Well, duh...

[-57]

Maybe, if you just accepted the Bible as it is, instead of trying to improve it, you'd feel better about your beliefs.

I have no problem with my belief...seems as if you would rather twist the bible to force it to conform to neb-darwinism. Problem is, you can't explain the fall and our sin nature.

 

[-57]

blind cave fish evolved . Vision takes a lot of energy in the brain . Without eyes they use less energy. Blindness is better for the species in the environment they live in. That’s natural selection . Btw biologists don’t use devolution to describe a lost of an attribute. For example Snakes evolved limblessness . It’s not a lack or deficiency as snakes are a very successful diapsid clade

The loss of eyes would represent de-evolution...they had them, now they don't. De-evolutionism in the wild.

As to the snakes...it appears they lost their limbs when they were told to eat dust...at the same time rose bushes began to grow thorns.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have no problem with my belief...seems as if you would rather twist the bible to force it to conform to neb-darwinism.

As you know, your attempts to twist the Bible to force it to conform to your new belief are wrong. It takes no stand at all on evolution/creationism.

Problem is, you can't explain the fall and our sin nature.

I already showed you how it explains the fall and our sin nature. Everyone saw it. What do you hope to gain by denying the fact? Would you like me to show you again?

 

[The Barbarian]

The loss of eyes would represent de-evolution...

That's a common superstition among creationists, but it's false. As you learned, the genes for eyes were not lost, but the fish evolved systems that reduced resources necessary for having functional eyes. This increased fitness in the fish, and made them more competitive with other fish.

they had them, now they don't.

They still have them; they don't function now, and this increases the fitness of the fish. That's what evolution does.

De-evolutionism in the wild.

The definition of biological evolution is "change in allele frequencies in a population over time." And that's what happened in this case. So it's evolution. "De-evolution" is a creationist superstition, like the Easter Bunny.

As to the snakes...it appears they lost their limbs when they were told to eat dust...

Snakes don't eat dust. I thought you knew. And not all snakes lack limbs:
https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/snakes-legs-eb193c9a399b3592

at the same time rose bushes began to grow thorns.

And you've invented another addition to scripture.[/quote]

 

[Job 33:6]

More on the above. Some could say that snakes lost their legs and thus this is evidence of "de-evolution" (as if such a thing exists). But in reality the snake simultaneously benefits from an exceptionally large increase in vertebrae and rib bones.

It's not that the snake truly ever "lost information" but rather, the animal is simply changing through time.

Prehistoric fish never had complex lungs, much like the snake never had extended vertebrae. Prehistoric fish airsacs were never truly lost through time, but rather their use was transformed through time to what we have today as modern lungs (and modern swim bladders in fish, used to control bouyancy).

Just as the snakes no longer needed legs, just as the cave fish no longer needed eyes etc. These prehistoric qualities were never truly lost, but rather transformed and used for alternative functions.

 

[nolidad]

It would take at least a billion and a half, based on genetic data. Would you like to see why?

Fortunately, we have several billion years of life's history on Earth.

But I'd be pleased to see your math and the genetic data you analyzed with it. What do you have?

Well unless they redated the Cambrian explosion, we have about 650 million years, according to the dating methods that have been empirically shown to be false.

And the genetic data is nothing nothing more than a what if this and this and this is true (without knowing) what would happen over X years.

But you know that mutations, which is the only driver of change in a creature ultimately leads to reduced viability not an oncrese in viability and increase in complexity and adding novel organisms previously not there.

 

[nolidad]

blind cave fish evolved . Vision takes a lot of energy in the brain . Without eyes they use less energy. Blindness is better for the species in the environment they live in. That’s natural selection . Btw biologists don’t use devolution to describe a lost of an attribute. For example Snakes evolved limblessness . It’s not a lack or deficiency as snakes are a very successful diapsid clade

Once again that is their belief of what may have happened! But they do not have an empirical trail to follow showing the increasing atrophy of the eyes in these fish caves. Only a belief that that is what happened.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well unless they redated the Cambrian explosion, we have about 650 million years, according to the dating methods that have been empirically shown to be false.

And the genetic data is nothing nothing more than a what if this and this and this is true (without knowing) what would happen over X years.

But you know that mutations, which is the only driver of change in a creature ultimately leads to reduced viability not an oncrese in viability and increase in complexity and adding novel organisms previously not there.

