Why is evolution unbelievable?

[Papias]

Hi Resha -

It sounds like we may mostly agree on this point. We agree that around 1/4 to 1/3 of scientists are theists, while practically zero are YEC or deny UCA.


That means that a significant chunk are theists - so the belief in God is still very much an open question, while UCA is not disputed.

But the number is not exactly zero. If you think I've agreed that the number of biologists who question UCA is exactly zero, then you were mistaken. It's small.....

And completely irrelevant. That's because scientists are human beings. There are literally dozens of millions of scientists, so even completely crackpot ideas (say, that are so silly that only a hundredeth of a percent of people believe them), are going to have (0.0001 X 50,000,000 = 5,000) thousands of scientists that have them.

A common YEC talking point is to point out this or that scientist who doubts UCA, and use that to suggest that there is significant doubt in UCA, or even that the support for the idea of UCA is decreasing over time. Both of those are laughably false. That's the misleading YEC falsehood that it almost sounds like you are making. And, it is often an effective way to mislead people, because many people are not used to dealing with large and small numbers - so they think that finding a few nutcases actually means something.

Now, based on our previous discussion, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you aren't making that misleading suggestion - which makes my wonder why you are, in the first place, focusing on the rare scientist who doubts UCA?

my comment was meant to draw attention to the correlation between belief in evolution, atheism, and science. Now, of course correlation is not causation , but correlation is a good prompting to look for causation.

Well, sure. I don't know why that would be, but to me, it suggests that we need to do a better job of showing everyone how science is consistent with Christianity - instead of the science denial and obstant ignorance we too often see coming from some Christians.

As long as we tolerate that, we only drive out those intelligent enough to think for themselves, perhaps leading to these data, which can explain all the correlations of decreased Christianity among scientists, since scientist are more intelligent, on average, than the overall population:


Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades - Science - News - The Independent


Papias

P.S. Also, the data that sfs presented cannot be the cause of the data I presented above, because the % of the population who are scientists is too small to account for the trend shown above.

 

[gluadys]

The response I usually get from the atheist scientists here at CF is that they didn't presume atheism and then pursue science to justify it, but that it was the other way round - pursuing evidence using a scientific method led them to atheism. I'm not sure I believe that, but it gains nothing to poke at such a claim. So, I'd be curious about the breakdown of belief - not as an aggregate - but within the scientific community. Is atheism highest among biologists and lowest somewhere else or is it evenly spread? If so, is there a particular science that leads people to conclusions of atheism ... or are atheists just drawn to a particular science? If it seems centered on a particular science, why? And if we would say that people qualified in one science are not qualified in another (physicists are not biologists), what would that say about the "knowledge" such a science gathers WRT theistic issues?

This is also something I have taken an interest in. My conclusion is that it leaves out a significant factor. Scientific method alone would not, IMO, lead to atheism, but when scientific method leads one to conclude from the evidence something which contradicts one's beliefs about what God would or would not do (or what scripture says God did), then one is put in a situation of choosing between one's theological view, however vague, inarticulate, even subconscious it might be, and one's scientific conclusions.

When I look at the reasons people give for being atheist, there are two that stand out and both have theological implications.

One is "no evidence for God". Obviously, the person putting up this argument expects evidence of a certain kind, the sort a scientist looks for, to indicate the existence of God. This view is also normally accompanied with the unspoken assumption that "natural" = "without God". It is basically an extension of the Deist view of God consigning his great clockwork machine to secondary causes which operate automatically with no need for intervention. "no evidence for God" then comes down to "no evidence of an intervention or break in the process of natural cause and effect."

But where did they get the idea that natural cause and effect in and of itself excludes God and is not in and of itself evidence of God? The latter is clearly the biblical view as it constantly ascribes natural processes to God and Paul gives this as the reason those without the law are still guilty before God since they have rejected the witness of creation itself.

So this argument comes across to me as not being a necessary consequence of a scientific method of investigating evidence, but of a deficient theology about the interrelationship of God to the natural process of cause and effect. It is widespread because the clockwork model of the universe was the preponderant view in science for a long time, and is still a common worldview. (Ken Miller says biologists haven't caught up yet with the physicists and the implications of quantum reality for biology.)

The other most common argument for atheism that I see is moral: I can't believe in a God who would permit---(some form of suffering, or animal suffering in general.) Interestingly, this is the same reason often put forward for rejecting evolution. "I can't believe God would use a process that depends on death and suffering." Darwin famously doubted that God could intentionally design the nurturing of parasitic wasp larvae which feed on the living body of the caterpillar in whose flesh their eggs were deposited.

Whether the moral argument is used to reject evolution or to reject design or to reject God has nothing really to do with science or its methods. It is simply the classic problem of theodicy. How do we believe in a good God when there is so much in the world that is not good? The biologist has a particularly close view of much that we would define as "natural evil" and so a particularly strong motivation to reject a belief in the goodness of any divinity. For some it is much easier to accept such realities if one denies the existence of any god who should be making things right.

We also cannot overlook the impact of mentors on younger scientists. In his book, The Language of God, Francis Collins says that he never really gave any thought to atheism. It was simply so ingrained in the worldview of his teachers that he took it as self-evident.

 

[McMatt]

This is a typical response---they have fins and a blowhole so it must have happened.

Of course it happened. The grew them because thieir parents had the gene for fins and a blowhole. You know it's that old "after it kind" thing.

What you have to explain is how a dog-like animal with no gene for fins and a blowhole produced a kid with those characteristisc.

Maybe just wading around in the water for a gazillion years will do it.

kermit

In a nutshell yes lol. The long answer would be slow environmental changes that aren't immediately threatening to said species and that animal adapts to those changes over time

 

[Resha Caner]

One is "no evidence for God". Obviously, the person putting up this argument expects evidence of a certain kind, the sort a scientist looks for, to indicate the existence of God. This view is also normally accompanied with the unspoken assumption that "natural" = "without God". It is basically an extension of the Deist view of God consigning his great clockwork machine to secondary causes which operate automatically with no need for intervention. "no evidence for God" then comes down to "no evidence of an intervention or break in the process of natural cause and effect."

But where did they get the idea that natural cause and effect in and of itself excludes God and is not in and of itself evidence of God?

