Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[Yarddog]

If evolution was a plausible explanation for how life developed from a microbe, I could understand theistic evolution. The Lord God created us. So the only issue is whether he used something like evolution or not.

But evolution is not plausible. By evolution I refer to the formation of all the taxons from the hypothetical first microbial life to the taxonomic families observed today and in fossils. Evolution should not refer to the formation of new species and genera caused by mutations breaking genes. This speciation (or micro-evolution) is observed and is not contentious so conflating it with evolution only confuses the discussion.

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

Evolution is not a plausible explanation because science cannot definitely explain how life began or why life decided to evolve.

 

[Al Touthentop]

It is true that it has a bill similar to a ducks, but that doesn't mean that it is half bird, nor does having venom make an animal part reptile. Some catapillars are venomous too, but that doesn't make a king cobra part-insect. Surely you understand this.

Sure. But if it doesn't suggest the platypus was descended from birds or reptiles, then a bird's claws and skeletal features also don't suggest they descended from dinosaurs.

But still, nobody can explain how it is possible for a species to transition from asexual to sexual reproduction over more than one generation.

The first organisms from which every other organism is said to have evolved were asexual. To change to sexual reproduction would require a perfect cooperative structure in a male and female pair that spontaneously generated. If that generation had any genetic flaw, the species could not reproduce. It can't slowly transition because any problems ensure extinction within a single generation and the process has to begin again.

Sexual reproduction creates a dependency on the pairs to survive, a two-fold increase in the complexity of that species' trajectory. The female cannot fertilize her eggs without the male of the species. And external eggs might be one strategy employed to minimize that complexity but that itself suggests a level of intelligence that cannot be explained by random chance or trial and error. And then who taught the male how to cover the eggs? In evolutionary terms, trial and error results in extinction when the result is error(strictly in terms of sexual reproduction here, obviously not some change in color of fur or feathers or limbs). Just adding more time to the equation doesn't help. Even if a species did evolve, it will die off if there is any flaw in the reproductive evolution of its species and there's no reboot. It's gone and all progress that happened over time cannot be recovered.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well you said Greek words. Then you point to scriptures written originally in Hebrew as if that's responsive.

You caught me in an error. Ouch.
I'll be happy to respond.

Here is a list of things that have been bara'(ed).
Four or so of them could be considered quick.
The rest are all transformations of existing things.(slow changes)

Gen. 1:1 Heavens and earth
Gen. 1:21 Creatures of the sea
Gen. 1:27 People
Gen. 1:27 (2) People
Gen. 2:3 X
Gen. 2:4 Heavens and earth
Gen. 5:1 People
Gen. 5:2 People
Gen. 5:2 People
Gen. 6:7 People
Exod. 34:10 wonders
Num. 16:30 Something new (debatable)
Deut. 4:32 People
Ps. 102:18 People not yet created
Ps. 104:30 Creatures
Ps. 148:5 Celestial inhabitants
Ps. 51:10 pure heart
Ps. 89:12 North and south
Ps. 89:47 People
Ecc. 12:1 you
Isa. 4:5 Cloud of smoke
Isa. 40:26 Starry host
Isa. 40:28 Ends of the earth
Isa. 41:20 Rivers flowing in desert
Isa. 42:5 Heavens
Isa. 43:1 Jacob
Isa. 43:15 Israel
Isa. 43:7 Everyone called by my name
Isa. 45:12 People
Isa. 45:18 Earth
Isa. 45:18 Heavens
Isa. 45:7 Darkness
Isa. 45:7 Disaster
Isa. 45:8 Heavens and earth
Isa. 48:7 New things, hidden things
Isa. 54:16 Blacksmith
Isa. 54:16 Destroyer
Isa. 57:19 praise
Isa. 65:17 New heavens and new earth
Isa. 65:18 New heavens and new earth
Isa. 65:18 Jerusalem
Jer. 31:22 New thing
Ezek. 21:30 Ammonites
Ezek. 28:13 King of Tyre
Ezek. 28:15 King of Tyre
Amos 4:13 wind
Mal. 2:10 Covenant people

 

[SkyWriting]

Well you said Greek words. Then you point to scriptures written originally in Hebrew as if that's responsive.

Yup. I stupido.

