Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
Just "descent with modification" who didn't know that. That's like saying gravity sucks.
Plus the video is not what Darwin believed as he knew nothing about DNA, genetics, or the complexity of the cell.
You can repeat UCA is a fact all you want to but it doesn't make it true.
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.
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.
gluadys said: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 are repeating several charges I have already answered,
so I ask that you please read all of the following carefully before you reply:
1. I have never discussed UCA with a creationist,
nor has anyone been feeding lines to me that UCA is in question.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
What certainty is needed in the geology to establish sequencing of the animal with others?
What fraction of known species are represented in the fossil record?
What does absence from the fossil record mean, if anything?
What I'm getting at is: What can the fossil record say by itself.
If we start to correlate the fossil record with other types of evidence, how dependent is the claim of cause on that correlation?
__________________
Really?
It sounds like you simply don't understand how science works.
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?
OK, we can continue to cover them by number.
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.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.
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?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?
Process of the living cell and not evolution. I don't automatically give evolution the credit for everything we learn about the living 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.
I amazing how you think it a fact when in the video we still have much to learn.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.
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"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".
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.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.
Bingo.Additionally, you've made it clear that if I disagree with you, in your opinion it means I don't understand science.
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.
Yes. That has happened.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?
Process of the living cell and not evolution. I don't automatically give evolution the credit for everything we learn about the living cell.
I amazing how you think it a fact when in the video we still have much to learn.
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"
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.
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.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.)
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.No, because spiders are arachnids and do not occur among the ancestors of vertebrates.
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.The two are not mutually inconsistent. Gravity is a fact about which we still have much to learn. So is evolution.
...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.Your original contention was that "evolutionists" still think the cell is a featureless blob.
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.
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.
...Compared to what we will know in the future.
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.)
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.
Your original contention was that "evolutionists" still think the cell is a featureless blob. Are you withdrawing that false accusation?
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?
Oh, it most certainly is. Genetics is one of the strongest fields of support for evolution.
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.
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.
Where's the evidence? That is a statement of necessary convience to give the faithful hope.
The variation in the genome can only produce a variation in the species, like eye color. It cannot produce a different species.
What was the first cell and did it have the necessary genome to to produce a life form othere than what it was?
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.
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.
Not true. Genetics refute evolution. The offspring cannot have a characteristic for which one of the parents did not have a gene for.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Additionally, you've made it clear that if I disagree with you, in your opinion it means I don't understand science.
You've trivialized the meanings of correlation and causation to fit your purposes.
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
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.
Here is one of many article that assume evolution is true then add a butch of other assumptions to back the first assumption.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.
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.
No, you are misapplying a statistical concept to an unrelated area.
That's the case with UCA - many different lines of evidence (many more than 5) give the same conclusion.
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.
When you refuse to answer direct questions ....
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.
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.
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.
Let me take you at your word.
But does a lie cease to be a lie if a person doesn't know it is a lie?
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.
So, you just couldn't stay out of it, huh? You two make an interesting tag team.
And maybe she is a fascinated lurker.Specifically, I've wondered if Clairvoyance still reads this or if she gave up long ago.
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."?
I would say it is a naive claim.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?