It seems we've both had conversations like this - the logical conundrums created by a physicalist view which many struggle to see. I call it the "exclusion problem" (and I think something similar happens WRT evolution), where a proponent of a view insists upon certain unprovables that a priori exclude the very issue being discussed.

So this argument comes across to me as not being a necessary consequence of a scientific method of investigating evidence, but of a deficient theology about the interrelationship of God to the natural process of cause and effect.

I would agree, but it is an excrutiatingly difficult problem to tackle. From the LCMS view, it is the work of the Spirit to remove those roadblocks. And, while I agree, one challenge I set for myself was to try to approach problems like this using methods they will accept. Sometimes it seems I make minor progress, but usually it goes nowhere.

The biologist has a particularly close view of much that we would define as "natural evil" and so a particularly strong motivation to reject a belief in the goodness of any divinity.

An early conclusion from sfs' link would indicate that biologists do indeed have higher rates of atheism (That phrasing makes it sound like a disease, doesn't it?) It appears the authors intend to pursue many of the questions asked here, so it will be interesting to follow them.

We also cannot overlook the impact of mentors on younger scientists. In his book, The Language of God, Francis Collins says that he never really gave any thought to atheism. It was simply so ingrained in the worldview of his teachers that he took it as self-evident.

Yep. There is an excellent history of science book by Frederick Gregory, and he touches on some of the institutional issues of science ... the difficulty of outsiders breaking in* ... which is largely intentional and viewed as a good thing. It produces stability, which makes things feel more true.

*The argument for a "Russian" version of evolution seems well known, and is used for various polemic reasons, but the arguments for French and German versions of evolution seem less well known ... I mean, we can't let that Englishman Darwin get all the credit!

 

[Resha Caner]

The other theological option is that free will is real, and so the future is at least partially open and non-predetermined.

Oh no. You're not a proponent of open theism are you?

The BA in history isn't required to focus on anything, but I did anyway. I focused on the history of science, and worked closely with several professors who specialized in that area. So, I'm fairly familiar with it. In fact, I'm trying to get admitted to an MA program as we speak.

A related side fascintation of mine is philosophy, and I've focused quite closely on some of the "big" questions: theodicy, etc. So, I'm also familiar with eternalism, Molinism, open theism, etc. I worked out my own solutions such problems only to find them very similar to Alan Padgett ... and then found it even more fascinating that Padgett is a Lutheran.

But let's bring in a theistic view. Again, one possibility is that God determines the indeterminacies. What is pure accident materially, can still be an event which God willed and set into motion. (Material indeterminism overruled by theistic determinism.) This would fit your impression of my position so far.

Yet, again, God may simply allow the accident to happen, and then either choose or not choose to use it as a means to accomplishing other purposes, weaving it into the future in an improvisational way.

I don't disagree with this, but let me add one element that I think you left out (your response was rather long, so maybe you said this and I missed it). When God decides to allow us free will (or to allow "nature" to be random), He does so because he has calculated all possible outcomes and determined that randomness will not prevent His will. So, when the Christ was prophesied, it became a fact that it would happen. God had calculated all the possibilities, and nothing could happen to prevent it - not even the random possibilities He had released from his control.

Such is true of all prophecy. If God says He did it, He did it. It wasn't just a happy accident that coincidentally fulfilled His purpose.

When God doesn't send a prophecy, we don't know which is the case. We don't know if it was a good that He willed or an evil that he turned to his purposes - if it was determined or random.

But when He does send prophecy, we do know. We have Genesis 1:25, so it is not unknown to us.

Yes, the totality of all existing organisms is vast, but far from infinite.

Replacing "organisms" with "possible particle states" I'm not sure, so I'm not ready to make that conclusion.

What is the Lutheran take on predestination?

Well (cough) now you've put me in a tough spot. While I accept the spirit of what the Confessions say about predestination, I think the form of the explanation to be rather silly. Lutherans reject the Reformed position as "double predestination". They say that God predestines people to heaven (single predestination), but not to hell (double predestination). The sticking point comes because of the fact that Scripture actually uses the word predestination.

So, that's the "offical" position, but I prefer to word it differently. I think people misunderstand the Scriptural meaning of the word predestination. Oddly enough, my wife, who is a much more radically conservative Confessional Lutheran than I am agrees with me on this one - even though she rejects all my other peculiar speculations.

The simple way to put my view is that God calls everyone at some point in their life, but we have the freedom to reject that call ... though I'm sure you'll put me on a hook and keep me wriggling until you tease out all the details.

Deleterious effects of evolution? of natural selection?
I wonder what examples you are thinking of.

I've mentioned a few before such as predation. Disease would be another. I don't know that I've compiled an exhaustive list, but I would conclude from passages like Leviticus 26 that if there were no disobedience (no sin), the mentioned calamities would not happen. As such, before sin (before the Fall) they didn't happen.

I am going to bookmark that article for closer study, but a quick perusal suggests that it is a good place to start. I like that he is basing his assessment on Mayr's analysis of evolution. You might like to check out Mayr's primer on the topic as well. It's a short book called What Evolution Is.

Evolution is a complex theory and does embrace, as Mayr suggests, several sub-theories, so it is not surprising that definition is not easy.

I've skimmed Mayr, but never read the whole thing. Yes, the more I read Bock the more I liked him. He also referenced an article that has a very provocative title because it seems headed toward making the same argument that I am. It was called, "Evolution Is Not a Necessary Assumption of Cladistics" by Brower. Now Bock rejects what Brower is saying (and it appears almost everyone else has as well), but because of the exclusion fallacy I mentioned earlier.

Basically, they need to incorporate mechanisms that successfully predict the observed distributions in time and space of organisms and their genes.

Well, OK, maybe you need more time to read Bock and Brower because I'm basically saying you don't need to presume evolution to sculpt these models.

In the same way the scientists who are not atheists do.

Oh, sure. I wasn't trying to imply one is more honest or more objective than the other. I was asking what reasons you think cause people to make these distinctions ... and you did in your other post.

IMO there is a sense in which no one is purely objective. As such, I think being objective in science means being aware of your philsophical prejudices and staying true to their implications as they are embodied in method. I'm not sure how many people really do that.

 

[frogman2x]

A survey of scientific faculty at major research universities found that 25% believed in God some or all of the time, while 67% were atheists or agnostics. A follow-up, more detailed survey of a substantial portion of the respondents found that 0% gave any credence to creationism or Intelligent Design.

