The nature of evidence

[juvenissun]

HIV doesn't just happen to mutate, the mutations are advantageous and keep the virus one step ahead of our immune system, it is not just mutation, it is evolution, and the mutations form a phylogenetic tree where you can tell how closely related different strains are by comparing the different mutations. The relationship between us and chimps is based on observed feature of mutations too, our genomes mutates we can work out the rate and it just happens that our genomes are mutating at just the right rate to fit the difference in DNA between us and chimps. We observe retroviruses adding strands of DNA to our genomes too and the pattern of ERV insertions forms a phylogenetic tree that just happens to match the phylogenetic tree for all the great apes worked out from comparative physiology.

OK, it is too bad that we made a circle back to the very first question: what is evolution.

To me, the change happened to virus or bacteria is not evolution. But the change from chimp to human IS evolution. And there is ***no link*** between the two processes.

I think TE or evolutionist is taking the advantage of this confusion. When one is questioned, they simply hide to the other.

 

[matthewgar]

OK, it is too bad that we made a circle back to the very first question: what is evolution.

To me, the change happened to virus or bacteria is not evolution. But the change from chimp to human IS evolution. And there is ***no link*** between the two processes.

I think TE or evolutionist is taking the advantage of this confusion. When one is questioned, they simply hide to the other.

No It's closer that creationists try to create a difference when there is none, you don't get to define evolution. Evolution as scientists understand is change in alle *sp?* frequency over time, with virus's the Alle for proteins types and other things that the immune system detects is changing new things are popping in and out, the coating is changing it's proteins and so on. This is precisly what evolution is, the body's immune system is doing the part of natural selection removing those it reconizes. The mutations within the HIV are what change the nature of the HIV virus to make it undetectable.

It's the same thing with humans and every other species, but slower mutation rates, I've heard something like every human has like 2-10 mutations in their body mostly in areas that arn't effected, some are harmful, others are beneficial, like the people that inspired the movie Ubreakable, whose bones are much stronger, or the family who has never had heart attacks due to a mutation and so on.

 

[Assyrian]

OK, it is too bad that we made a circle back to the very first question: what is evolution.

To me, the change happened to virus or bacteria is not evolution. But the change from chimp to human IS evolution. And there is ***no link*** between the two processes.

I think TE or evolutionist is taking the advantage of this confusion. When one is questioned, they simply hide to the other.

And back to my original reply that the issue isn't the label evolution but the evidence that showed common ancestry and a phylogenetic tree, and that the same evidence and techniques that the CSIs used to establish the common ancestry are the evidence and techniques used to establish common ancestry among us and the other great apes. You however seem to be the one hiding behind the word evolution, but it is the evidence that counts not your dislike of word evolution.

 

[mindlight]

You're talking about differences in magnitude, though, not qualitative differences. Using that logic, I could argue that my cousin Bob and I were specially created apart from N'gouna in Africa because Bob and I look more alike.

As can evolutionary links, which can be tested using evidence from DNA, morphology, biostratigraphy, biogeography, development, etc.

There is a hierarchy of evidence here and it is more plausible to argue that two humans are related than to say an ape and a human being are related. Why because two human beings may have a human being for a child but never an ape. In other words there is repeatable evidence that human beings begat human beings. It is a big jump to argue that we once shared a common ancester and in the creationist view and timescale improbable also. The kinds of evidence that you are talking about do not have the same level of credibility in proving current relationships relevant to crime cases because they do not have the same time scales of causal patterns as the more immediate and demonstrable reproductive patterns we are familiar with for example.

We don't need to use fossil DNA to establish that humans are more closely related to chimps than to anything else alive today. We can do that using contemporary DNA.

The similarities are significant but they do not prove relationship and the reproductive evidence is that there is no relationship now and this in turn ´makes it a speculation that there ever was a closer similiarity.

Wow. I'll remember that the next time I get a traffic ticket. I'll plead that the cop's radar gun miraculously displayed a false read-out.

