Why is evolution unbelievable?

[frogman2x]

The statement is not about what Darwin believed. It is about the fact of evolution. Darwin had some things right and some things wrong. One of the things he had right was "descent with modification" and that is strongly supported by modern genetics.

Descent with modification is not supported by modern genetics. No matter waht genes the parents have, they will never produce a kid that is not after its kind. That is geneticcally impossib le.

>>It is dogma when you cling to an assumption without evidence (or worse, in spite of evidence the assumption is wrong). It is not dogma to accept the inescapable conclusions of the evidence. And the inescapable conclusion of the evidence is that evolution from a universal common ancestor is a fact.

Deal with the evidence.

Then produce the evidence. You can't even prove what the first life form was or how it originated. Even if the usual guess is true, you cannot show genetically, how a single celled life form can produce all of the complex life forms we see today.

kermit

 

[Smidlee]

Another thing I find evolution unbelievable was pointed out in another thread. Evolutionists believes most of our DNA is junk. It seems evolutionist still thinks cells are simple blobs. They believe our cells have been keep so-called junk like ERV around millions of years yet somehow has the ability to rewired our brains so I can type on this thread . I believe the more we learn about cells the more complex they will become and less things are by chance.

 

[gluadys]

Just "descent with modification" who didn't know that. That's like saying gravity sucks.

Granted, it is a short and simple summary. But if you agree that descent with modification is a fact, you agree that evolution is a fact.

So next question: Can one population divide into two or more groups and each of them become a different modified descendant of the original population?

Plus the video is not what Darwin believed as he knew nothing about DNA, genetics, or the complexity of the cell.

I did not comment on the video. And the video said nothing contrary to the fact of evolution. We are learning that the process of evolution is very much more complicated that was thought back in the 1930s and this video is about some of the newest findings.

But when all is said and done about the process, the result is still descent with modification from a common ancestor. That is what is meant by the FACT of evolution.

You can repeat UCA is a fact all you want to but it doesn't make it true.

Correct. Nor do I expect that me repeating it will make it true. It is the evidence that makes it inescapably true, for it points to no other conclusion.

Another thing I find evolution unbelievable was pointed out in another thread. Evolutionists believes most of our DNA is junk. It seems evolutionist still thinks cells are simple blobs.

Wow! are you out of date! Were you unaware that Ken Miller is a cell biologist? I very much doubt he thinks cells are "simple blobs".

They believe our cells have been keep so-called junk like ERV around millions of years yet somehow has the ability to rewired our brains so I can type on this thread . I believe the more we learn about cells the more complex they will become and less things are by chance.

More misunderstanding. Evolution doesn't happen by chance and no scientist has said that it does. Natural selection is the contrary of chance. It has been thought that mutations to the genome happen by chance, but as that video suggests, this may not always be the case either.

A lot of opposition to evolution is rooted in claims about evolution that are false.

 

[gluadys]

Descent with modification is not supported by modern genetics.

Oh, it most certainly is. Genetics is one of the strongest fields of support for evolution.

No matter waht genes the parents have, they will never produce a kid that is not after its kind. That is geneticcally impossib le.

Quite true and totally consistent with evolution. Even modified descendants are still, always, members of the same clade as their ancestors. That is why we expect evolution to produce a tree-like phylogeny of nested hierarchies. There cannot be any jumping from one branch ("kind") to another, except at the level of recently-separated twigs where hybrids are still a possibility.

This is another example of someone being opposed to evolution because he believes it says something that it does not.

It is dogma when you cling to an assumption without evidence (or worse, in spite of evidence the assumption is wrong). It is not dogma to accept the inescapable conclusions of the evidence. And the inescapable conclusion of the evidence is that evolution from a universal common ancestor is a fact.

Deal with the evidence.

Then produce the evidence.

Sure. Here is a good place to start.

Evolution Basics: A New Introductory Course on Evolutionary Biology | The BioLogos Forum

There are 20 episodes in this series altogether and each is quite short.

Why don't you watch this one and comment on it? Then, if you like we can go on to others.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Papias

I don’t mean this as an attack, and I hope you don’t take it as such.

​

I sense frustration,

Because you fail to see basic facts even when presented and explained.

You are repeating several charges I have already answered,

Because your "answers" didn't address the basic problems pointed out, but usually simply repeated the error that led to my pointing it out in the first place.

so I ask that you please read all of the following carefully before you reply:

Sure, here goes:

1. I have never discussed UCA with a creationist,

Really? Being that UCA is the main point of contention with creationists, and being that I think it reasonable to think that in your whole life you've talked with creationists (being in the LCMS, which I pointed out is stated to be creationist in their official pronouncement), and since you repeated a number of creationist lines in the bulleted list, I find that hard to believe. Of course, I don't have evidence beyond that, so I guess we'll have to leave that as is unless you state otherwise.

Or are you saying that you never used the name "UCA" with creationists, even though they called it "evolution" at the time?

nor has anyone been feeding lines to me that UCA is in question.

Really? Being that you were raised in the LCMS, where they officially question UCA, and have repeated a number of UCA denial lines in the bulleted list, it seems clear that a person reading this thread will find that hard to believe.

The conclusions were mine, and the sequence is as follows: Theobald attempted a falsification test. That action literally "puts the idea to the test". I can send you to a thesarus where a synonym for "test" is "question", so I am perfectly justified in saying that a UCA falsification test questions UCA.