To say that 0% gave no credence to craionism or ID is nonsense. Check the faculty at ICR and you quickly see that comment is not valid.

However the percentage is not important. It is a red herring to distractd from the real discussion. Where is the scientific evidence for evolution? You have none. You belive by faith alone just as I do, but I have more logic on my side than you do. You can't edxplain how all of the matter in the universe created itself out of nothing.

You can't explain how life began. You don't even know what the first life form was.

I can prove "after its kind," and you can't prove even one thing the ToE preaches.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

Apparently, you only read titles. Even in this abstract there is a summary of what caused it to happen. Since you didn't look at it, here it is.

A variety of antimicrobial and secretory constituents were co-opted into novel roles related to nutrition of the young. Secretory calcium-binding phosphoproteins may originally have had a role in calcium delivery to eggs; however, by evolving into large, complex casein micelles, they took on an important role in transport of amino acids, calcium and phosphorus. Several proteins involved in immunity, including an ancestral butyrophilin and xanthine oxidoreductase, were incorporated into a novel membrane-bound lipid droplet (the milk fat globule) that became a primary mode of energy transfer. An ancestral c-lysozyme lost its lytic functions in favor of a role as α-lactalbumin, which modifies a galactosyltransferase to recognize glucose as an acceptor, leading to the synthesis of novel milk sugars, of which free oligosaccharides may have predated free lactose. An ancestral lipocalin and an ancestral whey acidic protein four-disulphide core protein apparently lost their original transport and antimicrobial functions when they became the whey proteins β-lactoglobulin and whey acidic protein, which with α-lactalbumin provide limiting sulfur amino acids to the young.

That is the typical evo mumb-jumbo that just presents a lot of comments with absolutely no evidence that is a mechanism for evolution. IOW it must have happened becaue her it is.

For more detail, and to discover how they learned this, you would need to read the complete paper.

If what you just posted is an example of the rest of it, I have better things I can waste my time on.

Well, that is variation. And I already covered how it can happen that a trait not found in Mum or Dad can appear in a child. What did you not understand in that explanation?

I understood what you said, but you are wrong. For a child to receive a characteristic, one or both parents, and this can go back several generations, MUST have a gene for the characteristic. TGeneticvally speaking,l it is not possible. This another example of you saying something happened but your explanation is not scientific.

If it did not have the capacity to replicate its genome, it was not the first life-form. It was something else than a living organism. All life-forms have the capacity to replicate their genome. That is a basic definition of life and if something doesn't meet that definition, it is not a life-form at all. So, the first life-form did have a capacity to replicate its genome, because it was a life-form.

Of course life forms have the capacity to replicate its gnome and that is all they have. They cannot replicat the genome of a different life-form.

Right, and it also had the capacity to vary its genome as it replicated. So, it could become the ancestor of different life-forms.

It does not have the capacity to vary its genome. That is controled by the gene pool. I hoep you are not suggesting that a change in eye color its parents did not have is a different life form.

I told you: Archaea and Bacteria.

And I told you that archaea remaining archaes and bacteria remaiing bacteria does not qualify as evolving into a different species.

Correct. And several such mechanisms have been observed and studied.

Name a couple with the biological eviddence to support them.

You are showing again that you do not know the meaning of "gene pool".

Or you don't

Yes, offspring are always the same species as their parents. That is good evolutionary thinking.

If that is always true, and of course it is, how can we ever get a new species?

Evolution is in 1) the origin of rabbits from non-rabbits,

You just said the offspring is the same species as its parents, so how can a non-rabbit ever become a rabbit?

and 2) the proliferation of different species of rabbits.

Prolifeation is not a mechanism for a a change in species.

No, I said all descendants of rabbits will be rabbits. But the ancestors of rabbits were not rabbits.

You just said all offspring are the same species of it parents. This is another exampel of you making a dogmantic statement but have offered no evidence for it.

Then why do you keep using the term improperly? Understanding the gene pool is necessary to understanding evolution.

I do undertand it. Apparently you do not. Lets settel this. Define gene pool.



There you go again. "Gene pool of the parents" makes no sense. Kids can have a gene that neither parent had. That is an observed fact. No amount of ranting and raving with make it not a fact. [/QUOTE]

You are the one ranting and raving, not me. Kids cannot have gene that is not somewher in the paretns genetic history. It may be a gene from grandparents that has been recessive for a number of generations but it is still in the gene pool.

Again you have made a dogmatic statement for which you have offered no evidence.

It is a mechanism which in concert with other mechanisms can produce new species. The various mechanisms have to work together.

Wonderful, name a couple and how they work together.

Mutations alone produce variation, but not evolution.

right.

Of course and that is why I came out homo-sapian and why my son is homo-sapian and why his childeren are homosapian. It provoes "after its kind."

You missed the point entirely. I am not talking about you being different from your father or son. I am talking about the genome in one cell of your body being different from the genome in another cell of your body, even though both of them trace their ancestry back to the genome you received from your father originally. That original genome you received from your father has given rise to a variety of genomes in your different cells. Ditto with the genome you originally received from your mother.

Another statement for which you offer no evidence. the only gnome any cell in my body is the only gnome it has ever been and will evr be.

Again, that is a completely different topic. What I am getting at is that your own genome varies in different cells of your own body. That variation is not inherited from your parents. It comes about in you as your own cells reproduce.

Do you ever present the evidence for what you say?

No, I haven't and I would not expect too. But in the phylogenetic tree, the twig that represents an oak tree can produce two leaves that are two different species of oak tree.

It cannot. Leaves do not detemine the tree, the seeds do and they will alwys produce after it kind.

Just as with rabbits, all descendants of the first oak tree will be other oak trees. Did you know that there are 600 different species of oak trees?

I did not know that but it is irrelevant. The acorns from each varity will only producue the same variety.

Ancestry is a different matter. While all descendants will be more species of oak trees, ancestors of the earliest oak trees were not oaks.

The offer the evidence. That is rally an absurd idea.

And it is possible the non-oak ancestor of oak trees and the non-elm ancestor of elm trees were one and the same species.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Not true. That was a hypothesis at one time, but DNA analysis showed they were not the same species, although they were closely related.