If you can argue that animals lost eyes through evolution, then with use of the exact same evidence (genetics and the fossil record), you could argue that animals evolved eyes prior to losing them, to begin with.

And loss of vision in a dark cave in which vision is useless, results in an automatic increase in viability, else you have useless organs expending energy for no apparent reason.

A blind fish logically will be better off than a fish with eyes, in an environment in which eyes are otherwise useless.

 

[nolidad]

If you can argue that animals lost eyes through evolution, then with use of the exact same evidence (genetics and the fossil record), you could argue that animals evolved eyes prior to losing them, to begin with.

And loss of vision in a dark cave in which vision is useless, results in an automatic increase in viability, else you have useless organs expending energy for no apparent reason.

A blind fish logically will be better off than a fish with eyes, in an environment in which eyes are otherwise useless.

True, eyes in a dark place (though fish in the depths do have bio-luminescence). But we have no empirical chain showing the mutations of going from fully functioning eyes to them through slow bit by bit mutations lose their eyes!

Evolution looks plausible from 100,000 feet up, but when you get down to the reality of it, it becomes a scientifically hopeless philosophy.

 

[The Barbarian]

It would take at least a billion and a half, based on genetic data. Would you like to see why?
Fortunately, we have several billion years of life's history on Earth.
But I'd be pleased to see your math and the genetic data you analyzed with it. What do you have?

Well unless they redated the Cambrian explosion, we have about 650 million years

We now have fossils of animals many millions of years before the Cambrian. Dickinsonia is known to be an animal (cholesterol traces in the rock) at least 20 million years before the Cambrian. And prokaryotes are known to have existed billions of years ago.

according to the dating methods that have been empirically shown to be false.

No, that's wrong. Since Rutherford showed physics could date rocks billions of years old, no one has managed to refute his findings. Indeed, the method was confirmed directly when argon/argon testing accurately dated the volcanic flow that buried Pompeii.

[QUOTE ]And the genetic data is nothing nothing more than a what if this and this and this is true (without knowing) what would happen over X years.[/QUOTE]

That's wrong, too. Genetic analysis has successfully shown how human populations, for example, changed and moved over time. Would you like to see how?

 

[The Barbarian]

True, eyes in a dark place (though fish in the depths do have bio-luminescence). But we have no empirical chain showing the mutations of going from fully functioning eyes to them through slow bit by bit mutations lose their eyes!

No, that's wrong. Geneticists have been quite successful in tracing the way this happened:
Adaptive Evolution of Eye Degeneration in the Mexican Blind Cavefish

W. R. Jeffery
Journal of Heredity, Volume 96, Issue 3, May/June 2005, Pages 185–196

Evolution looks plausible from 100,000 feet up, but when you get down to the reality of it, it becomes a scientifically hopeless philosophy.

You have it backwards. Looking at the sweep of life's variety, it can be difficult to imagine that evolution did it all. But when you look at the details, you see evolution going on before your eyes, and the specific steps become much more recognizable. Would you like to see some examples?

 

[Job 33:6]

True, eyes in a dark place (though fish in the depths do have bio-luminescence). But we have no empirical chain showing the mutations of going from fully functioning eyes to them through slow bit by bit mutations lose their eyes!

Evolution looks plausible from 100,000 feet up, but when you get down to the reality of it, it becomes a scientifically hopeless philosophy.

The claim above was made that snakes lost legs and fish lost eyes via some means of "de evolution".

Such a claim cannot be made without also recognizing that these same animals initially evolved legs and eyes beforehand.

Unless you believe it is false that snakes lost their legs over time. In which case you would be contradicting -57.

 

[nolidad]

We now have fossils of animals many millions of years before the Cambrian. Dickinsonia is known to be an animal (cholesterol traces in the rock) at least 20 million years before the Cambrian. And prokaryotes are known to have existed billions of years ago.

Well 20 million years is but a speck when dealing with 650 million years. could be within the MOE.

No, that's wrong. Since Rutherford showed physics could date rocks billions of years old, no one has managed to refute his findings. Indeed, the method was confirmed directly when argon/argon testing accurately dated the volcanic flow that buried Pompeii.

But you forget teh ifs that cannot be validated at all and shown to happen naturally that affect dating methodology. Those have shown that dates are mere guesses based on assumptions about teh rock in situ!

