proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

So what? Lots of things are made of multiple parts which work together. Why is that relevant?



Again, so what? Why is that relevant?



This isn't logical at all. There is no reason to assume that just because a particular object shares a specific characteristic with another object that that means that both objects would share other characteristics as well. This is a logical fallacy known as False equivalence.

On top of that, you've already admitted that things like cars capable of self-reproduction don't even exist in the first place. So that's even more reason your claim makes no sense. You're just contradicting yourself.

very simple. we know that in both living and non living objects a motion system required at least several parts to its minimal function. therefore its impossible to made such a system stepwise in both living and non living objects. you want to belive otherwise? fine. but in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. and so far all the evidence we do have shows that a complex system cant evolve stepwise.

 

[pitabread]

very simple. we know that in both living and non living objects a motion system required at least several parts to its minimal function. therefore its impossible to made such a system stepwise in both living and non living objects.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Furthermore, it still doesn't explain why your analogy of non-living things reproducing makes any kind of sense. You keep dancing away from explaining that and I'm going to keep dragging you back to it.

Why do you think an analogy of non-living objects reproducing (which doesn't happen) is a "good analogy"?

and so far all the evidence we do have shows that a complex system cant evolve stepwise.

Not true, but likewise, you can believe whatever you want to believe.

Now, why do you think the analogy of self-replicating cars is a good analogy?

 

[BradB]

Whoa, what a nasty crack! You don't think other Christians do that?

I don't think people do that who deny that God created all life in 6 days just as he said and created each kind to reproduce only after its own kind. I'm sorry if you take offense to that. My hope in saying this is that maybe you would deal honestly with the scriptures and reexamined what you believe and why you believe it.

 

[xianghua]

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise

realy? why?

Now, why do you think the analogy of self-replicating cars is a good analogy?

because in this case the car share the main traits that its crucial for evolution: change with variations. so if you dont believe that such a car can evolve stepwise from a self replicating molecule- then you dont believe in evolution.

 

[pitabread]

because in this case the car share the main traits that its crucial for evolution: change with variations.

But cars don't actually reproduce though and consequently, they *don't* share that trait with biological organisms. You've already admitted that.

Now if you could actually show me a car capable of self-reproduction, that would be one thing. But you can't.

so if you dont believe that such a car can evolve stepwise from a self replicating molecule- then you dont believe in evolution.

And this also makes no sense whatsoever. Acceptance of the biological evolution has nothing to do with how non-living objects like cars are built.

Your entire premise is built on constructing silly analogies with no basis in reality and then invoking logical fallacies on which to support your claims.

How does this make any sense? I fail to see how you think your analogy is "good".

 

[BradB]

Of course, this is true; if extra-terrestrials exist it is almost certain that they do not use the same system of units that we do. However, that does not mean that the physical nature of time depends on human ideas about it.

I don't see what point it is that you are trying to make. As you say yourself,
With the SI definition of the second a scientist could construct a clock anywhere in the universe that would keep seconds, minutes, hours, etc., just as well as a terrestrial clock, and he or she could use the clock to make measurements of physical phenomena just as well as another scientist in a terrestrial laboratory. So what is the point of your argument?

Yes my point kind of got lost in the jumbling and batting of posts back and forth, but it was just that there is nothing illogical about speaking of time prior to the existence of the universe. That is to say that there could have been a space of time within which God conceived and decided to create a universe with life and the concept of time is not bound only to our universe existing.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think people do that who deny that God created all life in 6 days just as he said and created each kind to reproduce only after its own kind. I'm sorry if you take offense to that. My hope in saying this is that maybe you would deal honestly with the scriptures and reexamined what you believe and why you believe it.

I have, and I have to thank creationists for it. Was my comment to Pitabread the least bit accurate? When I first heard about YECism my first reaction was, "They believe what about the Bible? Why?" I like to think I'm beginning to get a glimmer of an answer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok. but since a tipical protein has about 2-3 domains its actually more like 4-5 different parts. agree?

By definition, the domains of proteins can function independently of each other, so I see no reason that a mutation in just the production of 1 domain could be the start of reactivity to light. Furthermore, how mutations produce darker pigments isn't usually through the generation of a new protein. Rather, it's via a mutation that causes a pigment the cells already produced to be produced more.

 

[pitabread]

Apparently you don't understand the biblical definition of faith.

Considering over the years I've received different and sometimes contradictory views on this from Christians, I'd say it's not something that appears to be consistently presented. It tends to vary from person to person.

