STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

[Old Trapper]

"For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
24“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth..."

We see how they even tried to worship God in a sense, that is feared leaving a crucial one out, though rationalized intellectually as if another of god(s) even, mentally not knowing, but...as Paul says, let me tell you of Whom this is! (at the margin of your awareness, not understood!) A wonderful thing to understand.

Paul was speaking from his own POV in an attempt to evangelize the people of Athens. Some believed,, some didn't. Paul just found a tool to open the discussion with.

 

[Old Trapper]

No, I don't think so; it requires mutation, but it's not evolution until the mutation has spread through the population over successive generations. Evolution happens to populations, mutations happen to individuals.

To the individual, and then to the community at large. This is done through natural selection, and even then may not produce a new "species". Man has mutated over the eons as he has adapted to the various surroundings he finds himself in, and yet he has not formed a new species.

There's plenty out there; maybe you haven't been looking in the right places (or at all). Molecular genetics has the best evidence.

Maybe I just don't care. There are enough other things to contemplate on rather then argue the difference between the creationist 10,000 year belief, and the secular belief in millions of years beginning with a puddle of "mud" that eventually "evolved" into modern man. The odds that either is correct are astronomically absurd. I do not know, or pretend to know, how man was "created". I just believe that it was not by accident, nor by chance. The odds for the formation of say a single eyeball are just too great.

And molecular genetics, as was classical genetics, will be replaced by yet another theory ad infinitum.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To the individual, and then to the community at large. This is done through natural selection, and even then may not produce a new "species". Man has mutated over the eons as he has adapted to the various surroundings he finds himself in, and yet he has not formed a new species.

There is some debate about where we should draw the lines for species in human ancestry, but modern man (homo sapiens sapiens) is considered the single remaining subspecies of homo sapiens. Depending where you draw it, we became sufficiently different from other early humans to be identifiable as a separate species around 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. That's really not long enough for further speciation to have occurred, and although there are still small differences between some contemporary populations, they're being homogenised by global travel. It seems like we'll evolve together globally while we still have easy access to long-distance travel.

Maybe I just don't care.

Fair enough.

The odds for the formation of say a single eyeball are just too great.

Calculations using figures taken from empirical data suggest that's not the case. For example, this pessimistic estimate for the time required for an eye to evolve put it at around 364,000 generations, a few hundred-thousand years. Eyes with lenses have evolved independently at least seven times, and there are many other kinds of eyes.

And molecular genetics, as was classical genetics, will be replaced by yet another theory ad infinitum.

It will be, and is being, extended and refined; but as molecules are the information carriers for life as we know it, it will remain molecular genetics.

 

[tas8831]

The odds for the formation of say a single eyeball are just too great.

A demonstration seems to be in order.

 

[Old Trapper]

Calculations using figures taken from empirical data suggest that's not the case. For example, this pessimistic estimate for the time required for an eye to evolve put it at around 364,000 generations, a few hundred-thousand years. Eyes with lenses have evolved independently at least seven times, and there are many other kinds of eyes.

And it is all a guessing game of "estimates".

It will be, and is being, extended and refined; but as molecules are the information carriers for life as we know it, it will remain molecular genetics.

And yet the molecule is being broken down into even smaller "parts". And who knows what will come after that.

 

[Old Trapper]

A demonstration seems to be in order.

I guess I will just refer you to the article posted by Bandersnatch:

http://www.rctn.org/bruno/animal-eyes/nilsson-evolution.pdf

 

[tas8831]

It's up to you, not us, what you look for.

I've looked for the 'newspaper clippings' and the like and come up empty.

So no evidence for creation - got it.

 

[tas8831]

Since no one was there

Who was there when a human male was made from dust of the ground? No witnesses, must not have happened.

that would be an impossible task just as one cannot prove evolution occurred.

There is a great deal of evidence that evolution occurred - one of my favorite re-posts:


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."




The only replies I have ever gotten on this from creationists have been sad cop-outs asking if humans are related to mice, things like that.

The Scientific Evidence for Creation - Summit Ministries

Since no one was there...

And didn't you just write that you trust no one on the internet? Then you link to... the internet...

