It stands just fine all on its own. God created the heavens and the earth and did all of His work in six days and rested on the seventh day.

Amen....however, we still live at Genesis 1:27 because God is STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image or in Christ Spiritually. Genesis 1:28-31 is prophecy of events which take place AFTER Jesus returns at Armageddon. God's rest from ALL of His work of creating is therefore future to our time. Amen?

 

[joshua 1 9]

But Jesus spoke Hebrew, not English.

According to Francis Collins DNA is the language God uses to Create Life.

John 1 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.…"

 

[bhsmte]

According to Francis Collins DNA is the language God uses to Create Life.

John 1 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.…"

Collins also states and quite strongly, the scientific theory of evolution can not be denied, by any reasonable person.

 

[tas8831]

I think in science we are supposed to base things mostly on observations aren't we?

Observation in science does not necessarily mean observing the specific phenomenon under investigation, any more than 'reproduction' in science means re-creating the specific event in question.

One can observe the effects of a phenomenon and draw conclusions without having to see the actual phenomenon itself.

 

[tas8831]

According to Francis Collins DNA is the language God uses to Create Life.

Francis Colliins also wrote this in the book you refer to:


"While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.”


"As our closest relatives, they (chimpanzees) tell us special things about what it means to be a primate and, ultimately, what it means to be a human at the DNA level."

And especially:


"This evidence alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor; from a creationist perspective, such similarities could simply demonstrate that God used successful design principles over and over again. As we shall see, however, and as was foreshadowed above by the discussion of "silent" mutations in protein-coding regions, the detailed study of genomes has rendered that interpretation virtually untenable—not only about all other living things, but also about ourselves."


so.... Maybe not so smart to keep quoting or referring to him?

 

[tas8831]

I see you've stopped with the "inbreeding" stuff. It's good to see you can take correction even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.

Sure, but I'm still waiting to learn what a "phonetic trait" is...

 

[ruthiesea]

Nope, nothing there that says closely related species can't interbreed.

Actually, there have been some examples of species interbreeding, although it is very rare. An example of such is the discovery of a small population of sharks that bred from both black tip sharks and Australian black tip sharks. The resulting sharks, and they are still being studied, although I haven't found any recent literature, have the best of both species and are superbly adapted to changes in the Pacific ecosystem. Another example is found in poison dart frogs in which some species have been found to have the attributes and genetics of two other species.

It is generally accepted that species rarely interbreed, but, on occasion, can do so. Several decades ago it was accepted that species could no interbreed, and that was part of the definition of the term. Now we know that they can, but again, it is very rare in nature without human intervention.

I guess that now is the time to repeat the fact that there is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that denies the existence of G-d.

 

[bhsmte]

Francis Colliins also wrote this in the book you refer to:


"While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.”


"As our closest relatives, they (chimpanzees) tell us special things about what it means to be a primate and, ultimately, what it means to be a human at the DNA level."

And especially:


"This evidence alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor; from a creationist perspective, such similarities could simply demonstrate that God used successful design principles over and over again. As we shall see, however, and as was foreshadowed above by the discussion of "silent" mutations in protein-coding regions, the detailed study of genomes has rendered that interpretation virtually untenable—not only about all other living things, but also about ourselves."


so.... Maybe not so smart to keep quoting or referring to him?

I dont think he has figured out the contradiction yet, even though it has been pointed out to him countless times.

 

[BradB]

Amen....however, we still live at Genesis 1:27 because God is STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image or in Christ Spiritually. Genesis 1:28-31 is prophecy of events which take place AFTER Jesus returns at Armageddon. God's rest from ALL of His work of creating is therefore future to our time. Amen?

Umm...no the text says He finished with His work on the sixth day and on the seventh day He rested. The idea is as in when in a court of law when the lawyer says the defense rests. Meaning they're DONE. Otherwise again the command to the Jews to rest every 7th day makes no sense. We were made in His image or likeness. When sin entered the world we took on a foreign nature of death. But after coming to faith in Christ we begin the process of taking on His nature.

 

[Edison Trent]

The caterpillar to a butterfly, a ball of soup and tadpole to a human in 9 months, quite interesting.

 

[Edison Trent]

God created man from the dirt of the earth,

interesting what is dirt made from and its properties?

 

[rjs330]

Of course I believe God did it; I just don't believe he did according to the creationists' shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis.

It's actually the theistic evolutionists who have the difficulty with the theology. They are the ones "interpreting". They are the ones with a real theological difficulties. I have never seen so much theological gymnastics in my life than I have seen from the theistic evolution crowd. In fact they don't really have a theological argument. Their only argument is literary. Which IS subject to personal interpretation.