Here is the backgound for "asah"
Also leaning toward slow change over fast flashes. Many of the uses...extremely slow change...like these - govern, hinder, hold, journey, keep, maintain, and observe.

to do, fashion, accomplish, make
(Qal)
to do, work, make, produce
to do
to work
to deal (with)
to act, act with effect, effect
to make
to make
to produce
to prepare
to make (an offering)
t attend to, put in order
to observe, celebrate
to acquire (property)
to appoint, ordain, institute
to bring about
to use
to spend, pass
(Niphal)
to be done
to be made
to be produced
to be offered
to be observed
to be used

(Pual) to be made
(Piel) to press, squeeze

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
עָשָׂה ʻâsâh, aw-saw'; a primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application:—accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, × certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, displease, do, (ready) dress(-ed), (put in) execute(-ion), exercise, fashion, feast, (fight-) ing man, finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, hinder, hold (a feast), × indeed, be industrious, journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, × sacrifice, serve, set, shew, × sin, spend, × surely, take, × thoroughly, trim, × very, vex, be (warr-) ior, work(-man), yield, use.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't have a personal problem with the absence of a rabbit in the fossil record. I have a problem with one drawing a conclusion that it couldn't have existed. The absence of a fossil recording of a rabbit is not proof that the rabbit didn't exist during that period.

The absence of unicorn fossils is not proof that unicorns did not exist either, but it certainly is telling.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure. But if it doesn't suggest the platypus was descended from birds or reptiles, then a bird's claws and skeletal features also don't suggest they descended from dinosaurs.

.

But of course nobody suggests that the platypus did descend from birds or reptiles. It descended from prior monotremes such as those found in the fossil record.

Which cladistically and logically makes sense, unlike the idea that the platypus evolved from birds which cladistically doesn't make any sense.

There is an important difference.

Remember, monotremes and egg laying mammals pre-existed platypuses. Mammals with fur, mammals with Spurs, mammals with milk ducts, the "base" characteristics of the platypus pre exist it's appearance.

Birds pre existed the platypus, however their lineage of descent is separated temporally by 100 million years and spacially, and their base features are far different from a platypus, which suggests that monotremes are not descendents of birds. They may have a bill like a duck, but there is far more to cladistics than this simple concept, just as we don't assume that cobras evolved from caterpillars just because caterpillars both are venomous. It's about the sequence or order in which fossils appear, it's about geospatial distributions (time and space) and crowns vs nodes of clades.

Whereas with a rabbit in the Cambrian, such a find would easily contradict the theory.

It's important to understand the difference.

 

[SkyWriting]

The words you are quoting do not at all suggest slowness.

Each one does eliminate the, something from nothing, fast appearing mentality.

yasad

appointed (2), established (4), firmly placed (1), found (1), foundation (6), foundation will be laid (1), foundations i will lay (1), foundations which laid (1), founded (11), given orders (1), laid (5), laid its foundations (1), laid the foundation (3), laid the foundations (1), lay its foundation (1), lay the foundation (1), laying (1), lays the foundation (1), make (1), rebuilding (1), set (1), take counsel (1), took counsel (1).

 

[Al Touthentop]

Each one does eliminate the, something from nothing, fast appearing mentality.

Not at all unless you can provide something specific from the context to suggest it. A foundation was laid on the first day as it states.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Whereas with a rabbit in the Cambrian, such a find would easily contradict the theory."

I just wanted to expand on this as well. The Cambrian rabbit is just one example.

Other finds that would contradict the theory of evolution include mammals being found in the fossil record before the first reptiles (anywhere in the carboniferous, silurian, ordovician, Cambrian or precambrian), birds being found before the first reptiles (same as above), reptiles being found before the first amphibians (anywhere in the devonian, silurian, ordovician, Cambrian or precambrian), amphibians before fish (anywhere in the Cambrian or precambrian).

These are just a few more examples of simple finds that would easily disprove the theory, that have never been found. The Cambrian rabbit is just an example.

And for those who doubt this succession, the easiest thing to do is to go to your local hardware store, buy yourself a hammer, Google a local geologic map and go look for yourself. We all live around rocks, we all have the capability to see for ourselves.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Remember, monotremes and egg laying mammals pre-existed platypuses. Mammals with fur, mammals with Spurs, mammals with milk ducts, the "base" characteristics of the platypus pre exist it's appearance.

Yet no evidence suggest that there is a direct relation to any of them.

Whereas with a rabbit in the Cambrian, such a find would easily contradict the theory.

But the absence of such a fossil does not suggest anything at all. I don't know of anyone who thinks the fossil record of any era is a complete representation of the animals that existed at the time.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not at all unless you can provide something specific from the context to suggest it. A foundation was laid on the first day as it states.

I don't see how cut down, dispatch, or make fat, will work for a 24 hour period.
Ok. It doesn't.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
choose, create creator, cut down, dispatch, do, make fat

A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes) -- choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

 

[Al Touthentop]

The absence of unicorn fossils is not proof that unicorns did not exist either, but it certainly is telling.