It sounds like you simply don't understand how science works. In science, nothing is disallowed for testing. Testing ideas that are well accepted is common.

Do you agree now that practically no biologists suspect that UCA is false?

2. A question is not an answer. The consensus seems to be that Theobald's test was insufficient to decide the point. Given the amount of discussion surrounding Theobald's work, I conclude his test raised a significant amount of interest. If you're going to disagree with that, you'll have to give me a number. In terms of number of words or number of papers published, at what point does the discussion become significant? Or give me a statement from a biologist that falsification tests are trivial (or from a physicist that the uncertainty principle is trivial).

You seem to be unaware of the amount of research being done in biology concerning evolution. Of over a million papers published every year, it would take at least hundreds to show that a subject has a significant amount of interest. That's not just hundreds total, that's hundreds every year.

Being that it's clear that there is practically zero interest in the work of theobald (because it's a useless test), I have to wonder why you are still talking about it.

Oh, maybe because it is brought up by creationists to try to suggest that UCA is not true? Being that this very paper is brought up and misrepresented to deny UCA, and it generated just about zero interest except among creationists, the very fact that you zeroed in on this suggests that you may be getting your information mainly from creationist sources. (such as this one: Todd's Blog: Testing universal common ancestry?, a creationist misrepresenting the work by theobald / Koonin). Coupled with the bulleted list, and being LCMS, don't you see how a reasonable person could come to that conclusion?

3. This discussion is about more than UCA. My original intention was to raise multiple points, so please don't confound everything I say as being related to UCA. UCA was point #1. I also mentioned issues of vague definitions, inductive arguments, and I've more recently raised the issue of methods for establishing cause. Yes, there is some overlap between these points, but I want to focus on them separately. If you no longer wish me to answer your questions about evidence, that's up to you.

OK, we can continue to cover them by number.

4. Please do not make my statements into broad, dogmatic proclamations akin to "creationist lies". It doesn't serve you well. Rather, it makes you appear dogmatic yourself and unwilling to admit that biologists have made mistakes in the past. I'll promise right here and now that I'm never going to trumpet "Ha! Gotcha!" in a post. Whether or not you ever concede a point to me is up to you.

Are you talking about the bulleted list?

I'm perfectly willing to agree that scientists have "made mistakes" in the past - are you perfectly willing to agree that these "mistakes" have been over conclusions that were not at all on the level of well proven facts like UCA?

So, now, WRT the Tree of Life I want to emphasize something I said in my last post. "Some creationists might try to make a big deal of that, but I think that misrepresents what is really being said." I understand the issue has been distorted, but I didn't expect this to be such a sore spot with you. I thought we were past that. As such, it appears I was too brief. I pointed specifically to Darwin's idea. I think Doolittle, amongst others, makes it clear other constructs (such as "webs") need to be used. So, maybe my phrase should have been that biologists have discarded the idea that the Darwinian tree of life is a comprehensive view of the relationships amongst life forms.

Except that any "web" is in the area before the last UCA of all animals, as I pointed out. So,

Do you or do you not agree that any of the "web of life" stuff only relates to the unicellular area of the tree, and has exactly zero effect on the idea that all the animals we see, including us, evolved from a single "trunk", a single -celled organism?

In other words, the model was at one time incomplete and it has changed. If you can't admit at least that much, then we are at an impasse.

I can "admit" that. Why is it relevant? All models change and improve over time.

5. We will also be at an impasse if you cannot see / will not admit how one discussion has implications for another. For example, if a paper is focused on parallel evolution, yet never mentions UCA, that does not mean the conclusions have no implications for UCA (and note I said implications for UCA, not rejection of UCA). If you can't see that, I have to question whether it's you and not me who lacks understanding.

OF course some discussions can be relevant to others, though I don't see any instances of that in your posts. I'm still waiting to hear if you have anything to say which is relevant to the idea that UCA is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

I said no such thing. Physics has articulated an uncertainty principle, so I don't think it is unreasonable to ask the same of other sciences.

Because the uncertainty principle is only relevant on sub-microscopic scales, and has no bearing on scales larger than that - and because biology doesn't operate on those scales, I have to wonder why you would expect biology to have an "uncertainty principle".

Neither do I think it unreasonable to ask you to demonstrate to me what you mean when you say some knowledge is unaccessible.

Will you be able to answer my question or won't you? I don't want more posts like this last one.

The last post offered a moment of clarity that can help you if you let it. I will certainly answer why I think some knowledge is inaccessible. I guess that because we find information whereever we look with our senses, and it seems possible that there are many senses we don't have and can't obtain, so it is possible that there is information that is inaccessible.

This is very relevant to our discussion because the question needs to be applied to the different types of evidence. When we have a fossil, what amount of material is needed to establish the animal from which it came?

Some fossils are well preserved, others are more fragmentary. From some we can establish a lot about the animal, from others, less. I'm not sure where you are going with that, since we have more than enough, complete enough, fossils to support UCA (which would be fully established even if we has exactly zero fossils anyway from other means).

What certainty is needed in the geology to establish sequencing of the animal with others?

I dont understand your question - please be more specific.

What fraction of known species are represented in the fossil record?

100%, obviously - because for a species to the known, it has to have a fossil or be exant. Do you mean "what fraction of all species that have ever lived are represented in the fossil record?"?

What does absence from the fossil record mean, if anything?

