What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Inan3]

Yeah, except it didn't happen the way God says it did. Not by any measure.

Now how do you KNOW that?

 

[TheOutsider]

Yes, I have read Genesis before and I know what it says. You can accuse me of not looking beyond the words all you like.

What I'm saying though is that you can't use Genesis Chapter 1 as a science text because it doesn't tell us much besides "God did it". You definitely can't use it to make any scientific predictions.

 

[Skaloop]

Now how do you KNOW that?

Because every single bit of evidence says so. Now, if you want to suggest that God made it that way, well, that makes God a liar. A faker. A charlatan. Unless you take that part of the Bible to be metaphor...

 

[Inan3]

Because every single bit of evidence says so. Now, if you want to suggest that God made it that way, well, that makes God a liar. A faker. A charlatan. Unless you take that part of the Bible to be metaphor...

Evidence says God did not create heaven and earth?

What is this evidence?

 

[The Bellman]

Knowing the definition of Metaphor show me the metaphoric language in Gen 1-11

There is no such thing as 'metaphoric language'. It's English. Metaphors don't use some sort of special language.

When the text says "Jesus is a door," we know it's a metaphor because of evidence. We see that a door is a physical piece of some substance, often wood, hung on hinges, which we push or pull to open. Jesus isn't like that; so we know 'door' is a metaphor, and we look past the literal for what was actually meant.

Similarly, when people read the opening chapters of Genesis, they know it's a metaphor because of evidence. We know from science that what is described is not how the earth or its inhabitants came to be, so we know it's a metaphor, and we need to look past the literal for what was actually meant.

 

[TheOutsider]

Evidence says God did not create heaven and earth?

What is this evidence?

Why does it feel like we are stuck in an endless loop?

 

[Inan3]

Yes, I have read Genesis before and I know what it says. You can accuse me of not looking beyond the words all you like.

What I'm saying though is that you can't use Genesis Chapter 1 as a science text because it doesn't tell us much besides "God did it". You definitely can't use it to make any scientific predictions.

I wasn't accusing you of anything. what part of what I said made you think that?

I don't use it as a science text. I have never said it could be used to make scientific predictions. I have said it is the way it happened. If science cannot agree with the account of Genesis then science is wrong. I believe that true science does agree with Genesis. It's man's interpretation of that science that is in error if it doesn't agree.

 

[Inan3]

Why does it feel like we are stuck in an endless loop?

We agree here.

 

[Inan3]

There is no such thing as 'metaphoric language'. It's English. Metaphors don't use some sort of special language.

When the text says "Jesus is a door," we know it's a metaphor because of evidence. We see that a door is a physical piece of some substance, often wood, hung on hinges, which we push or pull to open. Jesus isn't like that; so we know 'door' is a metaphor, and we look past the literal for what was actually meant.

Similarly, when people read the opening chapters of Genesis, they know it's a metaphor because of evidence. We know from science that what is described is not how the earth or its inhabitants came to be, so we know it's a metaphor, and we need to look past the literal for what was actually meant.

Hey TB are you an English major? I'm being serious here. It's just cool to see how certain things bother different people.

 

[Inan3]

There is no such thing as 'metaphoric language'. It's English. Metaphors don't use some sort of special language.

When the text says "Jesus is a door," we know it's a metaphor because of evidence. We see that a door is a physical piece of some substance, often wood, hung on hinges, which we push or pull to open. Jesus isn't like that; so we know 'door' is a metaphor, and we look past the literal for what was actually meant.

Similarly, when people read the opening chapters of Genesis, they know it's a metaphor because of evidence. We know from science that what is described is not how the earth or its inhabitants came to be, so we know it's a metaphor, and we need to look past the literal for what was actually meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

In the simplest case, this takes the form: "The [first subject] is a [second subject]." More generally,a metaphor describes a first subject as being or equal to a second subject in some way....



http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=metaphor

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them



http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryofLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAMetaphor.htm

A metaphor is the expression of an understanding of one concept in terms of another concept, where there is some similarity or correlation between the two

Nope no metaphors in Genesis 1. Sorry. You got this one wrong.