Thats not true. If the DNA was the same, it woudl be the same.

Current evidence points to an animal called Gomphus, or one of several very similar mammals from about 55 million years ago. Gomphos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is the evidence?

Sorry if it sounds that way, but when you make a glaring error like the one just above, you clearly do not understand the basics of evolution. You think evolution means the opposite of what it really means.

I know exactly what it means and I am begining to doubt if you do.

When you can use 'gene pool' correctly I will begin to believe you understand genetics.

If you ever come to understand gene pool, you will understand that evolution is not genetically possile.

I am glad you recognize that religious belief is not a valid reason for rejecting evolution. Since evolution is a scientific theory, it can only be undone by science.

But I have not found anyone rejecting evolution who can do so on a scientific basis.

I have never found anyone accepting evolution who can do so on a scientific basis.

And what are the scientific grounds he cites as sufficient to reject evolution?

Genetics.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

In a nutshell yes lol. The long answer would be slow environmental changes that aren't immediately threatening to said species and that animal adapts to those changes over time

The correct answer is that a dog-like animal cannot lose its legs, tail and nose and develop fins a flapper and a blowhole even if it has a gazillion years. It is genetically impossible.

kermit

 

[Smidlee]

The correct answer is that a dog-like animal cannot lose its legs, tail and nose and develop fins a flapper and a blowhole even if it has a gazillion years. It is genetically impossible.

kermit

I wouldn't say it's impossible since we do have examples of two body plans coming from the same DNA (Metamorphosis). Evolutionist don't believe a fish can grow boobs and hair while I go one step farther and don't believe a reptile grew boobs and hair which had children who had a whale-of-a-time playing in the water.

 

[McMatt]

The correct answer is that a dog-like animal cannot lose its legs, tail and nose and develop fins a flapper and a blowhole even if it has a gazillion years. It is genetically impossible.

kermit

Whales did have legs and fur. Over time the legs turned into fins and they grew a blowhole. All due to the fact that their habitat integrated into the ocean over a very long period of time. So it is proven fact that it did happen with whales and dolphins

 

[gluadys]

Oh no. You're not a proponent of open theism are you?

I don't know. Haven't looked into it enough to take a position on it.

I worked out my own solutions such problems only to find them very similar to Alan Padgett ... and then found it even more fascinating that Padgett is a Lutheran.

There is something both frustrating and satisfying in finding someone else has already thought of your ideas.

I don't disagree with this, but let me add one element that I think you left out (your response was rather long, so maybe you said this and I missed it). When God decides to allow us free will (or to allow "nature" to be random), He does so because he has calculated all possible outcomes and determined that randomness will not prevent His will. So, when the Christ was prophesied, it became a fact that it would happen. God had calculated all the possibilities, and nothing could happen to prevent it - not even the random possibilities He had released from his control.

Such is true of all prophecy. If God says He did it, He did it. It wasn't just a happy accident that coincidentally fulfilled His purpose.

When God doesn't send a prophecy, we don't know which is the case. We don't know if it was a good that He willed or an evil that he turned to his purposes - if it was determined or random.

But when He does send prophecy, we do know. We have Genesis 1:25, so it is not unknown to us.

I would pretty much agree with that.

Well (cough) now you've put me in a tough spot. While I accept the spirit of what the Confessions say about predestination, I think the form of the explanation to be rather silly. Lutherans reject the Reformed position as "double predestination". They say that God predestines people to heaven (single predestination), but not to hell (double predestination). The sticking point comes because of the fact that Scripture actually uses the word predestination.

Actually. Calvin himself seems only to have spoken of predestination to salvation. He contended it was a doctrine that provided comfort and assurance to the believer. But there is no getting around the fact that subsequently the double-decree version became the Reformed/Presbyterian norm and still is in conservative Reformed churches. OTOH, in the more liberal Presbyterian tradition I come from, I never once heard a sermon on predestination and certainly none that suggested God chose who would not be saved. From what I have seen there is a minor resuscitation of single-decree predestination among liberal-minded Reform theologians, though mostly the whole concept is treated with discreet silence.

So, that's the "offical" position, but I prefer to word it differently. I think people misunderstand the Scriptural meaning of the word predestination. Oddly enough, my wife, who is a much more radically conservative Confessional Lutheran than I am agrees with me on this one - even though she rejects all my other peculiar speculations.

The simple way to put my view is that God calls everyone at some point in their life, but we have the freedom to reject that call ... though I'm sure you'll put me on a hook and keep me wriggling until you tease out all the details.

Yes, from a Reformed perspective that would run afoul, not of predestination, but of the doctrines of irresistable grace and irrevocable call. When God chooses to save someone, they get saved whether they want to be or not!!

As long as you are confessing to peculiar speculations, I will contribute one of my own. I would agree that we have the freedom to reject God's call and that God's election does not override our freedom. But I see God as a most persistent lover who never takes no for an answer, continuing to call until the most reluctant respondent willingly changes his/her "no" to a "yes".

I've mentioned a few before such as predation.

I would question whether predation is deleterious. Prey species whose predators are removed tend to become less healthy and to multiply to the point they run out of food.

Michael Pollan has some interesting things to say on predation and animal rights that involve looking at the conundrum of when what is good for the species may not be good for the individual. When a wolf takes down a deer, it is undeniably not good for that one deer; but since wolves normally cull out the weak aged and ill, the herd of deer is better off with wolves than without.

Disease would be another.

Possibly, but if we think of disease as predation by bacteria, maybe some of the same benefits apply to the species.

I don't know that I've compiled an exhaustive list, but I would conclude from passages like Leviticus 26 that if there were no disobedience (no sin), the mentioned calamities would not happen. As such, before sin (before the Fall) they didn't happen.

I certainly agree that Leviticus 26 and similar passages point to a profound truth--that there is a right way to live, and the consequences of living in accordance with that way is peace, prosperity and security for the whole community. And flouting that way brings consequences of war, poverty, disease and famine. I am not sure it is applicable to non-human nature though.

Yes, the more I read Bock the more I liked him. He also referenced an article that has a very provocative title because it seems headed toward making the same argument that I am. It was called, "Evolution Is Not a Necessary Assumption of Cladistics" by Brower.