No it isn't. The absence of historical data is not evidence of anything. You can't use that as proof of a theory. We have found human footprints embedded in dinosaur footprints. I'm not sure that it proves that man co-existed with dinosaurs any more than the lack of such a fossil elsewhere proves that man didn't co-exist with dinosaurs. The theory alleges that evolution works in a particular way. The fossil record may or may not allude to the mechanism's existence but it has nothing at all to do with how the mechanism works. The focus on the fossil record is a hand-waving technique. Look over here! See! I don't have to explain the mechanism because, look! Weird whale!

 

[Job 33:6]

Yet no evidence suggest that there is a direct relation to any of them.


But the absence of such a fossil does not suggest anything at all. I don't know of anyone who thinks the fossil record of any era is a complete representation of the animals that existed at the time.

The fossil record is its own independent affirmation of the lineage of evolution.

See post #69.

What is important to understand about the theory, is that it provides an explanation for why multiple fields of science indicate the same sequence.

The fossil record shows us an order of fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds/mammals. And on a micro evolutionary scale, all fossils fit this same "tree" of life.

This same sequence is seen in genetics, it's seen in comparative anatomy, it's seen in ERV sequencing, it's seen in cytochrome C studies, it's seen in protein sequencing, it's seen in biogeographical studies etc.

This same sequence that we are discussing is found independently in various fields of study. And the theory of evolution simply provides an explanation for that order.

So it's important to understand why the platypus doesn't contradict the theory, but a Cambrian rabbit would.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I don't see how cut down, dispatch, or make fat, will work for a 24 hour period.

Cut down, easily. Make fat depends on the context. If God created something fat, and tells his prophet that it happened within a 24 hour period, your "seeing" that possibility is not relevant. You either accept God's word or you don't. I don't see though how you could reject one part of the bible and accept another.

 

[Job 33:6]

We have found human footprints embedded in dinosaur footprints.

No credible scientific publication has ever suggested such a thing.

You can choose to distrust us (scientists), but don't be surprised if it is a lonely road.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The fossil record is its own independent affirmation of the lineage of evolution.

This is a baseless assertion. It's believed to be so by people who already accept the theory of evolution as if it is true.

But even those who believe in evolution, do not usually say the fossil record is a complete record of any given period. There are a lot of reasons why fossils are not generated when an animal dies.

What is important to understand about the theory, is that it provides an explanation for why multiple fields of science indicate the same sequence.

Explain how any species could transition from asexual to sexual over multiple generations without causing its own extinction.

The fossil record shows us an order of fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds/mammals. And on a micro evolutionary scale, all fossils fit this same "tree" of life.

This same sequence is seen in genetics, it's seen in comparative anatomy, it's seen in ERV sequencing, it's seen in cytochrome C studies, it's seen in protein sequencing, it's seen in biogeographical studies etc.

This same sequence that we are discussing is found independently in various fields of study. And the theory of evolution simply provides an explanation for that order.

The micro does not prove the macro as we've seen from the special vs general relativity.

So it's important to understand why the platypus doesn't contradict the theory, but a Cambrian rabbit would.

The absence does not mean that the theory is valid however. It just means that if you found one, you'd be more likely to look closer at the flaws that already exist in the theory. And boy do those flaws exist.

It is proposed that all species inherit from a single celled asexually reproducing organism that spontaneously erupted from a 'primordial soup' and that organism contained a cryptological system so advanced we're still grasping at understanding it. Whistle past that if you must. Why would coding be needed and how would an organism with no knowledge that it would be required create such a system?

Laying aside the fact that spontaneous creation of something complex from non-complex ingredients defies the laws of nature, where does DNA come into this theory? How did DNA/RNA, the building blocks of all cells, itself get created? It would have to exist first or that first organism would have died off a few days after it was created even if it could live without it in the first place.

I'm not a credentialed scientist so I can't claim any special knowledge but obviously this problem of DNA/RNA has been considered and so at least one current theory attempting to deal with the necessity of DNA and RNA existing prior to any organism making use of it is that RNA and DNA rained down from the sky. That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read - From Berkley no less. What created the RNA and DNA in the first place?

How did life originate?
Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA molecules — the genetic material for all life — are just long chains of simple nucleotides.

Clearly these guys see the problems with the whole 'primorial soup' theory (and taxonomy) so now they propose that complex cryptological systems (they're "just long chains of simple nucleotides") started raining out of the clouds and generating organisms.

No far fetched theory is too weird for evolution proponents apparently.

 

[Al Touthentop]

No credible scientific publication has ever suggested such a thing.

Yet they exist and thousands of visitors each year go to see them for themselves. "Credible" scientific publications which refuse to address their existence or claim they're fakes is only evidence that they chose not to, not that the fossils are fake or manufactured. As I suggested, I'm willing to accept that they are fakes if the evidence is conclusive, but even if genuine they don't prove or disprove anything in and of themselves about evolution of the species. There are a few fossils that have been faked to "prove" evolution, but their fakeness doesn't speak to the theory at all, just that people desperate to reconcile it are willing to go to extreme lengths. Too bad they don't just stick to proving the mechanisms they describe are even possible. And that applies just as equally to people who attempt to manufacture the contradictory evidence.