It means that taphonomy is real.

What I'm getting at is: What can the fossil record say by itself.

A lot. We have literally millions of fossils.

If we start to correlate the fossil record with other types of evidence, how dependent is the claim of cause on that correlation?
__________________

Oh, now I start to see why you are bringing up "correlation doesn't mean causation" - it's because you misunderstood that phrase.

The phrase "correlation doesn't mean causation" means that when two trends on a graph are correlated, the variables invovled are not necessesarily causally related.

That's not at the same thing (not even the same area of discussion) as to say that when two methods reach the same conclusion, they don't support each other. Of course they do. The first is statistical, the second is epistomological. The first relates to individual data points and trends, which the second relates to whole fields of study, often with literally trillions of data points.

I hope you realize that the statistical statement that "correlation doesn't mean causation" is not relevant to the agreement of inquiry methods as shown in 29+.

Do you?

Thanks-

Papias

 

[Resha Caner]

Really?

Yes, really. My discussions with creationists tend to be very short - something akin to:
"Do you accept evolution?"
"No."
"Cool."

You obviously know very little of the LCMS. As I mentioned, it is not a "salvation issue". The LCMS is heavily focused on ministering to people's spiritual and physical needs, and topics like this are rarely discussed. I can think of possibly 2 or 3 hours over the past 35 years where I discussed evolution in an LCMS setting.

I don't frequent creationist sites for 3 reasons:
1) I had a bad experience in college with a polemicist who used this issue for cover, and I haven't been much interested in such childish exchanges since. FYI, the vitriol is spewed by both sides.

2) I don't need comfort on issues like this. Sure, I have doubts about Christianity just like everyone else, but this issue isn't relevant to those doubts.

3) My discussions tend to be with evolutionists, most of whom dismiss creationist statements out of hand - without even a moment's consideration - whether that's fair or not. So, I draw my information from what evolutionists consider reliable. Sure, I run across creationist websites from time to time, but I rarely spend more than a minute reading them.

Oh, and FYI, as I've already mentioned, it was an evolutionist who gave me Theobald's paper along with some of those discussing its results.

It sounds like you simply don't understand how science works.

That's funny.

The phrase "correlation doesn't mean causation" means that when two trends on a graph are correlated, the variables invovled are not necessesarily causally related.

That's not at the same thing (not even the same area of discussion) as to say that when two methods reach the same conclusion, they don't support each other. Of course they do. The first is statistical, the second is epistomological. The first relates to individual data points and trends, which the second relates to whole fields of study, often with literally trillions of data points.

I hope you realize that the statistical statement that "correlation doesn't mean causation" is not relevant to the agreement of inquiry methods as shown in 29+.

Do you?

You've trivialized the meanings of correlation and causation to fit your purposes. It is more than a statistical statement as any treatment of the subject makes clear. But if you insist on reducing it to that, I would need to ask 2 things: 1) To provide me the functions and their variables for each type of evidence that shows an evolutionary trend so we can assess each statistically 2) Logically prove the method whereby the correlation of 2 different types of evidence increases the overall truth value (say with Bayesian methods).

OK, we can continue to cover them by number.

No thanks. If you haven't outright said it, you've insinuated that I'm lying about several things. Additionally, you've made it clear that if I disagree with you, in your opinion it means I don't understand science. Finally, you're using a blanket assertion to cover many of our brothers and sisters with the label of liar as well. I don't respond to such ad hominem techniques.

You have not yet demonstrated that you could properly represent my position without regressing to such tactics. Further, it appears to me that you approach the inductive arguments of biology that rest on extrapolation as if they were logically deductive arguments. Your apparent unwillingness to give that up renders this whole discussion pointless.

 

[Smidlee]

Granted, it is a short and simple summary. But if you agree that descent with modification is a fact, you agree that evolution is a fact.

I don't agree that just because "descent with modification" is true mean once a upon a time a reptile grow boobs and long hair.

So next question: Can one population divide into two or more groups and each of them become a different modified descendant of the original population?

Is it possible to change an ape DNA so he/she can build a rocket and send it to the moon? Can spider DNA eventually produce Spiderman?

I did not comment on the video. And the video said nothing contrary to the fact of evolution. We are learning that the process of evolution is very much more complicated that was thought back in the 1930s and this video is about some of the newest findings.

Process of the living cell and not evolution. I don't automatically give evolution the credit for everything we learn about the living cell.

But when all is said and done about the process, the result is still descent with modification from a common ancestor. That is what is meant by the FACT of evolution.

I amazing how you think it a fact when in the video we still have much to learn.

Wow! are you out of date! Were you unaware that Ken Miller is a cell biologist? I very much doubt he thinks cells are "simple blobs".

Ken Miller did think our cells that knows how to construct his brain is carrying around a pile of junk DNA for millions of years. The more we learn of the cell that less DNA looks like "junk"

More misunderstanding. Evolution doesn't happen by chance and no scientist has said that it does. Natural selection is the contrary of chance. It has been thought that mutations to the genome happen by chance, but as that video suggests, this may not always be the case either.

Here we go again using the "natural selection of gaps" to explain what we don't understand. Natural selection can only select and haven't shown to have any more ability than "man's selection". Those evolutionist who favors neutral evolution thinks natural selection can't select too much or it will remove too many good features.

Additionally, you've made it clear that if I disagree with you, in your opinion it means I don't understand science.