The title is true. Cladistic analysis does not depend on assuming evolution as the cause of the distribution of traits. That is why it is seen as a strong support for evolutionary theory, because it is, as it were, an independent line of evidence.

Now Bock rejects what Brower is saying (and it appears almost everyone else has as well), but because of the exclusion fallacy I mentioned earlier.

I wonder what the point of disagreement is.

Well, OK, maybe you need more time to read Bock and Brower because I'm basically saying you don't need to presume evolution to sculpt these models.

Indeed, one should not presume any such thing. That is why I said this was a pragmatic decision.

If we were starting to build models like these 100-150 years ago, we could use a number of different models based on different theories as to how we get the distribution of living species across the face of the earth (including in the oceans) and of extinct species through the fossil record. And we would not presume which, if any, of them would be capable of deriving known data from theory. Then we could compare how well each model/theory does at predicting the factual data.

Today, however, we can basically say "Been there, done that". What such exploration has shown is that only the models which are based on evolutionary theory predict real world biological phenomena accurately. So, pragmatically, repeating tests of non-evolutionary models is like trying to see if what has never worked before will work this time. Now if someone comes up with a new model which hasn't already been proven inadequate, then there would be interest in seeing how good it is.

IMO there is a sense in which no one is purely objective. As such, I think being objective in science means being aware of your philsophical prejudices and staying true to their implications as they are embodied in method. I'm not sure how many people really do that.

I absolutely agree with that. I am not a great fan of postmodernism, but I think this is one positive we can take from it: the need to be self-aware, especially of our own assumptions and our own privileges, which tend to obscure our prejudices and biases.

But it is much easier to agree with the principle than to put it into practice.

 

[gluadys]

That is the typical evo mumb-jumbo that just presents a lot of comments with absolutely no evidence that is a mechanism for evolution.

That sounds suspiciously like "I don't understand a word of this so I will pretend it doesn't mean anything."

I understood what you said, but you are wrong. For a child to receive a characteristic, one or both parents, and this can go back several generations, MUST have a gene for the characteristic.

Really, really not true! Look, if you are going to base your opinion on genetics, you need to learn that genes can change. And when genes change, characteristics can also change. That has been observed.

Of course life forms have the capacity to replicate its gnome and that is all they have. They cannot replicat the genome of a different life-form.

But they can replicate their own genome imperfectly, so that what was passed from the parent is received by the offspring in a modified form.

It does not have the capacity to vary its genome. That is controled by the gene pool.

No, the genome is not controlled by the gene pool. The gene pool is constituted by the genomes of the organisms in the population. You still seem to be using the term "gene pool" incorrectly.

I hoep you are not suggesting that a change in eye color its parents did not have is a different life form.

Of course not. It is, however, an indication that the gene for pigmentation in the eye has been changed.

And I told you that archaea remaining archaes and bacteria remaiing bacteria does not qualify as evolving into a different species.

Sure it does. Otherwise, we would have only one species of each when, in fact, we have thousands of species of each.

If that is always true, and of course it is, how can we ever get a new species?

By recognizing that it takes more than one (often hundreds or thousands) of generations to get new species. So the immediate parent-child relation is always within the same species, but the more distant ancestor-descendant relation may transcend species.

You just said the offspring is the same species as its parents, so how can a non-rabbit ever become a rabbit?

By gradually acquiring rabbit-characteristics( via modified genes) over many generations. Slowly enough that there is no point in time in which parents and their immediate offspring are different species.

Prolifeation is not a mechanism for a a change in species.

You are confusing the proliferation of organisms with the proliferation of species. And proliferation of species is a conseqence of evolutionary mechanisms. Not a mechanism in itself.

You just said all offspring are the same species of it parents. This is another exampel of you making a dogmantic statement but have offered no evidence for it.

Of its parents, yes. Of its more distant ancestors, not necessarily.

I do undertand it. Apparently you do not. Lets settel this. Define gene pool.

Gene pool: the total number of genes in a breeding population occurring at the same locus on the same chromosome. In a diploid species this is typically double the number of individuals in the breeding population. So if you have a cage of breeding fruit flies consisting of 400 flies, the gene pool for each gene consists of 800 genes.

Does that agree with your understanding?



There you go again. "Gene pool of the parents" makes no sense. Kids can have a gene that neither parent had. That is an observed fact. No amount of ranting and raving with make it not a fact. [/QUOTE]

Kids cannot have gene that is not somewher in the paretns genetic history. It may be a gene from grandparents that has been recessive for a number of generations but it is still in the gene pool.

Believe me, I know the difference between a recessive gene and a newly-modified gene. And no child receives a gene from its grandparent unless it also receives it from its parent as well. The parent is the only pathway for a gene hosted by the grandparent to get to the grandchild.

Kids can have a gene that is different from those in either parent because genes can change during replication. Perhaps your studies in genetics are out of date.

Another statement for which you offer no evidence. the only gnome any cell in my body is the only gnome it has ever been and will evr be.

Most of it is, but in any cell replication in a mammal, there are likely to be, on average, 150-200 new differences introduced. Every cell in your body is the product of many replications since you were a unicellular zygote. That is lots of opportunities to accumulate many differences. Furthermore, each cell line will do so independently, so each cell line will accumulate a different set of differences. Hence cells in different parts of your body will have slight differences in the DNA sequencing they carry.

Leaves do not detemine the tree, the seeds do and they will alwys produce after it kind.

Now you are confusing a phylogenetic tree with an actual oak tree.

I did not know that but it is irrelevant.

It is very relevant. This is what evolution is: a proliferation of species. Evolution is the explanation of how one species of oak trees becomes 600 different species of oak trees.

When you understand how to turn one species into 600 species, you can begin to say you understand what evolution is and how it works.

Thats not true. If the DNA was the same, it woudl be the same.

And it is not the same. The Neanderthal genome is distinct from the sapiens genome.

I know exactly what it means and I am begining to doubt if you do.

If you did understand evolution, you would not keep saying such outrageously wrong things about it.

 

[frogman2x]

That sounds suspiciously like "I don't understand a word of this so I will pretend it doesn't mean anything."

you are right i didn't understand any of it but I did look for a mention of a biological mechanism that woujld make the statments valid and as usual I didn't fine it.

Really, really not true! Look, if you are going to base your opinion on genetics, you need to learn that genes can change. And when genes change, characteristics can also change. That has been observed.