Good luck ;-) I did not say that all courts were likely to accept the verdict of miracles . For example Jesus produced miracles galore and the courts that tried him managed to distort them into something between conjurers tricks and demonic acts. But they did so with out consistency and plausibility and in denial of what many of them had seen with their own eyes and their false verdict was overthrown by events and most principly the resurrection that rendered their judgment and legal procedures irrelevant.

 

[mindlight]

ML wrote:
You don’t seem to understand several things. First of all, overwhelming evidence for evolution exists without any fossils – they are also sufficient to show evolution, but are not needed. Secondly, DNA evidence for evolution is mostly based on current creatures, not fossils, so the DNA evidence would be quite sufficient with zero fossil DNA. However, we do have plenty that shows that a global flood didn’t happen, as well as 250 million year old DNA (Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant b... [Nature. 2000] - PubMed result).

Well thanks for educating me about all the things I am living in denial about ;-)

Regarding the article , the age is an assumption based on other assumptions, there is no way to provide definitive evidence that crystallisation and recrystalisation of the salt crystal had not occurred. It is a bacteria we are talking about here. The sample itself does not provide an historical link or developmental picture of how it connects with other samples just a snap shot of a moment in the life of this bacteria. I disagree with all the credibility of the othere evidences you find so convincing also-

you might want to start a thread on things like angular unconformities, paleosols, fossil distribution, the white cliffs of dover, and thermal crystallization sizes, explaining how each could form in a flood. (because in all those cases, geologists, including thousands of Christian geologists, are in agreement that a flood can’t do that). Hey, it must be more of that creationist magic water, huh?

Both the creation event and the flood events were at the hand of a God fully capable of all these things you list in a very rapid period of time. If not the flood then creation itself. How one can describe the effects of each of these events when they are analagous to nothing in our immediate experience is the act of hubris here.

Such as all the really stupid designs we see in animals?

You mean non functional, non focused on survival I suppose. These stupidities testify to a Creator and Sustainer of reality who more than any other decides who lives and who dies, how and when.

No, they don’t assume an evolutionary model. For instance, the thousands of transitional fossils are still transitional regardless of what dates or ancestry one posits. The molecular sequences are measured the same with no assumptions of ancestry. The dating methods don’t assume any age of the earth or anything, they only are based on simple calculations and measurements. Perhaps you’d like to explain how an evolutionary model is assumed to require paleontologists to find, always, that trilobites are in lower rock layers than whales, or what assumptions “make” us find all vertebrate embryos forming gill pouches, including ourselves?

Is that what you see? I see fossils formed in originally wet sedimentary rocks which leave a only a shadow of their original forms, corroded and warped by time and a million variables we cannot account for let alone measure. I see a herd of scientists copying each others assumptions and nodding in tune to their group song and accepting without question the assumption of development from one type to another and take each sample as evidence of a step along these pathways. I see creatures God made dug up from their graves to bear witness to an atheistic world view that stands in opposition to the realities in which they were created and lived.

there are various “historical” views of Genesis, including early Christians recognizing that the 7 day creation story wasn’t meant literally. More importantly, I asked if you recognized that there are metaphors in Genesis, not what label you gave your view. A simple “yes, there are metaphors” or “no, there aren’t metaphors” would work. So which is it?

Again the style of Genesis is literal historical and so probably many of the things that you interpret metaphorically are things I would not interpret as being metaphors. I take the view God created in 6 days about 4000 BC, a literal snake, Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden......You will need to give a specific example if you want a specific yes or no.

I trust the scriptures and regard the debates about which understanding is closest to the original as irrelevant to all major theological doctrines. Again a specific example would help focus this

Thanks, you said who you meant. That Almighty God was on earth in the form of Jesus. We have quite a few things that he said. He used metaphors and parables all the time – it was his primary mode of teaching. I would have thought that a Christian would be the first to jump at the realization that this same God is using a metaphor at the very beginning of his revelation to us. Why is that very Christian idea so disagreeable to you?