Bingo.

 

[gluadys]

I don't agree that just because "descent with modification" is true mean once a upon a time a reptile grow boobs and long hair.

Your disagreement is based on simple incredulity.
Boobs are modified sweat glands; hair is modified scales (same protein makes both depending on how the genes are expressed.)

Is it possible to change an ape DNA so he/she can build a rocket and send it to the moon?

Yes. That has happened.

Can spider DNA eventually produce Spiderman?

No, because spiders are arachnids and do not occur among the ancestors of vertebrates.

Process of the living cell and not evolution. I don't automatically give evolution the credit for everything we learn about the living cell.

The prerequisite condition for evolution is standing variation in the genome, and developing variation in the genome is a process which occurs in the living, replicating cell.

I amazing how you think it a fact when in the video we still have much to learn.

The two are not mutually inconsistent. Gravity is a fact about which we still have much to learn. So is evolution.

Ken Miller did think our cells that knows how to construct his brain is carrying around a pile of junk DNA for millions of years. The more we learn of the cell that less DNA looks like "junk"

Your original contention was that "evolutionists" still think the cell is a featureless blob. Are you withdrawing that false accusation?

Here we go again using the "natural selection of gaps" to explain what we don't understand. Natural selection can only select and haven't shown to have any more ability than "man's selection". Those evolutionist who favors neutral evolution thinks natural selection can't select too much or it will remove too many good features.
Bingo.

I don't know why you would think we don't understand natural selection. Or that it is not the only game in town.

Selection is what drives evolution. Just what do you think would happen in a population where there was no selection (not even random selection) of which mutations would be passed on to the next generation?

What would such a population look like?

 

[Smidlee]

Your disagreement is based on simple incredulity.
Boobs are modified sweat glands; hair is modified scales (same protein makes both depending on how the genes are expressed.)

My brain cells are modified skin cells and visa versa. Again put spider DNA into goat doesn't cause goats to shoot web out it's behind yet it will produce some of the web proteins in it's milk.

No, because spiders are arachnids and do not occur among the ancestors of vertebrates.

Don't forget evolutionist now believes in "The Bush" instead of Darwin's Tree because there are so many examples of species with same features and DNA that can't be explained by common ancestor.

The two are not mutually inconsistent. Gravity is a fact about which we still have much to learn. So is evolution.

Gravity is one of the four known forces while evolution is based on 5% facts and 95% story telling. There isn't much to learn about gravity except it sucks.

Your original contention was that "evolutionists" still think the cell is a featureless blob.

...Compared to what we will know in the future. The "Junk DNA" idea is already starting to come in doubt. Evolutionist still oversimplify the living cell so it can fit into their very simplistic evolution theory.

 

[gluadys]

Don't forget evolutionist now believes in "The Bush" instead of Darwin's Tree

Makes no difference. Arachnids and vertebrates are still on different branches. There are no spiders among the ancestors of vertebrates. But spiders and vertebrates do have a common ancestor among the earliest of animals.

because there are so many examples of species with same features and DNA that can't be explained by common ancestor.

Wrong on two counts. It is horizontal gene transfer that gives a web-like appearance to the inter-relationships of part of the universal tree--mostly among bacteria. The tree-like phylogenetic form is still the norm among eukaryotes. And UCA is still not in doubt even when including the bacteria.

Gravity is one of the four known forces while evolution is based on 5% facts and 95% story telling. There isn't much to learn about gravity except it sucks.

Actually, there is a lot to learn about gravity yet--such as what makes it work and how does it relate to the other fundamental forces.

...Compared to what we will know in the future.

You did not add that qualification earlier. Are you dropping the original accusation that scientists today still think the cell is a featureless blob? Tell me, who do you think discovered the organelles of the cell and its various structures and processes?

I note that you have not answered my question. What do you think a species would look like if nothing selected which mutations would survive and which would not?

 

[frogman2x]

Your disagreement is based on simple incredulity.
Boobs are modified sweat glands; hair is modified scales (same protein makes both depending on how the genes are expressed.)

Where's the evidence? That is a statement of necessary convience to give the faithful hope.

The prerequisite condition for evolution is standing variation in the genome, and developing variation in the genome is a process which occurs in the living, replicating cell.

The variation in the genome can only produce a variation in the species, like eye color. It cannot produce a different species.

Your original contention was that "evolutionists" still think the cell is a featureless blob. Are you withdrawing that false accusation?

What was the first cell and did it have the necessary genome to to produce a life form othere than what it was?

I don't know why you would think we don't understand natural selection. Or that it is not the only game in town.

The problems is that natural selection cannot be the mechanism for a change of species. The rabbit with the stronger legs may survive longer, but it is still a rabbit and its offsprings will still be rabbits and according to the gene pool, their kids may or may not hve the stronger legs.

Selection is what drives evolution. Just what do you think would happen in a population where there was no selection (not even random selection) of which mutations would be passed on to the next generation?

Right but selection can only apply to the gene pool of the parents and the kids will still be the exact same species as their parents. Their eye color or hair color may change, but not their species.


kermit

 

[frogman2x]

Oh, it most certainly is. Genetics is one of the strongest fields of support for evolution.

Not true. Genetics refute evolution. The offspring cannot have a characteristic for which one of the parents did not have a gene for.