Romans 1:20 for example tells us that we are without excuse through the study of science. And tells us that by studying the things that are created God is clearly seen.

This is something that I've always wondered and sometimes ask of creationists: in absence of the Bible, would you arrive at the same conclusions?

You may not understand this simply because you're not a student of the Bible.

I find responses like these to be a cop-out. I've spent years interacting with Christians, reading various religious texts (including the Bible), going to different churches, and generally trying to understand the beliefs and practices of various religions in our culture. What I've found is that the reasons for believing seem to vary a lot among different people. The two common threads seem to be emotion and culture.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

By definition, the domains of proteins can function independently of each other, so I see no reason that a mutation in just the production of 1 domain could be the start of reactivity to light. Furthermore, how mutations produce darker pigments isn't usually through the generation of a new protein. Rather, it's via a mutation that causes a pigment the cells already produced to be produced more.

It looks, to me, interesting for the evolution of sight that cyanobacteria have a protein, orange carotenoid pigment that changes shape in the presence of light. The function of the protein is to protect the bacteria from excessive light, rather than be in any way related to sight. OCP seems very interesting in many ways. There's a discussion here: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-evolutionary-clock-light-sensitive-protein.html but I suspect there will be better ones. So, some sort of reactivity to light seems to pre-date sight, and could be repurposed, rather than 'invented' for the first stage of sight.

 

[Astrophile]

Translated... I am a person who doesn't try to pour his own meaning into the words of the Bible but rather studies the Bible to arrive at it's intended meaning.

You may not believe this, but some atheists study the Bible in order to try to find out what its authors actually meant.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes my point kind of got lost in the jumbling and batting of posts back and forth, but it was just that there is nothing illogical about speaking of time prior to the existence of the universe. That is to say that there could have been a space of time within which God conceived and decided to create a universe with life and the concept of time is not bound only to our universe existing.

Perhaps. I don't know.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It looks, to me, interesting for the evolution of sight that cyanobacteria have a protein, orange carotenoid pigment that changes shape in the presence of light. The function of the protein is to protect the bacteria from excessive light, rather than be in any way related to sight. OCP seems very interesting in many ways. There's a discussion here: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-evolutionary-clock-light-sensitive-protein.html but I suspect there will be better ones. So, some sort of reactivity to light seems to pre-date sight, and could be repurposed, rather than 'invented' for the first stage of sight.

Of course, eyespots are seen in a lot of unicellular organisms as well, I chose the simplest multicellular example because those are the ones that meet the qualification of actually being eyes.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Of course, eyespots are seen in a lot of unicellular organisms as well, I chose the simplest multicellular example because those are the ones that meet the qualification of actually being eyes.

Eyespots are quite complex already (Wikipedia: "Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signalling proteins."), so I think it's interesting to look into what may have preceded them. From a search, it seems that the pigments called opsins are more central to the evolution of sight than other non-sight photosensitive proteins. Maybe. Certainly the protective function of OCP is orders of magnitude simpler than eyespots.

EDIT: Microbiol (rhod)opsins are very interesting. As that family of proteins is used extensively in sight, but members of that family are also used for ion transport and other functions. Microbial rhodopsin - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

From a search, it seems that the pigments called opsins are more central to the evolution of sight than other non-sight photosensitive proteins.

You might find this paper interesting, which posits a relatively simple evolutionary scenario for the origin of opsins: Metazoan opsin evolution reveals a simple route to animal vision

 

[BradB]

I have, and I have to thank creationists for it. Was my comment to Pitabread the least bit accurate? When I first heard about YECism my first reaction was, "They believe what about the Bible? Why?" I like to think I'm beginning to get a glimmer of an answer.

Well my path was likewise starting out as a new Christian who also believed in evolution and an old earth. I was challenged as to why I believed in evolution as opposed to the Bible if I were a Christian? My response of course was because I loved science in HS and there was all this fossil evidence presented that supported it. Then I was presented with another challenge. I was asked to do a search of the web and find just one example of a "finely graduated chain from one major form to another." It was pointed out that a creator would have created different forms to have similar features so they could not be deemed related based on similarity. I was sure that the web would be replete with tons of such examples as I was told in school they existed. To my surprise I couldn't find even one clear cut example. Then I was shocked to learn that a trade secret among many paleontologists was that no such chain actually exists and all the so called "chains" only consisted of different forms which had similar features. They were claimed to be related based only on those similarities.