Papias

Jesus used parables and there were deeper meaníngs to all his signs and teachings. Perhaps you would like to explain your notion of metaphor here. I am assuming that you are talking about modes of allegorisation more similar to the Alexandrian school than that of Antioch for example. Jesus did indeed give us pictures that invited us to look and think more deeply about what it means to relate to the Divine and what the Kingdom of heaven means in terms of the lives he expects us to live. Very often he used earthy pictures that would have resonated with the immediate experience of many he spoke to. Johns vision of Patmos was an attempt to articulate wondrous things he literally experienced in his spiritual "dream" but could only communicate in the pictorial forms of his experience. I believe those inspired pictures link with the realities that they describe, that they can be trusted as giving authentic glimpses of realities beyond our immediate experience, even while not being able to fully articulate their details. Similarly parables force people to encounter Christ in a way that demands they make choices and soul responses to Him. Those who do not engage with the stories with Him at the centre of them remain forever blind to their meanings.

Blochers framework theory regarding the first 10 chapters of Genesis would be another example of the academic approach triumphing over the authenticity of an account of creation by a God who does not need to lie and would not. A word from a God that can be trusted and experienced in the words of His scriptures.

 

[mindlight]

The forensic science technique used to find the genetic relationship between the strains of HIV is the same one that shows our relationship with chimps and other great apes.

But the conclusions of the one test cannot be taken to be as authoritative as the other because the causal chains are in time and generations so much more removed from the original samples. It is that distance that degrades the credibility of the evidence.

 

[shernren]

Again the style of Genesis is literal historical and so probably many of the things that you interpret metaphorically are things I would not interpret as being metaphors. I take the view God created in 6 days about 4000 BC, a literal snake, Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden......You will need to give a specific example if you want a specific yes or no.

Here's a specific example for you. Is the "light" in Genesis 1:3 physical light or spiritual light?

 

[Mallon]

There is a hierarchy of evidence here and it is more plausible to argue that two humans are related than to say an ape and a human being are related. Why because two human beings may have a human being for a child but never an ape.

That's like saying humans beget humans, but never mammals. It doesn't make sense. Humans are apes. We are mammals. Thus, we give birth to humans, apes, mammals, vertebrates, deuterostomes, etc. That's the nature of the nested hierarchy. You cannot outgrow your ancestry. It's also why we can never evolve out of being humans.

In other words there is repeatable evidence that human beings begat human beings. It is a big jump to argue that we once shared a common ancester

... with apes, I assume you mean. The point is that there is good evidence for making such a jump. Why do humans and chimps share the same retroviruses exclusive of all other animals? Common ancestry. Why does human chromosome 2 look like two fused chimp chromosomes? Common ancestry. Why are there transitional fossils that span the chimp-human morphotype? Common ancestry. Common ancestry predicts these patterns, and that is why the evidence I just cited is considered to be so strongly in favour of evolution. Ad hoc appeals to "common designer" predict no such patterns.

and in the creationist view and timescale improbable also.

That's not saying a lot. Creationists can't even agree on a time scale. Is the earth 6,000 years old? 10,000? 100,000? No one seems to agree.

The kinds of evidence that you are talking about do not have the same level of credibility in proving current relationships relevant to crime cases because they do not have the same time scales of causal patterns as the more immediate and demonstrable reproductive patterns we are familiar with for example.

Actually, the time scales of causal patterns are exactly the same. The process that causes a population to split and become reproductively isolated is that which leads to macroevolution over the course of thousands and millions of years.
If you're arguing that we cannot SEE humans evolve from chimps in real-time, I agree. Then again, we can't SEE John kill Joe again because it's an event that happened in the past and there were no witnesses. We have to use forensic evidence to determine the likelihood that John did, in fact, kill Joe. Similarly, we use forensic evidence to determine the likelihood that humans share a common ancestor with chimps. The verdict is reached based on the weight of the evidence. And according to the vast majority of scientists (and court rulings), the evidence for evolutionary common ancestry is overwhelming.

The similarities are significant but they do not prove relationship

Nothing in science is proven. But evolution is beyond reasonable doubt, and that is the yardstick used in the court of law, which is what we're discussing.

Good luck ;-)

I think you realize how impossible it would be to accept "it was a miracle!" as evidence for anything in the court of law...