Quite true and totally consistent with evolution. Even modified descendants are still, always, members of the same clade as their ancestors. That is why we expect evolution to produce a tree-like phylogeny of nested hierarchies. There cannot be any jumping from one branch ("kind") to another, except at the level of recently-separated twigs where hybrids are still a possibility.

This is what is confusing. If you can't jump from one branch to another, you can't get another specvies. How do you get a hybrid in humans?

This is another example of someone being opposed to evolution because he believes it says something that it does not.

Give us some credit. We were all taught at least the basics of evoluion in high school and or college. Certainly you are not suggeting the the scientists who reject evolution do not understand what evolution says.

Sure. Here is a good place to start.

Evolution Basics: A New Introductory Course on Evolutionary Biology | The BioLogos Forum

There are 20 episodes in this series altogether and each is quite short.

Why don't you watch this one and comment on it? Then, if you like we can go on to others.

I looked at the first 2 and all I saw was the usual evo rhetoric and no biological evidence. It seems all they ever say is we have this variety so it must have happened.

If the evo's guess is reight aboaut the irst life form, how did idt ever produce a kid with bones? It did not have bones, did not need bones to survive and did not have a gene for bones. The more complex the life form, the harder it is to explain, biologially of course.

kermit

 

[gluadys]

Where's the evidence? That is a statement of necessary convience to give the faithful hope.

The evolution of milk secretion and its ancient origins. [Animal. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

Just one of many actual scientific research papers on the origin of mammary glands.

The variation in the genome can only produce a variation in the species, like eye color. It cannot produce a different species.

Correct. That is why you cannot get evolution from variation (or mutations) alone. You need several mechanisms working together to produce a different species. But one must first have variation or there can be no evolution at all.

I think of variation as being like the fuel in a vehicle. Fill your tank with gas, and you still won't go anywhere without doing a few other things as well--such as starting the engine and releasing the brake.

But those other things won't get you anywhere either, if you don't have fuel in the tank.

So variation is where we begin the story of how creatures evolve.

What was the first cell and did it have the necessary genome to to produce a life form othere than what it was?

It doesn't particularly matter what the first cell was, so long as it had the capacity to replicate its genome and to do so with high, but not perfect fidelity. What scientists are searching for is not so much the first cell, but the last common ancestor of the current generation of living creatures.

Names are not much help at this stage, but it is called LUCA (last universal common ancestor).

Did it have the necessary genome to produce a life form other than what it was? Depends on how you view "life form". And at what point you start to define a variation as a different species. At some point the descendants of the LUCA divided into two groups; one became the Archaea, the other became the Bacteria. And everything else proceeds from these. Both groups have shown the capacity to develop numerous variations and to branch out into different species.

The problems is that natural selection cannot be the mechanism for a change of species. The rabbit with the stronger legs may survive longer, but it is still a rabbit and its offsprings will still be rabbits and according to the gene pool, their kids may or may not hve the stronger legs.

This is where you need more background in both genetics and evolution. Yes, all descendants of rabbits will be rabbits, according to the theory of evolution. They may come to look very different from other rabbits, but they will still have traces of being rabbits. All ancestors of rabbits, OTOH, were not rabbits. Rabbits themselves are part of a larger group and came into existence as their non-rabbit ancestors developed varying lineages that went their separate ways.

On the genetics side, if rabbits with stronger legs survive longer, they are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce--perhaps several times. So the genetic combination which gave them stronger legs will remain in the gene pool. (Are you sure you understand what a gene pool is?) It might be that some of one rabbit's children will have weaker legs, but the genes will still be there in other rabbits and in the siblings of those rabbits, and if the rabbits with stronger legs keep on having more surviving and reproducing offspring than others, that variant will keep spreading through the gene pool.

Right but selection can only apply to the gene pool of the parents and the kids will still be the exact same species as their parents. Their eye color or hair color may change, but not their species.

Parents do not have a gene pool. They have a genome. I think you had better learn the difference between gene, genome and gene pool.

Yes, all children are the same species as their parents. It takes much more than one generation (usually) for part of a population to become a different species. Speciation is usually a slow process of separating the population into non-breeding groups.

Not true. Genetics refute evolution. The offspring cannot have a characteristic for which one of the parents did not have a gene for.

Yes, it can. Remember that changes in genes occur usually occur as the genome is replicating. And the only changes that count for evolution are those that occur in the germ cells.

When you were conceived, you had two copies of your genome: one from your mother and one from your father. When the zygote from which you developed split into two cells, you then had four copies of your genome. And when those cells split, you then had eight. Now you have trillions of cells in your body and all of them have a copy of the genome you inherited from your father and a copy they inherited from your mother.

But, wait, copies of genomes are not always perfect copies. Many of your cells will not have an exact copy of the genome you got from your father. There will be differences. Same with the copies of the copies of the copies of the genome you originally got from your mother. So if you were to compare the DNA in one of your cells with the DNA in a different cell, the chances are that they would not exhibit the same DNA sequence in several respects.

Now, as your cells proliferated and acquired differences in the copied genomes, did you become a different species? Of course not. You are still you, even though some of your genes may show differences from cell to cell. No one cell has enough influence to make you a different species.

Now, this miscopying can also occur in your germ cells, especially if you are a man, because men produce new sperm cells continually (unlike women whose bodies make a fixed number of egg cells which only reproduce when mature). So it is very possible that the genome you bequeath to your children is not the same as the one you inherited from your father or mother.
And so it is possible that a child will have a characteristic which neither of its parents had.