 

[TheOutsider]

How about we use the word "myth" instead:

A myth is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths often are said to take place before recorded history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it.

 

[The Bellman]

Hey TB are you an English major? I'm being serious here. It's just cool to see how certain things bother different people.

Not relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

In the simplest case, this takes the form: "The [first subject] is a [second subject]." More generally,a metaphor describes a first subject as being or equal to a second subject in some way....

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=metaphor

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryofLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAMetaphor.htm

A metaphor is the expression of an understanding of one concept in terms of another concept, where there is some similarity or correlation between the two

Nope no metaphors in Genesis 1. Sorry. You got this one wrong.

Sorry, but wrong. Whether or not there are metaphors is a matter of opinion, not fact. There are certainly possible metaphors. For example, when the text says that god formed Adam from dirt/dust, that could easily be a metaphor for him forming Adam from non-alive chemicals via an evolutionary process. That would be precisely "the expression of an understanding of one concept in terms of another concept, where there is some similarity or correlation between the two"

I would also note that metaphor is not the only type of symbolism and/or allegory. It is entirely possible that the opening chapters of Genesis is symbolic and not meant to be taken literally by its author (whether its author is god or not). Again, huge numbers of Christians do just that.

 

[Skaloop]

Evidence says God did not create heaven and earth?

What is this evidence?

The evidence says God did not create the heavens and the Earth as literally described in Genesis. Might He have done it non-literally? Possibly. But that would go against most definitions of God, as it would make Him a liar.

 

[MarcusHill]

If science cannot agree with the account of Genesis then science is wrong.

AV? Is that you?

 

[KCfromNC]

But as said before it really doesn't matter. You can't take it away from the scriptures whether it is a metaphor a simile or literal. You can't add to it or take from it. So for some so-called-Christians to agree to do that is proof that they are not Christians because a Christian follows Christ who would never do that.

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

Does this apply to the Protestants who omit parts of the Catholic Bible from the version they use?

 

[NailsII]

Inan3:

:
These passages were guidelines for them to follow not because He wanted slaves and captive marriages but because He wanted them (when they did these things) to treat the slaves and women right.

So god thinks that slavery and abuse of women is OK?
And you want to associate with these ideas?
It is the literal word of god, you cannot pick and choose. The quotes I have chosen are immoral, not from a loving god who created everything - they are there purly to justify man's obsession with destruction.

What is wrong is the way we perceive things.

I would argue that the way you are perceiving things is very wrong.

When seen for what it was it is more clear and understandable.

It is the direct order and justification to kill every man, woman and child except for the virgins!!!
I don't care how much they [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed god off, if he wanted them dead so badly he should have done it himself - he has done it before so the bible tells us.
If you even attempt to justify this then you have some serious issues that might require professional help.

Well it wouldn't be the first time that the courts ruled wrongly. I watched about half of this but without Professor Behe there to counter explain one couldn't really make an impartial judgement.
As stated before being a theist makes no difference either way now does it? Thesists have been wrong before haven't they.

I don't think you understand the core of this - Behe has no evidence and no defence against the evidence.
If he was there he would probably just sit in the corner and look embarrassed (ok, maybe that is a little harsh).
If you have watched the first half you may now understand how overwhelming the evidence is for evolution.
For your information, this testimony was enough to make Behe change his mind.
In his new book he accepts that evolution is a real and measurable phenomenon.

 

[NailsII]

BigDug - the mutation rate changes with every single gene you look at.
If the gene is 'dormant' or 'redundant' it will mutate away at an average rate according to its position on the chromosome (yes, it is a deciding factor)
If however, the gene is a crucial one, it is unlikely to mutate at all as the vast majority of mutations are likely to be harmful.
There are some genes, such as hox genes which are extremely sensitive to change and indeed are very likely to result in stillbirth or miscarriage.
This line of argument, although interesting, is very complicated.
I have outlined it for you, but any detailed responses from me will have to wait until next week when I have the time to oull off some stats.