Amazing.

 

[Halbhh]

I've looked for the 'newspaper clippings' and the like and come up empty.

So no evidence for creation - got it.

Do you mean when you see people saying versions of "God saved us at that moment" ("hand of God", etc., etc.) -- in the newspaper, media, etc. -- you will dismiss those right?

I'd expect so. I took that as the given, guessing you'd be like me on that. Any example from the newspaper is simply moot, for me, and I'd guess for you.

That's why I pointed out a good next step in light of that. (Post #125)

One suited to the doubter. Testing directly yourself. No 2nd hand claims required at all.

In other words, if you reasonably dismiss anything from the newspaper (just like me) -- if you are like me -- then you could only test for yourself instead.

 

[tas8831]

I guess I will just refer you to the article posted by Bandersnatch:

http://www.rctn.org/bruno/animal-eyes/nilsson-evolution.pdf

"Because eyes cannot evolve on their own, our calculation s do not say how long it actually took for eyes to evolve in the various animal groups. How ever, the estimate demonstrates that eye evolution would be extremely fast if selection for eye geometry and optical structures imposed the only limit. This implies that eyes can be expected to respond very rapidly to evolutionary changes in the lifestyle of a species. Such potentially rapid evolution suggests that the eye design of a species says little about its phylogenetic relationship, but much about its need for vision. It follows that the many primitive eye designs of recent animals may be perfectly adequate, and simply reflect the animal's present requirements. In this context it is obvious that the eye was never a real threat to Darwin's theory of evolution."​

Cool - thanks!

Did you even read it, or did you just see it in the citations of a creationist essay (that probably misrepresented it)? Regardless, it does not support your claim: "The odds for the formation of say a single eyeball are just too great."

 

[Old Trapper]

"Because eyes cannot evolve on their own, our calculation s do not say how long it actually took for eyes to evolve in the various animal groups. How ever, the estimate demonstrates that eye evolution would be extremely fast if selection for eye geometry and optical structures imposed the only limit. This implies that eyes can be expected to respond very rapidly to evolutionary changes in the lifestyle of a species. Such potentially rapid evolution suggests that the eye design of a species says little about its phylogenetic relationship, but much about its need for vision. It follows that the many primitive eye designs of recent animals may be perfectly adequate, and simply reflect the animal's present requirements. In this context it is obvious that the eye was never a real threat to Darwin's theory of evolution."​

Cool - thanks!

Did you even read it, or did you just see it in the citations of a creationist essay (that probably misrepresented it)? Regardless, it does not support your claim: "The odds for the formation of say a single eyeball are just too great."

As I said earlier, and obviously you chose to ignore it, I was referring to the creationist theories of a 10,000 year existence, and then to the secular claim of evolution when the article refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" just for the "evolution" of the eye.

But hey, you are welcome to your own beliefs, and your own arrogance.

 

[Tayla]

Most interestingly, no creationists presented anything even close to evidence.

Here's evidence: Assume materialistic evolution is true. Obviously there must be a designer to design all the intricate biological lifeforms, randomness of mutations and gene copy errors can't design anything except chaos. But there is no mechanism within chemistry or biology or quantum mechanics for a designer to inject his designs. Therefore, young earth creationism is the correct view.

 

[Speedwell]

Here's evidence: Assume materialistic evolution is true. Obviously there must be a designer to design all the intricate biological lifeforms, randomness of mutations and gene copy errors can't design anything except chaos. But there is no mechanism within chemistry or biology or quantum mechanics for a designer to inject his designs. Therefore, young earth creationism is the correct view.

A clever argument, but one based on a false premise. Stochastic processes like the random variation/selection of evolution--so-called "genetic algorithms"--are used in industry to create novel designs. It is entirely possible, and mathematically sound, to suppose that natural stochastic processes can do the same thing; considered on that basis, the immense information processing capacity of the biosphere is up to the job. If you are looking for a place to put a "designer" in nature, it would be the designer of the evolutionary process itself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And it is all a guessing game of "estimates".

Of course - we don't have the time or facilities to study evolution for 364,000 years

And yet the molecule is being broken down into even smaller "parts". And who knows what will come after that.