This is what is confusing. If you can't jump from one branch to another, you can't get another specvies. How do you get a hybrid in humans?

Again, this shows complete confusion about the process of evolutionary change. You actually don't know what the theory of evolution really says about it. Yes, you can get another species without jumping from one branch to another--in the same way that a branch puts out two or more twigs and a twig puts out two or more leaves.

You can't get a hybrid in humans today, because there is only one species. Possibly in the future, if humans become few and widely separated from each other with no possible way to meet and interbreed, our species may divide into two or more separate species. Then there could be human hybrids.

It appears this was the case in the past. A sister group to H. sapiens was H. neanderthalensis. And some evidence suggests that there was some mating between the two groups.

Most new species do not occur through bringing two existing species together (hybridization) but through dividing one species into two or more groups that no longer interbreed with each other (speciation). I say most, because there are some instances, especially in plants, where new species have been produced via hybridization. So both scenarios are possible. However, it appears that most new species come about through cladistic speciation (one branch dividing into two).

To get back to our rabbits. At some point in mammalian history, the mammalian main branch produced a branch that we now call the rabbit branch. Since the first rabbit branch was produced, it has divided and sub-divided into hundreds of different families and genera and species of rabbits. But, as required by the theory of evolution, all descendants of that first group of rabbits remain rabbits. Yet there are many, many different species of rabbits. So there was no need for any rabbits to jump to a non-rabbit branch to make new species of rabbits.

Give us some credit. We were all taught at least the basics of evoluion in high school and or college. Certainly you are not suggeting the the scientists who reject evolution do not understand what evolution says.

Well, I assume you have been to high school and possibly college, yet there are clearly basics you do not understand. Now as to professional scientists, yes, I think they understand evolution. I don't think they reject it for scientific reasons. I admire Todd Wood for being up-front about this. He certainly understands evolution (has a PhD in paleontology from Harvard) and agrees that evolution, from a scientific perspective, is a well-supported theory. But he has chosen reject evolution because it is not compatible with his belief in a young earth--which he believes is the biblical teaching. So, his rejection is faith-based, not evidence-based. And whatever other scientists say, I think the same is ultimately true of them.

I looked at the first 2 and all I saw was the usual evo rhetoric and no biological evidence. It seems all they ever say is we have this variety so it must have happened.

I'll get back to you on this in another post.

If the evo's guess is reight aboaut the irst life form, how did idt ever produce a kid with bones? It did not have bones, did not need bones to survive and did not have a gene for bones. The more complex the life form, the harder it is to explain, biologially of course.

Hey, even the first multi-cellular life did not have bones, so, of course, the early unicellular life did not. But almost all cells have the capacity to secret minerals which can harden into bone or shell. Some do and some don't. You can be glad of that. After all, when you were a zygote, you did not have any bones either. So how did you get them?

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Resha

You obviously know very little of the LCMS. As I mentioned, it is not a "salvation issue".

We agree it's not a salvation issue, but as I showed back on post #99, the statements from the LCMS show that it's not ignored in the LCMS either.

I'm basing that on the LCMS "Belief and Practice" statements, which says the LCMS "believes, teaches, and confesses" evolution denial. Under "Evolution and Creation", it reads:

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believes,teaches
​

​

and confesses that Adam and Eve were real historic individuals

and that the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual,
not merely a “myth”or a “story”made up to explain the origin
of all things.
We would also be making a very serious error simply to
accept the theories of science without question.Many aspects
of evolutionary theory are directly contradictory to God’s
Word.Evolution cannot be “baptized”to make it compatible​

with the Christian faith.
​

Belief and Practice - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1103

The same statement paper also includes a lot of support for creationist ideas, says "directly contradictory", and relies on creationist sources.

The LCMS is heavily focused on ministering to people's spiritual and physical needs, and topics like this are rarely discussed.

If that were true, then why would the LCMS not only bother to make the whole position paper denying evolution, and then make it available in pamphlet form, distributed to churches for their pamphlet rack? That action speaks for itself. Look, I understand that you may have been in an unusual congregation, but I'm basing my guess here on the actions of the LCMS leadership, not on memories from one congregation or town.

Additionally, you've made it clear that if I disagree with you, in your opinion it means I don't understand science.

That's obviously a false accusation - just look back to post #125. I pointed out that you don't understand science because you were trying to say that because an idea is examined by experiment, that it must be in question. That's simply not the case in science, where well-established ideas are examined by experiment all the time. I pointed out that out not because you "disagreed with me", but because you were making an incorrect statement.

You've trivialized the meanings of correlation and causation to fit your purposes.

No, you are misapplying a statistical concept to an unrelated area. For instance, say in a murder trial that the fingerprint data from the gun matched the suspect (1), then the bullet scorings matched those in the barrel of that same gun (2), then the suspect's DNA was found in material under the victim's fingernails (3), then a security video showed the suspect shooting the victim (4), then a witness testified that they saw the suspect shoot the victim (5).

Now, all those lines of inquiry correlate with each other. The agreement of those lines of evidence does indeed make the conclusion that the suspect is guilty a stronger conclusion. The suspect cannot rationally say to the judge "but your honor, correlation is not causation!".

That's the case with UCA - many different lines of evidence (many more than 5) give the same conclusion. That's simply not a case of statistical correlation, and your thinking that the phrase "correlation isn't causation" applies to convergent lines of evidence is simply a fantasy.