 

[sfs]

A.C.E. (A Creationists' Explanation)
The basic model is that a shorter period of mutation exists. Creationists believe that there were major environmental changes which occured after mankinds' expulsion from the garden. According to the Bible, not only would there be a huge environmental difference from Eden to non-Eden, but God's resultant curse upon the earth produced major changes also.The further cataclysmic event of the flood would also account for some major environmental changes which would seriously shake up a gradual continuum.

Basically the creationist explanation would be that all living things started in a place of genomic perfection(The garden of Eden) and became mutated through the process of time and cataclysmic events.

If I understand the model you are suggesting (not that you're necessarily supporting it), humans and chimpanzees were originally much more similar genetically, but have diverged because of mutations, mutations that occurred much more rapidly than predicted by current rates. This model does not work well for several reasons. First, most environmental changes have no little or no effect on mutation rates, so "cataclysmic events" don't seem to be relevant. If the cataclysms did increase mutation rates by, say, increasing radiation levels by orders of magnitude (somehow without killing everything), it's very hard to see how they could have increased all of the different mutation rates at the same time. CpG mutations, for example, are the result of a spontaneous chemical process that occurs while DNA is just sitting there, while most substitutions occur during replication (and to some extent during DNA repair). Increased radiation will increase the substitution rate, because of increased DNA repair, but have little effect on the CpG mutation rate.

Finally, and most seriously, this explanation can only work for a single pair of species. Since we find similar patterns when we compare humans and gorillas, and humans and orangutans, it won't work. It cannot be the case that all of those differences accumulated during a period of accelerated mutation, since the differences are much greater in some cases than in others.

One prediction you would be able to make is that genetic mutations along certain strands of dna in chimps should appear in the same exact places of humans. That seems like a very observable experiment. I haven't yet heard any evidence supporting this seemingly obvious point.

Yes, recent common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees does mean that they should have shared mutations, that is, that they should often have the same base where gorillas and orangutans have different bases, and similarly for other organisms. There is abundant evidence that this is so. There is a vast literature that constructs molecular phylogenies based on shared genetic similarities. What is striking about it is that it consistently produces a hierarchical, tree-like structure, which is predicted by common descent (in the absence of horizontal gene transfer, that the trees produced are very similar, regardless of what genes are used, and that the trees correspond very well to trees already constructed based on morphology. This is what is sometimes called the "twin-nested hierarchy", which refers to similarity of the trees produced by genetic and morphological reconstructions.

Alright, this brings up a whole bevy of questions Ill just have to supress right now as being irrelevant to your paper but I nevertheless would be interested in starting another seperate line of inquiry at some other time.

Sounds good.

I assume this is the Kondrashov work? Are you aware that he has indicated this number to be closer to 300 new mutations in personal conversations?(beside the point I suppose)

Yes, this is the Kondrashov work. I wasn't aware of the 300 number; it's not an implausible number. The uncertainties are substantial.

OK. I admit that this shows a correlation, but only that these two species have had similar genetic pressures against them over the course of time, an as yet unproven amount of time.

I'm not sure what you mean by "genetic pressures". I think it's strong evidence that the genetic differences result (largely) from mutation. So any creationist model has to either find another explanation, or allow for lots of mutation. Don't forget that the still-absent model will have to account for similar comparisons to lots of other species.

It also stands to reason that their could have been global pressures resulting in similar mutational patterns among creatures with similar genomes.

I don't know what that means.

It also fails to associate a lineage of creatures which would have alleged predated the chimp. Take your same rate of mutation and follow it back 100 million years to whatever creature was directly in our alleged evolutionary line at the time, that same creature should have demonstratable, observable amounts of mutations which obey your given rate of mutation.