Genes cannot change, they can mutate but you have acknowledged that mutation do not add characteristics.

But they can replicate their own genome imperfectly, so that what was passed from the parent is received by the offspring in a modified form.

Even if that is true, it is not a mechanism for a species to evolve into a different species. It might change a characteristic but it will not change the species. How does replicateing its genome imperfectly differ from a mutation.

No, the genome is not controlled by the gene pool. The gene pool is constituted by the genomes of the organisms in the population. You still seem to be using the term "gene pool" incorrectly.

Of course. If I don't understand it like you do, I am using it incorrectly. I ask you to define "gene pool" and that would help if I knew you understood it.

Of course not. It is, however, an indication that the gene for pigmentation in the eye has been changed.

Right, but eye color is detemind by the gene pool.

Sure it does. Otherwise, we would have only one species of each when, in fact, we have thousands of species of each.

What you are descdribing is not new species, it is variation within a species.

By recognizing that it takes more than one (often hundreds or thousands) of generations to get new species. So the immediate parent-child relation is always within the same species, but the more distant ancestor-descendant relation may transcend species.

That is nonsense. Time will not change biological facts.[/quote]

By gradually acquiring rabbit-characteristics( via modified genes) over many generations. Slowly enough that there is no point in time in which parents and their immediate offspring are different species.

Genes are only modified by mutations. They can be recessive or dominant but they cannot be modified. Her you go again saying "there is no point in time in hich paentgs and the immediate offpring are different species." If that is true, and it is, evolution cannot take place. If they are always the same, they are always the same.

You are confusing the proliferation of organisms with the proliferation of species. <<

I am not. It doesnt matter if yhou call it an organism or an species, proliferation is not a mchanism for a change in species.

>>And proliferation of species is a conseqence of evolutionary mechanisms. Not a mechanism in itself. <<

It is not. Poliferation meas to continue in the same species.

Of its parents, yes. Of its more distant ancestors, not necessarily.

I just understand how you can keep saying the present never changes but the future can. That makes no sense. We are always producing offspring in the present.

Gene pool: the total number of genes in a breeding population occurring at the same locus on the same chromosome. In a diploid species this is typically double the number of individuals in the breeding population. So if you have a cage of breeding fruit flies consisting of 400 flies, the gene pool for each gene consists of 800 genes.

Does that agree with your understanding?

Yes.

There you go again. "Gene pool of the parents" makes no sense. Kids can have a gene that neither parent had. That is an observed fact. No amount of ranting and raving with make it not a fact.

Kids CANNOT have a gene that its parents did not have. You keep ranting and raving that they can but you have offered no mechanism for it to happen. How can a kid get a gene that its parents did not hve.

Believe me, I know the difference between a recessive gene and a newly-modified gene.

I know yu know wh a recessive gene is, but tll me the mechanism for a gene being modified/

And no child receives a gene from its grandparent unless it also receives it from its parent as well. The parent is the only pathway for a gene hosted by the grandparent to get to the grandchild.

Agreed.

Kids can have a gene that is different from those in either parent because genes can change during replication. Perhaps your studies in genetics are out of date.

I don't think the basice of genetics dhas channged. It seems to try and support evolution, the evolutionists have invented some non-genetics ideas. What new gene can a kid have through replication?

Most of it is, but in any cell replication in a mammal, there are likely to be, on average, 150-200 new differences introduced. Every cell in your body is the product of many replications since you were a unicellular zygote. That is lots of opportunities to accumulate many differences. Furthermore, each cell line will do so independently, so each cell line will accumulate a different set of differences. Hence cells in different parts of your body will have slight differences in the DNA sequencing they carry.

Even if all of that is true, it is not a mechanism for what is in my body to be a cause of evolution. You have admitted that the species ALWAYS produces after its kind.

Now you are confusing a phylogenetic tree with an actual oak tree.

I may be, but a phylogentic tree in the oak catgegory is still an oak tree and will only produce oak trees.

It is very relevant. This is what evolution is: a proliferation of species. Evolution is the explanation of how one species of oak trees becomes 600 different species of oak trees.

Different varieties of oak trees is no different than different varities of dogs. They remain the exact same species and proiferation of a species is not a mechanism for the species to evolve into another species. If it can't happen in one generation, it can't happen in a thousand. Evolutionist alwys like tgo play the "time" card but time cannot change biological truths.

When you understand how to turn one species into 600 species, you can begin to say you understand what evolution is and how it works.

When you learn that what you are calling a species is only a variaion within a species, you will see that evolution does not work.

And it is not the same. The Neanderthal genome is distinct from the sapiens genome.

Irrelevant. The chineese genome is distinct from the caucasian gnome, but all 3 are still homo.

If you did understand evolution, you would not keep saying such outrageously wrong things about it.

Well when you provide some actual biological evidence that proves evoution is a fact, I will stop. So far all you have done is say it is. I'm from Missouri, figuratively speaksing.

When you can explain how a dog-like animal developed fins and a blowhole, genetically of course, get back to me. The ToE is as absurd as the explanation given for that phase in the evolution saga. However they must explain it or evolution is exposed for the fraud it is and all of the evolutionists jump on the bandwagon and praise their savior.

kermit

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't know. Haven't looked into it enough to take a position on it.

Well ... don't. My suggestion would be to take a look at "God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time" by Alan Padgett.

But I see God as a most persistent lover who never takes no for an answer, continuing to call until the most reluctant respondent willingly changes his/her "no" to a "yes".

I didn't mean to imply it's a one-time-only opportunity. God is definitely persistent. But there are also persistent people - people who say no until the end. When one tries to take all of Scripture into consideration (including verses such as 1 Timothy 2:4), it seems to me that most predestination theories become rather ridiculous unless we allow that people can ultimately reject God.

I certainly agree that Leviticus 26 and similar passages point to a profound truth--that there is a right way to live, and the consequences of living in accordance with that way is peace, prosperity and security for the whole community. And flouting that way brings consequences of war, poverty, disease and famine. I am not sure it is applicable to non-human nature though.

First, as I've said before, non-human death is a pre-Fall possibility. I don't see that it can be definitely settled, but it's possible things were dying. Dying, however, does not necessitate predation, disease, birth defects, accidental injuries and whatever else one might put on the list.