1) To provide me the functions and their variables for each type of evidence that shows an evolutionary trend so we can assess each statistically

You are clearly unaware of the magnitude of research showing evolution, as I pointed out. If we went to this on the bare evidence level, not only would we have to look at hundreds of thousands of papers, but we would literally not be able to read them as fast as they are being produced, every day, every week, right now.


2) Logically prove the method whereby the correlation of 2 different types of evidence increases the overall truth value (say with Bayesian methods).

As before, it's not that they show the same trend (statistics), it's that they give the same qualitative conclusion. Please see my example, and imagine the defendant saying "But your honor, the prosecution didn't use Bayesian methods! I should go free!"

Finally, you're using a blanket assertion to cover many of our brothers and sisters with the label of liar as well. I don't respond to such ad hominem techniques.

Pointing out the many times and ways that YEC's have lied using the same exact examples you are bringing up is not an ad hominem. If you'd like to go over specific cases, looking at the argument and not the person, we can do that.

You have not yet demonstrated that you could properly represent my position without regressing to such tactics.

When you refuse to answer direct questions, it can be hard to figure out what your "position" is. For instance, here are some questions you ignored from the previous post, which would help me understand your "position":

Do you agree now that practically no biologists suspect that UCA is false?

I'm perfectly willing to agree that scientists have "made mistakes" in the past - are you perfectly willing to agree that these "mistakes" have been over conclusions that were not at all on the level of well proven facts like UCA?


Do you or do you not agree that any of the "web of life" stuff only relates to the unicellular area of the tree, and has exactly zero effect on the idea that all the animals we see, including us, evolved from a single "trunk", a single -celled organism?

Further, it appears to me that you approach the inductive arguments of biology that rest on extrapolation as if they were logically deductive arguments. Your apparent unwillingness to give that up renders this whole discussion pointless.

No, I'm simply asking you to explain what you mean - along with the blue questions above. Do you seriously think that all the evidence at 29+ is "extrapolation"?

A problem here is that you continue to make implications, and then refuse to back them up. Imagine that I kept saying things like
"Astronomers today have discarded Copernicus' sun-centered solar system.", or
"I don't see how anyone could think that heliocentrism is proven, after all, we all know that scientists have made mistakes in the past.", or
"the fact that scientists are experimenting on gravity shows that they suspect that Newton's gravitational theory is wrong."

Would you not call me on those silly and harmful statements? I hope you would. Would you not get frustrated if I avoided a direct answer, and kept on making similarly baseless implications (see the bulleted list)?

I think you would. I think that's what a rational human being would do.

What do you think?

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[Smidlee]

The evolution of milk secretion and its ancient origins. [Animal. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

Just one of many actual scientific research papers on the origin of mammary glands.

Here is one of many article that assume evolution is true then add a butch of other assumptions to back the first assumption.

"Comparative analyses of the evolutionary origin of milk constituents support a scenario in which these secretions evolved into a nutrient-rich milk long before mammals arose."
Since not only boobs doesn't fossilized well I'm sure milk is even harder to find in the fossil record. Of course all this is build upon the idea Evolution is the gospel truth. This is why evolutionist don't want anyone to doubt evolution in schools. If you don't assume evolution (UCD) is true then you will find the evidence is extremely weak and mostly build upon human opinions and ideas. That's the way it was with Darwin's tree of life, it only existed in text books.

1)"Mammary glands probably evolved from apocrine-like glands that combined multiple modes of secretion and developed in association with hair follicles."
2)"Mammary glands probably didn't evolved from apocrine-like glands that combined multiple modes of secretion and developed in association with hair follicles.

Which probability is more likely and how would you determine the odds.

Of course evolutionist doesn't use "probability" as to question evolution, they defend that dogmatically, they use "probably" because they know it likely their idea will be overthrown by another idea in the future which happen often.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't understand what you hope to accomplish by discussing the LCMS. Are you claiming you know my synod better than I know it myself? My experiences extend beyond my local congregation, while your citations indicate that you are ascribing an authority and reach that is not the case.

This all stems from a comment I made that I hadn't discussed UCA with other creationists. I still stand by that statement ... as well as my statements about the positions of the LCMS. If you really want to get into a discussion of LCMS church governance, that needs a separate thread.

That's obviously a false accusation - just look back to post #125. I pointed out that you don't understand science because you were trying to say that because an idea is examined by experiment, that it must be in question. That's simply not the case in science, where well-established ideas are examined by experiment all the time. I pointed out that out not because you "disagreed with me", but because you were making an incorrect statement.

You've shifted the goalposts by changinmg the word from "question" to "examine". Is there a difference in a test that "examines" an idea vs. one that "questions" it? What is a falsification test?

No, you are misapplying a statistical concept to an unrelated area.

Are you going to claim that the concepts of "cause" and "correlation" are never used in science except when statistics are being applied?

That's the case with UCA - many different lines of evidence (many more than 5) give the same conclusion.

List them for me please.

Pointing out the many times and ways that YEC's have lied using the same exact examples you are bringing up is not an ad hominem.

First, you're shifting the goalposts again. Your statement said "creationist lies"; not all creationists are YEC. Second, lying is different from ignorance and incredulity. So please explain to me what distinguishes these 3 things: lying, ignorance, and incredulity.