The simple point is that there should be a widespread connection between the numbers of mutations among not just many creatures, but all creatures, and a crocidile, which has survived so long, should have many more mutations.

Absolutely, and there is a mountain of evidence that this is the case. As the evolutionary relationships get more distant, the details become blurrier, since you start to get multiple mutations at the same site, but the overall picture is very clear.

I am digressing, but only because this data really seems to ask more questions than it answers, which is a trend I am finding all throughout evolutionary theory.

That's a feature, not a bug.

You need to distinguish between a theory that answers questions and raises new ones, and a theory that defers answering questions until other questions are answered. All theories do the latter to some extent (since some questions cannot be answered without more information), but good scientific theories do the former as well: they make predictions and explain data, and also guide you into useful new questions to ask. That's what the theory of common descent has done here; it makes accurate predictions about certain kinds of genetic comparisons between two species (comparisons you might not have thought to look at if you weren't guided by the theory), and also opens up obvious avenues for further exploration. It is a "fruitful reasearch program", in Lakatos's phrase.

I dont see what this as strong evidence, I definitely see it as supporting evidence though...feel free to correct what you think may be some misunderstanding of mine, Im well aware that a lot of educated people spent and are spending their lives coming up with this data and its foundations, I am certainly not trying to discredit any of that work or any of those people, and I trust the data itself, Im just haveing trouble with the interpretation of that data.

No single set of measurements is likely to provide overwhelming support for any theory. What I was trying to get across in my article was the fact that evolution works in just the same way, providing explanations and predicting new observations, consistently across the entire range of organisms and in many kinds of investigation. The simplest explanation for why it works so well is that it's right.

Probably the word "good" should be replaced by "creative" because as far as I know, no gene has been found to unambiguously have created information.

Scientists have been looking for information creating mutations for decades, if one had been found it would be absolutely filling all the pages of literature.

I'm afraid this represents a serious misunderstanding, fostered entirely by creationists. Simply put, scientists are not looking for information-creating mutations. Geneticists and evolutionary biologists seldom apply the concept(s) of information to genetics at all. There are some purposes for which it is useful to define an information content in a genetic sequence; by those definitions, it is trivial to show that mutations can create information. It's not at all clear why we should care.

Creationists generally avoid defining "information" when they make claims about information and mutation, which makes searching for information-creating mutations a little difficult: how are we supposed to search if we don't know what we're searching for? The few creationists who do define information either cannot show that DNA has information (Gitt) or have to switch definitions to avoid admitting that mutations clearly increase information by their own definition (Spetner).

There have certainly been mutations which were regarded as "good", so I probably should have used a better word there, but "good" in the sense that broken things can be sometimes. Like a broken car alarm can be "good" because it produces a "desirable" result(for some of us)--but yet they still represent a breakdown.

The only way to assess this claim is to have an operational definition of breakdown. How do you tell when a new function (say antibiotic resistance in bacteria) is a breakdown? (As far as evolution is concerned, a change is just a change, so we don't have to worry about the question.)

Some mutations that confer resistance certainly don't look to the naked eye like breakdown.

 

[Tomk80]

Evidence says God did not create heaven and earth?

What is this evidence?

Evidence says that if God created the heaven and earth, which is a question not answered by science in and of itself, God did not do in the way described in a literal reading of the Genesis account.

This is different from "Evidence says God did not create heaven and earth". The above is what Skaloop meant.

 

[NailsII]

It also stands to reason that their could have been global pressures resulting in similar mutational patterns among creatures with similar genomes.

No, sorry. Selection pressures do not influence mutational patterns in the slightest.
Change to Dna and then genes is the raw material, selection pressure decides what works and what doesn't at that moment in time for that particular organism in that environment.
There is also an element of sheer chance - a gentic superman could get hit by a meteor while asleep before he has passed on any genes - it could happen, and possibly does!!!