Second, even if some of the things on the list are a misconception on my part (i.e. that even though I see them as evil God sees them as good for non-human life) I was including human life. If a lion's predatory instincts are misdirected toward a person and cause that person's death, I would hope we agree that the Bible denotes human death as an evil. So, you would at a minimum have to conclude that lions didn't prey on people before the Fall. That still makes the Fall a historical event - a watershed separating things that happen now from a time when they didn't happen.

Third, I still see a bit of circular reasoning going on here, but it's subtle. You talk of how these things benefit the herd. But benefit them for what? The people I've talked to here at CF have tried to distance evolution from making moral judgements to the extent of saying that even survival is not a state that nature somehow desires (and they imply biologists are doing the same thing). That it's just a fact that those things which survive are those better adapted to survive. That even if life doesn't survive, physics will continue to operate - things will continue (or not) as physics dictates.

I don't see God taking such a nihilist position. But neither do I see anything in Scripture indicating that he has geared creation to improve itself. It started good, and the Fall has been a deterioration from that position. I don't see a works-based movement toward a goal. As such, all the things you mention are coping mechanisms intended to mitigate the consequences of the Fall. They are not something that was programmed into the original plan. If you see it differently, I'd be curious what Scripture you think supports that.

What such exploration has shown is that only the models which are based on evolutionary theory predict real world biological phenomena accurately.

What alternative (non-evolutionary) models have been tried?
And what phenomena do you speak of?

I wonder what the point of disagreement is.

I asked the questions above because my take on the point of disagreement is that there is no alternative.

Both Bock and Granta ("Transformation Series as an Ideographic Character Concept") seem to say that biologists would not arrive at the same conclusions without evolutionary assumptions (or, as Bock puts it, the "historical narrative"). I had found another paper rejecting Brower because they claimed there is no alternative, but I seem to have lost that reference.

The title is true. Cladistic analysis does not depend on assuming evolution as the cause of the distribution of traits. That is why it is seen as a strong support for evolutionary theory, because it is, as it were, an independent line of evidence.

This statement intriques me. If cladistics can be done apart from evolution, how does that reinforce evolution? To me it seems to reinforce that evolution is not necessary.

Again, I'm getting at the question: What alternatives have been seriously considered?

 

[Papias]

Hi Resha. Getting back to our discussion:

you wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Which terms do you mean?

To formalize the discussion. ........ If you don't want to restrict the number of posts I could rewrite my proposal as 4 steps:

A question is posed.
1. Person A gives an answer / takes a position.
2. Person B demonstrates understanding / requests clarification, and challenges the position.
3. Person A provides requested clarifications and answers the challenge.
4. Person B summarizes what they heard, which position they think carries the greater weight, and why.

OK, let's give that a try. Maybe start with one of our ongoing topics below?

Currently it seems we get into this tit for tat where every sentence is challenged

Because you keep making statements that sound like obviously false repetitions of common UCA denier talking points, like "the tree of life has been discarded" or "the number of biologists who question UCA is not exactly zero." , etc.

When I've tried to get you to clarify, I've often found that you are indeed making the very UCA denier talking point it sounded like you were making.

Originally Posted by Papias

I mentioned the creationist position of the LCMS in response to your statements that the LCMS wasn't a creationist (read: UCA denying) church.

I'm confused how you ever got that from what I said. I didn't mean to convey anything like that. Let me give an example, but before I do, let me suggest this be some practice for the remainder of the discussion (as outlined above). I'm pretty sure I understand your position, so what follows is merely an attempt to explain, not to debate you. I don't need you to reply much beyond, "OK, thanks for the explanation." If you feel a need to reply beyond that, please at least take a brief moment to confirm that you've heard what I'm saying.

OK, in that light, let me limit my response to restating your position to ensure that I understand it.

Gen 1:25 says, "And God made the beasts of the earth." The LCMS claims this statement is true, but takes no official position on how science might say this occurred ....... the LCMS takes no position in favor of "bulldozians" or "bucketers". However, if the bucketers were to say the angels made the beasts and not God, then the LCMS would object that such is a denial of what Scripture says.

So you are saying that the LCMS makes no statement about which method God used or did not use, and only insists that it was God who did the creating?

The position, then, is that some aspects of evolution contradict Gen 1:25. As such, the LCMS rejects those aspects.

What aspects are those?

We reject anything that contradicts Scripture, but that doesn't mean we put some positive scientific statement in its place. I understand you think there is no contradiction between Gen 1:25 and evolution. Unfortunately I don't know a nicer way to say it other than that the LCMS considers such a position to be an equivocation on the word "made".

Did God make you and I? Are we not all made in the image of God, by God?

But those are personal opinions, not official church doctrines.

No, I quoted the official pamphlet put out by the LCMS to answer the question about evolution - not just some personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Papias

It doesn't matter if you use the word "test", "examine", or "question", as long as you aren't using the word (especially possible with "question") to suggest that the idea is being doubted or suspected as not true. I'm sure you can see how "questioned" suggests that falsehood.
​

Yes, I do see how the word "question" suggests doubt. And I do doubt UCA, so I can also see why you might conclude that I am putting that doubt in the mouths of biologists when it's not there. But I still think word choice is important here.

It sounds like you said "I agree that I'm putting doubt in the mouths of biologists when it's not there, but I'm going to keep doing so anyway."

Please help me avoid reaching the conclusion that you do intend to do so, since I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt - that you don't intend to be deceptive.

Popper's challenge with the falsification test is that science doesn't ever prove anything. It never permanently settles an issue. In all cases we proceed with the best known theory until the evidence suggests it needs to be discarded or improved. However, for that theory to be scientific - for it to be more than conjecture - it must be falsifiable. In other words, the theory must make a prediction that via testing can be demonstrated as false.

Right, and UCA is extremely falsifiable, and falsification tests have been done literally thousands of times. It thus fits Popper's requirement of being falsifiable (testable).

In fact, bringing up Popper as a "problem" for UCA is yet another common UCA denier canard, as Popper himself was clear that UCA is quite testable/falsifiable.

This is where my conclusion comes in. The consensus is that Theobald did not decide the point, and a few people offered suggestions of what could be done better, but no one has followed up with another falsification test. As such, the question remains open.