And dating by ar40/ar39 is relatively new and requires much human involvement and handling of the sampel with other materials or methods to produce just a relative date. So measuring siomething 1941 years ago is a far surer bet than measuring something over a billion years ago.

You have it backwards. Looking at the sweep of life's variety, it can be difficult to imagine that evolution did it all. But when you look at the details, you see evolution going on before your eyes, and the specific steps become much more recognizable. Would you like to see some examples?

Wrong! for we have never seen a dog become something other than a dog. And all known mutations either are horizontal (meaning they keep a human a human with a variant trait) but never vertical.

Mutations are all almost on the harmful side of the distribution (Kimeras or however it is spelled) and as the Dean of Harvard Genetics reported that all mutations ultimately reduce the viability of a species.

There are over 5,000 diseases that affect mankind that are a result of mutations. Some are minor, many are fatal. But we have no known mutations that occur spontaneously that make people a higher form of human!

 

[nolidad]

No, that's wrong. Geneticists have been quite successful in tracing the way this happened:
Adaptive Evolution of Eye Degeneration in the Mexican Blind Cavefish

W. R. Jeffery
Journal of Heredity, Volume 96, Issue 3, May/June 2005, Pages 185–196

I will see if I can look this article uop. But does it track teh physical atrophy of the optic system over X years? Or is it making grand leaps based on a tad bit of information?

That's wrong, too. Genetic analysis has successfully shown how human populations, for example, changed and moved over time. Would you like to see how?

Once again you are confusing variation within a species and genus with "macro- evolution" Heck Mendel showed variation within a "kind" well over a century ago. For all the researchers know, the variant changes shown could simply be random shuffling within the genetics of a group.

Though creationists hold to a theory of "genetic fluidity" From creation until after the dispersion at Babel. As the people scattered and settled they genetics necessary for say Eskimpos to thrive in a harsh climate became dominant and thrived. ICR geneticists have shown how it was theoretically possible, just like evolutionists show how evolution on the macro level is theoretically possible.

 

[nolidad]

The claim above was made that snakes lost legs and fish lost eyes via some means of "de evolution".

Such a claim cannot be made without also recognizing that these same animals initially evolved legs and eyes beforehand.

Unless you believe it is false that snakes lost their legs over time. In which case you would be contradicting -57.

I believe snakes were always snakes! Except the specific type of serpent that Satan possessed that became a snake.

I am going to study the article Barbarian gave that supposedly proves and demonstrates how those fish evolved (or de-evolved) to lose their eyes.

Apart from recorded observed phenomena, there is no empirical proof that things happen the way people say they happen. They are guesses or educated guesses based on ones worldview.

 

[nolidad]

No, that's wrong. Geneticists have been quite successful in tracing the way this happened:
Adaptive Evolution of Eye Degeneration in the Mexican Blind Cavefish

W. R. Jeffery
Journal of Heredity, Volume 96, Issue 3, May/June 2005, Pages 185–196



You have it backwards. Looking at the sweep of life's variety, it can be difficult to imagine that evolution did it all. But when you look at the details, you see evolution going on before your eyes, and the specific steps become much more recognizable. Would you like to see some examples?

Well found the article and here is the abstract!

Abstract
The evolutionary mechanisms responsible for eye degeneration in cave-adapted animals have not been resolved. Opposing hypotheses invoking neural mutation or natural selection, each with certain genetic and developmental expectations, have been advanced to explain eye regression, although little or no experimental evidence has been presented to support or reject either theory. Here we review recent developmental and molecular studies in the teleost Astyanax mexicanus, a single species consisting of a sighted surface-dwelling form (surface fish) and many blind cave-dwelling forms (cavefish), which shed new light on this problem. The manner of eye development and degeneration, the ability to experimentally restore eyes, gene expression patterns, and comparisons between different cavefish populations all provide important clues for understanding the evolutionary forces responsible for eye degeneration. A key discovery is that Hedgehog midline signaling is expanded and inhibits eye formation by inducing lens apoptosis in cavefish embryos. Accordingly, eyes could have been lost by default as a consequence of natural selection for constructive traits, such as feeding structures, which are positively regulated by Hh signaling. We conclude from these studies that eye degeneration in cavefish may be caused by adaptive evolution and pleiotropy.

IOW hes guessing based on the belief it has to be evolution!

 

[The Barbarian]

I will see if I can look this article uop. But does it track teh physical atrophy of the optic system over X years? Or is it making grand leaps based on a tad bit of information?