Well we have all of this observed evidence of evolution in biological organisms I thought. But again I found that all the so called cases where some organism developed a resistance to a pesticide etc.. were merely cases of already existing genes in the gene pool becoming dominant after all the susceptible relatives in the population were killed off. That there were actually no clear examples of new genetic information forming as needed for evolution theory to work. So I began going on to the debate sites actually debating as the "devils advocate" against evolution in the hopes that there would be someone out there who could stand up to these challenges. That was back in 2005 friend. I have since of course gradually became solidified in YEC. But I am not the typical case. I don't believe just because I want to believe I believe because the actual observable evidence seems to support it.

I fully get how hard it is to swallow at first. I was the same way. The media promotes it at every turn and it seems the whole world accepts it, so to believe otherwise feels like you are becoming one of those crazy flat earthers or something. The difference is that an honest look at what evidence is actually observed does not support Darwinian Evolution but rather special Creation. We have observable photos of the earth. We don't have observable finely graduated chains or new genes being formed in the genome.

 

[pitabread]

The media promotes it at every turn and it seems the whole world accepts it, so to believe otherwise feels like you are becoming one of those crazy flat earthers or something. The difference is that an honest look at what evidence is actually observed does not support Darwinian Evolution but rather special Creation.

Have you ever questioned why the only people who seem to support the idea of YECism (in the U.S. at least) are fundamentalist Protestant Christians? I mean, if YECism were truly supportable strictly by the evidence the way you claim it is, why is it so tied to specific religious beliefs? Why aren't others including atheists also trumpeting the evidence for YECism?

That's what's most interesting to me about science is that it's not bound by culture, religion, geography, history. But you can't say the same about YECism.

 

[BradB]

Considering over the years I've received different and sometimes contradictory views on this from Christians, I'd say it's not something that appears to be consistently presented. It tends to vary from person to person.

Well my friend I of course can't speak for anyone else but myself. But I did point out two very important passages from scripture on the subject. I think anyone who honestly looks at those passages will arrive at the same conclusion about faith. But if there were really an enemy of the Gospel as Jesus said, then he would do all in his power to confuse this fundamental issue don't you think?

This is something that I've always wondered and sometimes ask of creationists: in absence of the Bible, would you arrive at the same conclusions?

Well in Romans 10 we are asked a rhetorical question. How shall they believe in One whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a preacher? So coming to faith in Christ requires being "taught" however Romans 1:20 tells us that fundamental belief in God's existence is clearly seen in His creation so much so that we are without excused. I think I have demonstrated how one can arrive at a belief in God completely apart from the Bible. That according to observation the universe requires an infinite source and the specified nature of the universe requires that source possess intelligence.

 

[pitabread]

But if there were really an enemy of the Gospel as Jesus said, then he would do all in his power to confuse this fundamental issue don't you think?

I think the blaming the Devil is too easy an excuse.

I think I have demonstrated how one can arrive at a belief in God completely apart from the Bible. That according to observation the universe requires an infinite source and the specified nature of the universe requires that source possess intelligence.

I can understand how one can arrive at this line of thinking. But at the same time, I don't believe the conclusion truly flows from the premise nor do I accept the premise as being necessarily true in the first place.

 

[BradB]

Have you ever questions why the only people who seem to support the idea of YECism (in the U.S. at least) are fundamentalist Protestant Christians? I mean, if YECism were truly supportable strictly by the evidence the way you claim it is, why is it so tied to specific religious beliefs? Why aren't others including atheists also trumpeting the evidence for YECism?

That's what's most interesting to me about science is that it's not bound by culture, religion, geography, history. But you can't say the same about YECism.

I have. But actually on a much more basic level that is sort of a scientific observation per say. The Gospel of Jesus Christ basically says that most of humanity will reject it. Jesus said wide is the path that leads to destruction and many are on that path. He said straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life and few are there who will find it. In another place Jesus claimed that men's hearts are inherently evil and hate the light and are repelled by it because it exposes their deeds. So from a scientific mind I think "if the Gospel then is true I would predict to observe the majority of the world rejecting anything that leads them to the truth of the Gospel and inventing alternate explanations for the existence of life apart from God." In other words people would be spiritually blinded and therefore we cannot in this case base what is true at all on what the "majority says." We must base all of our conclusions on actual observable evidence.

That is why my friend it doesn't matter to me if the whole world thinks it is true. I must be resolved strictly to what can be actually observed.