The Paluxy river prints are controversial. But there are other fossils, not so controversial. And I would propose that the failure of evolutionary theorists to address and revise their theories is just the sort of behavior that I would expect if a rabbit was found in the Cambrian fossil record. Deny, claim it's fake and then finally ignore it as if it doesn't exist.

In 1987, not far from the Zapata track site, paleontologist Jerry MacDonald discovered a variety of beautifully preserved fossil footprints in Permian strata. The Robledo Mountain site contains thousands of footprints and invertebrate trails that represent dozens of different kinds of animals. Because of the quality of preservation and sheer multitude of different kinds of footprints, this tracksite has been called the most important Early Permian sites ever discovered. Some that have visited the site remark that it contains what appears to be a barefoot human print. “The fossil tracks that MacDonald has collected include a number of what paleontologists like to call ‘problematica.’ On one trackway, for example, a three-toed creature apparently took a few steps, then disappeared–as though it took off and flew. ‘We don’t know of any three-toed animals in the Permian,’ MacDonald pointed out. ‘And there aren’t supposed to be any birds.’ He’s got several tracks where creatures appear to be walking on their hind legs, others that look almost simian. On one pair of siltstone tablets, I notice some unusually large, deep and scary-looking footprints, each with five arched toe marks, like nails. I comment that they look just like bear tracks. ‘Yeah,’ MacDonald says reluctantly, ‘they sure do.’ Mammals evolved long after the Permian period, scientists agree, yet these tracks are clearly Permian.” (“Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts,” The Smithsonian, Vol. 23, July 1992, p.70.)
Fossil Footprints | Genesis Park

You can choose to distrust us (scientists), but don't be surprised if it is a lonely road.

You're men and women. The sheepskin doesn't prove anything about your character or reliability. I trust science in general more than I distrust it. It is my trust in scientific principles which makes it obvious to me that evolution is a grotesque superstition. Believing in it requires just as much faith as my religion requires. Moreso I think.

 

[Job 33:6]

"This is a baseless assertion. "

It isn't baseless, it's objective. Your separation from the topic of the platypus is a testament to the objective nature of the fossil succession.

And each independent field of study, be it the fossil succession, comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeographical distributions, ERV phylogenies, cyctochrome C phylogenies, protein phylogenies and more, all depict the same succession time and time again in tens if not hundreds of thousands of independent research publications. A random young earth creationist park simply cannot compare.

You can even predict, temporally and spatially, where a fossil will exist in the ground based on the proteins in your very body.

And mere denial just isn't sufficient in trying to challenge this. And until there is a valid critique in opposition or that supercedes biological evolution in explaining the above correlation, your commentary on the platypus and human tracks allegedly inside Trex tracks will fall on deaf ears every time.

And with that, if you're truly interested science, I'll be available for questions. But until you get past denial and proposing baseless claims about topics that you're not familiar with, I cannot be bothered.

 

[Al Touthentop]

"This is a baseless assertion. "

It isn't baseless, it's objective. Your separation from the topic of the platypus is a testament to the objective nature of the fossil succession.

It is baseless but you don't want to talk about it in a rational way. Nobody claims that the fossil record is a complete record. Is that a false or ignorant statement or is it fact? The fossil record, due to its incomplete nature doesn't even address the issue of evolutionary mechanics. Besides which we know that correlation is not causation.

I have conceded your claims about the platypus which is why I "separated from the topic" as you put it. Further arguing a topic of which I was obviously not fully informed or correct about would just make me look stupid. Apparently this is inconvenient because you wanted to go on arguing about it and make me look like a fool.

Besides which, even if my understanding was correct that the platypus presents a taxonomic contradiction, it's a pittance compared to the sexual reproduction and DNA/RNA problems. By dismissing me as a crank, you can whistle past those. You conveniently do not have to even look at them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You proclaim evolution "false" because you don't understand what it actually is.
We can demonstrate evolution within a species within a matter of weeks with bacteria. Macroevolution is the same concept on a larger scale. It becomes less and less probable of an occurrence of something that'd happen on its own, but outside stimuli (like environmental pressures, radiation, man selectively breeding them, or simply God acting on them) can pressure evolution to occur. If you shut off a gene in a chicken, it doesn't grow a beak, it grows a dinosaur like snout.

I'd say we can demonstrate natural/ or guided selection within a pre-existing set of variations
Just as with the Peppered Moth- darker varieties always existed, the lighter ones were just de-selected

i.e. natural selection is a filtering process, it takes a larger set of possibilities and creates from it a smaller set
That's exactly the opposite of the evolutionary 'tree of life' is it not?