"I swear, your honour! I don't know why that baby has half my DNA, but I didn't get that lady pregnant! It was a miracle!"

 

[juvenissun]

And back to my original reply that the issue isn't the label evolution but the evidence that showed common ancestry and a phylogenetic tree, and that the same evidence and techniques that the CSIs used to establish the common ancestry are the evidence and techniques used to establish common ancestry among us and the other great apes. You however seem to be the one hiding behind the word evolution, but it is the evidence that counts not your dislike of word evolution.

No. it is not.
It is the function of mutation.

 

[juvenissun]

No It's closer that creationists try to create a difference when there is none, you don't get to define evolution. Evolution as scientists understand is change in alle *sp?* frequency over time, with virus's the Alle for proteins types and other things that the immune system detects is changing new things are popping in and out, the coating is changing it's proteins and so on. This is precisly what evolution is, the body's immune system is doing the part of natural selection removing those it reconizes. The mutations within the HIV are what change the nature of the HIV virus to make it undetectable.

It's the same thing with humans and every other species, but slower mutation rates, I've heard something like every human has like 2-10 mutations in their body mostly in areas that arn't effected, some are harmful, others are beneficial, like the people that inspired the movie Ubreakable, whose bones are much stronger, or the family who has never had heart attacks due to a mutation and so on.

If that is the definition, then there is no (not a slightest trace of) evidence of evolution for chimp changed to human.

 

[Assyrian]

No. it is not.
It is the function of mutation.

Sorry Juv that reply makes no sense.

 

[matthewgar]

If that is the definition, then there is no (not a slightest trace of) evidence of evolution for chimp changed to human.

Care to show why other then baseless statement?

 

[mindlight]

Here's a specific example for you. Is the "light" in Genesis 1:3 physical light or spiritual light?

I am not sure it matters since only God was around at that moment to testify to it. Since God is the Light and the source of light and the Creator of the Lights by which we physically see is there a need to separate physical and spiritual blindness in His case. Since God is not blind there is no distinction and so BOTH AND.

 

[mindlight]

That's like saying humans beget humans, but never mammals. It doesn't make sense. Humans are apes. We are mammals. Thus, we give birth to humans, apes, mammals, vertebrates, deuterostomes, etc. That's the nature of the nested hierarchy. You cannot outgrow your ancestry. It's also why we can never evolve out of being humans.

You are just quoting your assumptions at me here and dodging the point. The immediate evidence is that my wife and I did not have apes for kids and indeed could not have. So the difference makes all the difference.

A nested hierarchy, "you cannot outgrow your ancestry"(in the common ancester of apes and men) are both assumptions based on similarities between apes and men for which we have no immediate evidence.

... with apes, I assume you mean. The point is that there is good evidence for making such a jump. Why do humans and chimps share the same retroviruses exclusive of all other animals? Common ancestry. Why does human chromosome 2 look like two fused chimp chromosomes? Common ancestry. Why are there transitional fossils that span the chimp-human morphotype? Common ancestry. Common ancestry predicts these patterns, and that is why the evidence I just cited is considered to be so strongly in favour of evolution. Ad hoc appeals to "common designer" predict no such patterns.

Does it need to predict patterns that are simply guesses based on fragmented evidences for which there is no evidence trail. The similarities could also be explained in terms of the grace of God. Here we have two creatures that seem so similar on the merely physical level and yet the one is made in the image of God and the other is a mere animal. The difference is more significant that you seem to recognise and in terms of its fruit and consequences extreme.

If you're arguing that we cannot SEE humans evolve from chimps in real-time, I agree. Then again, we can't SEE John kill Joe again because it's an event that happened in the past and there were no witnesses. We have to use forensic evidence to determine the likelihood that John did, in fact, kill Joe. Similarly, we use forensic evidence to determine the likelihood that humans share a common ancestor with chimps. The verdict is reached based on the weight of the evidence. And according to the vast majority of scientists (and court rulings), the evidence for evolutionary common ancestry is overwhelming.

Except the evidence for John killing Joe is based on John and Joes actual DNA and has the advantage of more immediacy and also mostly extra real time witnesses for which there is a living memory, rather than speculative extrapolations from DNA patterns back millions of years.