Genetic data. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Once again you are confusing variation within a species and genus with "macro- evolution"

"Macroevolution" the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words. But there is no essential difference. In some cases, microevolution could retroactively become macroevolution. Would you like to see how?

Heck Mendel showed variation within a "kind" well over a century ago.

And by the early 1900s, macroevolutionary chane had been observes repeatedl.

For all the researchers know, the variant changes shown could simply be random shuffling within the genetics of a group.

No. Even in humans, we have a very large number of known favorable mutations. Can we talk about some of them?

Though creationists hold to a theory of "genetic fluidity" From creation until after the dispersion at Babel.

As the people scattered and settled they genetics necessary for say Eskimpos to thrive in a harsh climate became dominant and thrived.

The origin and spread of the lactase persistence gene has been very well documented by geneticists. Cavalli-Sforza has shown maps of genes documenting the spread of dairying into Europe.

ICR geneticists have shown how it was theoretically possible

I haven't seen any such research. Do you have a paper in mind? The last ICR attempt I saw to fit the evidence was Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" concept.

Gerald Aardsma is a physicist with special qualifications in radiometrics. His "virtual history" is the most recently developed theory of the biblical creation alternatives.34 Aardsma appears to be the first scientist since Gosse to expand upon the omphalos argument in a serious attempt to reconcile the evidence from fossils and long age measurements with the six days of Genesis. As Gosse, he classifies all historical evidence into two categories – that which is not real but appears to have happened before the creation events and that which is actual, happening after the creation.

Aardsma uses the terms "proleptic time" and "virtual history" to explain his theory. Proleptic time – credited to Joseph Scaliger by Aardsma for its first use is very similar to Gosse's "prochronic time" and simply means imaginary time.35 Aardsma states "Proleptic time is the mathematical projection of real historic time back behind Creation. Real historic time only begins at Creation, as the "In the beginning God created" of Genesis 1:1 teaches."36 Virtual history is a term coined by Aardsma to extend history in a way that "time appears to emanate" from it, "when in fact time does not emanate from it at all.
...
He uses the miracles of Jesus in feeding the 5000, turning water into wine, and healing the man born blind to illustrate virtual history.

Aardsma explains that were we there we would have seen bread that had been cooked and fish with bones, muscle, and veins. But this newly created bread was not actually cooked and the fish did not go through a development process that it takes a fish to become a fish.
...
From examples such as these Aardsma makes the important philosophical argument that miracles, of necessity, all have a virtual history.
...
Aardsma applies the concept of virtual history to the proleptic time we see today, which includes "evidences of pre-Adamic man, dinosaurs, exploding stars, concentrations of radioisotopes in rocks, and all the rest."41 Virtual history is close conceptually to Gosse’s apparent history, but Aardsma differs significantly from Gosse on two aspects. First Aardsma, as a chronologist establishes a date of creation; that being 5176+26 B.C.42 Everything that appears to come before that date occurs in proleptic time and exhibits virtual history only. Physical indications of history after that date are real.
Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Comparisons of Biblical Creation Alternatives

, just like evolutionists show how evolution on the macro level is theoretically possible.

Directly observed. And the ICR now admits that new species, genera, and often families develop from other populations. The Cynoidea consist of two families of doglike creatures, with the Canidae comprising three families of canids including the Hesperocyoninae. the Borophaginae, and the Caninae.

 

[The Barbarian]

IOW hes guessing based on the belief it has to be evolution!

No. He's making a conclusion, based on the evidence. That's how science works. A hypothesis is more like a guess, although the key is that a hypothesis must be based on previous knowledge, and must be testable.

 

[Job 33:6]

I believe snakes were always snakes! Except the specific type of serpent that Satan possessed that became a snake.

I am going to study the article Barbarian gave that supposedly proves and demonstrates how those fish evolved (or de-evolved) to lose their eyes.

Apart from recorded observed phenomena, there is no empirical proof that things happen the way people say they happen. They are guesses or educated guesses based on ones worldview.

It seems you yecers don't know what you believe. Some say snakes had legs, some say they didn't. Some say Satan had legs, some say Satan was a snake etc.

 

[NBB]

God created us as he wanted, evolutionists say evolution created us from a simpler animal, what they don't know is that we have an spiritual soul.

The world is going to force you to believe in evolution, they need their naturalistic explanation, God can't fit there but we christians should know better.