Third, whether or not my arguments are similar to other creationists is mere coincidence. Either state openly that you think I'm lying - that I've pulled these ideas from creationist writing - or drop it ... though actually doesn't it seem logical that those holding a creationist position would hold similar views, and, thereby make similar arguments - even if they haven't consulted wih each othe? I would think so. Yet I will still maintain that my arguments differ from the "lies" you have claimed here. That you can't see the dfference between what I'm arguing and what you think to be "creationist lies" is most definitely frustrating.

When you refuse to answer direct questions ....

I have not refused. Have you accepted my terms?

 

[gluadys]

First, you're shifting the goalposts again. Your statement said "creationist lies"; not all creationists are YEC. Second, lying is different from ignorance and incredulity. So please explain to me what distinguishes these 3 things: lying, ignorance, and incredulity.

Third, whether or not my arguments are similar to other creationists is mere coincidence. Either state openly that you think I'm lying - that I've pulled these ideas from creationist writing - or drop it ... though actually doesn't it seem logical that those holding a creationist position would hold similar views, and, thereby make similar arguments - even if they haven't consulted wih each othe? I would think so. Yet I will still maintain that my arguments differ from the "lies" you have claimed here. That you can't see the dfference between what I'm arguing and what you think to be "creationist lies" is most definitely frustrating.

Oh, this can be a whole can of worms. Here is part of an interesting article on the whole problem of when is a lie not a lie, or a person who tells a lie not a liar.


British Centre for Science Education: Is it lying if you don't know you are wrong?

It is not true that all creationists are actively lying about science. To accuse the majority of lying is not only wrong but unhelpful and liable to alienate them from real arguments favouring evolution. It is more likely that some people are unaware of evolutionary science but hear creationist views, believe them and pass on scientific distortions.

[snip]

Most people are not scientists and cannot be expected to be aware of all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints of evolutionary science. And of course we shouldn't just believe scientists either. Good scientists should welcome questioning and an exploration of their evidence. Those who previously believed in creationism but have engaged with this abundance of scientific evidence and changed their minds should be applauded as should those who are willing to even consider the evidence. For while technically you can believe and argue creationism has scientific merit without lying, you cannot do so without being wrong.

PS Shane is a BCSE member.



Let me take you at your word.
The similarity of your arguments to those of creationists is a matter of coincidence. Without consulting them, you happened to come up with some similar questions. That is certainly possible.

We can also add that most of those who present creationist arguments are not intentionally lying. Whether they are repeating the arguments they have gleaned from others, or, like yourself, have come up with them independently, they believe the arguments are valid.

But does a lie cease to be a lie if a person doesn't know it is a lie?

That last question takes the focus away from the person and puts it on the content of what is being said.

I think you would agree that if the content is untrue, it remains untrue, even if the speaker/writer is unaware that it is untrue.


I would say the term "creationist lies" refers to the content of what is presented, not necessarily to the person or persons presenting it. Especially when the person presenting it came up with the idea independently of creationist influence.

 

[Resha Caner]

So, you just couldn't stay out of it, huh? You two make an interesting tag team. Me - I don't work so well in groups. I've wondered who is still listening. Specifically, I've wondered if Clairvoyance still reads this or if she gave up long ago.

It is not true that all creationists are actively lying about science. To accuse the majority of lying is not only wrong but unhelpful and liable to alienate them from real arguments favouring evolution.

This is nearly a general truth to which both sides of any argument should pay heed.

Most people are not scientists and cannot be expected to be aware of all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints of evolutionary science. And of course we shouldn't just believe scientists either. Good scientists should welcome questioning and an exploration of their evidence.

Yep. Thanks for noting this.

Let me take you at your word.

And thanks again.

But does a lie cease to be a lie if a person doesn't know it is a lie?

An interesting hypothetical, but I'm not sure it has much of a useful application.

I think you would agree that if the content is untrue, it remains untrue, even if the speaker/writer is unaware that it is untrue.

I was trying to leave Papias to make his own definitions since he originated the phrase in this thread. However, since the cat is out of the bag, I will say I agree with the spirit of your comment. I just see a moral difference between a "lie" and an "untruth". I consider lying to be an intent to deceive - something that is mighty hard to prove. An untruth can be propagated by someone who is ignorant of their error.

But I noted yet a third category: the incredulous, which is yet again something entirely different. So, let me ask you this: What do you make of someone who says, "I have no philosophy."?

 

[gluadys]

So, you just couldn't stay out of it, huh? You two make an interesting tag team.

Oh, it's just that I had that article on hand and couldn't resist citing it. I am trying to leave the science to Papias.

Specifically, I've wondered if Clairvoyance still reads this or if she gave up long ago.

And maybe she is a fascinated lurker.

I consider lying to be an intent to deceive - something that is mighty hard to prove. An untruth can be propagated by someone who is ignorant of their error.

I agree. Just be aware that some of us have heard the same untruths over and over and over again. We know they are widely propagated. So it is natural to react to them as not being independently arrived at. That may be unfair to you.

But I noted yet a third category: the incredulous, which is yet again something entirely different. So, let me ask you this: What do you make of someone who says, "I have no philosophy."?

I would say it is a naive claim.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would say it is a naive claim.

That's a good way to put it. So, what is your philosophy of science? I realize that question could prompt a dissertation, but a brief summary would be preferred if that's possible.