Nothing in science is proven. But evolution is beyond reasonable doubt, and that is the yardstick used in the court of law, which is what we're discussing.

I am glad you accept the provisional plausibility of scientific models as being a matter of probability rather than certainty. There is nothing certain about evolution and any court that rules directly on the plausibilty of the case for it based on merely scientific evidences is not only suspect but illustrative of deeper problems (e.g. the atheistic communist courts that ruled in favour of macro-evolution)

I think you realize how impossible it would be to accept "it was a miracle!" as evidence for anything in the court of law...

"I swear, your honour! I don't know why that baby has half my DNA, but I didn't get that lady pregnant! It was a miracle!"

Mary would have been stoned to death by some courts and excused by others. Which courts were honest with the evidence? Knowing what really happened is of course an advantage in the case of the immaculate conception. Others would say that the courts had no right to rule on suspected adultery as they had neither direct evidence in this case nor were those who made the rulings without sin on this one.

 

[Mallon]

You are just quoting your assumptions at me here and dodging the point. The immediate evidence is that my wife and I did not have apes for kids and indeed could not have.

The immediate evidence is that every character shared in common by apes is also shared by humans. Therefore, we are apes. Similarly, every character shared in common by mammals is also shared by humans. Therefore, we are also mammals. There's no getting around that.

A nested hierarchy, "you cannot outgrow your ancestry"(in the common ancester of apes and men) are both assumptions based on similarities between apes and men for which we have no immediate evidence.

The nested hierarchy is an objective fact about life. It isn't an assumption. (Ever seen a mammal with chloroplasts or a tree with antlers?) The question is how do we account for that fact. Evolution is the only explanation that predicts that fact.

The similarities could also be explained in terms of the grace of God.

ANYTHING can be explained in terms of God's grace. That's why appeals to "God did it" are of little use to science -- they don't actually further our understanding of anything. Why does animal A and B look different? Oh, because God made them that way. Why does animal A and B look similar? Oh, because God made them that way. These "explanations" don't help us to actually understand the existence for the differences and similarities in the first place. They're dead ends that don't suffice as explanations of anything. They are cop-outs.

Here we have two creatures that seem so similar on the merely physical level and yet the one is made in the image of God and the other is a mere animal.

I agree with you entirely. And the reason I agree with you entirely is because being made "in the image of God" has nothing to do with our biology and everything to do with our spiritual relationship to God and the rest of the world. Therefore, evolution, which concerns itself only with biology, has nothing to do with our being made in God's image one way or another.

Except the evidence for John killing Joe is based on John and Joes actual DNA

So is the relationship between man and chimps, as I've said.

and has the advantage of more immediacy and also mostly extra real time witnesses for which there is a living memory, rather than speculative extrapolations from DNA patterns back millions of years.

None of these factors matter if there were no witnesses, as I qualified from the outset.

I am glad you accept the provisional plausibility of scientific models as being a matter of probability rather than certainty. There is nothing certain about evolution and any court that rules directly on the plausibilty of the case for it based on merely scientific evidences is not only suspect but illustrative of deeper problems (e.g. the atheistic communist courts that ruled in favour of macro-evolution)

I bow out at discussing conspiracy theories.

 

[juvenissun]

Care to show why other then baseless statement?

Because you do not know. So, there is none.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry Juv that reply makes no sense.

Yes it does.

(Is this a wonderful reply?)

 

[matthewgar]

Yes it does.

(Is this a wonderful reply?)

well rereading what you said your right we don't have evidence for humans from chimps :> Not care to respond to something evtolution actually states instead of a strawman, and why my statement means it didn't happen?

 

[marktheblake]

Not care to respond to something evtolution actually states instead of a strawman

As you say humans did not evolve from chimps, then what does this common ancestor of both humans and chimps look like?

 

[matthewgar]

Most likly something simular I would think, considering Bonobo's and chimps are close, plus what we've found in the fossil recard with the last few. I may be wrong but I believe, Ardi is one of the closest species we've found to the common ancestor.