That's true, but irrelevant - just as the material the pages in a book are made out of is irrelevant to the information in the book. We know that genetic information is coded at molecular level.

 

[Aman777]

A clever argument, but one based on a false premise. Stochastic processes like the random variation/selection of evolution--so-called "genetic algorithms"--are used in industry to create novel designs. It is entirely possible, and mathematically sound, to suppose that natural stochastic processes can do the same thing; considered on that basis, the immense information processing capacity of the biosphere is up to the job. If you are looking for a place to put a "designer" in nature, it would be the designer of the evolutionary process itself.

Amen, and the designer is Jesus since He is the ONLY God ever formed or that ever will be formed bodily. "before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me. Isa 43:10 Jesus is Lord. Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no Saviour.

God spoke and the Son formed everything physically. John 1:3 Amen?

 

[tas8831]

Here's evidence: Assume materialistic evolution is true.

No need to assume - I have already concluded this.

Obviously there must be a designer to design all the intricate biological lifeforms, randomness of mutations and gene copy errors can't design anything except chaos.

Begging the question is not evidence.

But there is no mechanism within chemistry or biology or quantum mechanics for a designer to inject his designs. Therefore, young earth creationism is the correct view.

Non sequiturs are not evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Do you mean when you see people saying versions of "God saved us at that moment" ("hand of God", etc., etc.) -- in the newspaper, media, etc. -- you will dismiss those right?

Of course. You know who never says things like that? The people that God, darn it, just couldn't be bothered to save.

I'd expect so. I took that as the given, guessing you'd be like me on that. Any example from the newspaper is simply moot, for me, and I'd guess for you.

That's why I pointed out a good next step in light of that. (Post #125)

One suited to the doubter. Testing directly yourself. No 2nd hand claims required at all.

In other words, if you reasonably dismiss anything from the newspaper (just like me) -- if you are like me -- then you could only test for yourself instead.

I dismiss anecdotes. If I saw a newspaper clipping showing this 'John' winning Citizen of the Year, I would believe and accept that 'John' was a great guy. I would not have had to seen it in person, because the newspaper clipping corroborated a claimed event. There is evidence that John won the award - he HAS it. The people at the ceremony saw it, There were pictures of it - at least one was in the paper.

Now, if this John then claimed to be the Son of God, I'd expect to see at the very least some corroboration.

 

[Halbhh]

randomness of mutations and gene copy errors can't design anything except chaos.

If God is the Designer, as one could believe if they like me believe God created all things, instead of only some things, then of course His design -- the Laws of Nature, physics, chemistry -- will work quite well ("and it was very good"), and not at all result in 'chaos' -- because it's His design, not yours or mine. See? We can only guess and try to figure out small details about creation not said in the text, such as mere time quantity (trivial numerical amounts) of years and such. Either way, no matter which totally trivial theory about such trivial details you or I think is the right one, all things are His creation.

 

[Halbhh]

Of course. You know who never says things like that? The people that God, darn it, just couldn't be bothered to save.


I dismiss anecdotes. If I saw a newspaper clipping showing this 'John' winning Citizen of the Year, I would believe and accept that 'John' was a great gut. I would not have had to seer it in person, because the newspaper clipping corroborated a claimed event. There is evidence that John won the award - he HAS it. The people at the ceremony saw it, There were pictures of it - at least one was in the paper.

Now, if this John then claimed to be the Son of God, I'd expect to see at the very least some corroboration.

A living Being, with which Whom you'd hope to meet (a Savior no less!) -- that would be a relationship, not an inert object of 'evidence'. It's like how if you wanted to meet a woman and marry, you'd not ask for evidence she is real even before you meet right at first contact, first communication, but instead you'd set up a local meeting and then find out directly.

 

[Tayla]

If God is the Designer, as one could believe if they like me believe God created all things, instead of only some things, then of course His design -- the Laws of Nature, physics, chemistry -- will work quite well ("and it was very good"), and not at all result in 'chaos' -- because it's His design, not yours or mine.

Yes, I agree. But evolution doesn't generate design but, rather, chaos as I noted. Therefore, evolution is untrue.