Which is an incorrect conclusion. There have been thousands of falsification tests, and as we saw from sfs's data, practically no one in the field considers it an open question, and they haven't for decades.

You seem to imply that falsification tests akin to what I just outlined are occurring all the time. If so, then I am unaware of them. Could you give me some examples?

Sure. You can pretty much just go down the list if independant lines of evidence I gave before. Most studies in phylogenics and many other fields would immediately show if UCA were incorrect. For instance, here is a collection of several such studies:
mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/5/403.full.pdf

Originally Posted by Papias

Do we agree that at least for the court case example, that it is correct that the different lines of evidence make the conclusion is more robust?

No, I think your example is one of making an appeal to intuition, something science does not do. Several things in science that I accept go against my intuition. Suppose we have evidence sets A and B which are different "types" (i.e. can't be combined into a single set). The confidence level on set A is 60% (not very good). The confidence level on set B is 90%. Does set B change the confidence level of set A? No, it's still 60%. Does set A raise the confidence in set B? No. If anything set A is dragging set B down. And I bet what will happen is that set A will be discarded and a search begun for a set C with a higher confidence level. Suppose set C is found with a 90% confidence. Is it now legitimate to say that because we have both sets B & C that our confidence is increased because they both have a high confidence? No. That would be cherry picking.

Basic statistics says that the odds of any set of tests giving the same conclusion is equal to the product of those odds. Thus, different tests that "just happen" to give the same answer to indeed add to the robustness of the answer. For instance, if I have 20 tests that have a 90% chance of being right, then, if they all give the same answer, the odds that the answer is still wrong are 10%^20, or 0.000000000000000001%

Just as in my courtroom example, the agreement of many tests increases the confidence in the answer. Cherry picking, on the other hand, is only accepting those tests which agree - the exact opposite of our situation here.

What I hear you saying is that some combination of sets A and B gives a confidence level that is higher than both A and B separately. Unless you can formally demonstrate that to me, it bears no weight.

I just did so.

• If you think there is any serious discussion questioning UCD, please present it, or stop suggesting it exists.

I had taken your answer that practically no biologists doubt UCA as an answer to this, but your response that "it's not exactly zero" makes me wonder if you agree that there isn't any serious discussion by biologists questioning UCA.

• Why don't you buy the nested hierarchy as evidence?

I didn't see an answer - did you want to leave this to get to after we cover other areas using your steps ("terms")?

• Why don't you buy the vestigial features - the many, many structures that always, always match the descent lines shown by genetics, by comparative anatomy, by the fossil record, and by biochemistry as evidence? - How else, other than UCD, would all those "just happen" to line up?

I didn't see an answer - did you want to leave this to get to after we cover other areas using your steps ("terms")?

• The "tree of life" has been discarded.

See below

• "consensus conclusions" have been abandonded in the past

See below

"... 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?"

No. Past science has been mistaken about some very big issues. That's what caused Kuhn's "revolutions".

Could you please cite any area that was incorrect that had even a quarter of the evidence that UCA has?




​

"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?"

No. The tree seems to be discarded in more and more areas as time goes on. Doolittle did conceded that large parts of the tree remain intact (despite his provocative title about uprooting the tree of life). However, I don't think it remains as intact as you indicate. Just yesterday I came across a paper that proposed replacing the tree with a web for what I believe were certain types of flowering plants. Unfortunately I left the paper at work. I can send you the reference on Monday if you're curious.

I think you are denying reality if you think that the there has been any question or evidence against the idea that all the animals we see, including us, evolved from a single "trunk", a single -celled organism - and so I'm asking you for evidence or to drop that claim.

It's not about whether I like it or don't like it - it's about you making statements with zero support, and expecting to be taken seriously.

"Do you seriously think that all the evidence at 29+ is 'extrapolation'?"

Yes, insofar as it is meant to support larger claims like UCA......

Please indicate what areas of 29+ you think are an extrapolation?

But, to begin, let's take vestigial features.

To begin that discussion, I must first ask you a question. I assume you accept the possibilities of parallel and convergent evolution? The typical example is written as:

Parallel:
A -> S
A -> S

Convergent:
A -> S
T -> S

All I really need at this point is a "yes" or "no". We're not out of Step 1 for this question yet. As such, answering yes does not in any way bind you into accepting my conclusion.

The letters are too simple to represent an organism. For instance, in the case of the classic shark fin/whale flipper example of convergent evolution, "S" above would only represent the outer shape of the flipper, while the flipper itself also contains bones, proteins, DNA, muscle attachement point, and a lot of other sources of information. Ignoring them is like letting the accused in the court example go free because, despite all the other evidence, no one had fingerprinted him.

I agree that your letters above can represent an example of convergent evolution when looking at a single, isolated feature.

Papias





For reference, that last post to list the topics was post #146, with the addition of the views of the biologists on page 17.

 

[Resha Caner]

So you are saying that the LCMS makes no statement about which method God used or did not use, and only insists that it was God who did the creating?

Close but you left out an important phrase: insofar as said method doesn't contradict Scripture.

What aspects are those?

Those given in the discussion centering around Gen 1:25.

Did God make you and I? Are we not all made in the image of God, by God?

You're mixing the general and the specific with this question. Regardless, I can still answer "yes" without the necessity of invoking evolution, so I'm not sure what you hope to gain.

No, I quoted the official pamphlet put out by the LCMS to answer the question about evolution - not just some personal opinion.

Please cite for me LCMS church governance rules, and then the proceedings adhering to those rules that made this official LCMS doctrine.

It sounds like you said "I agree that I'm putting doubt in the mouths of biologists when it's not there, but I'm going to keep doing so anyway."

My intent was to say that I understand why you might think I'm putting words in people's mouths, but I'm not. Rather, I'm trying to clearly distinguish my conclusions from the conclusions of others.

In fact, bringing up Popper as a "problem" for UCA is yet another common UCA denier canard, as Popper himself was clear that UCA is quite testable/falsifiable.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I never said Popper was a problem for UCA. Did he say something about UCA? I referenced Popper as part of defining what a falsification test is.

For instance, here is a collection of several such studies: mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/5/403.full.pdf

This is not a falsification test per the definition I referenced. They say that biologists should give confidence levels for tree structures. Nowhere did I see them speak about the possibility of falsifying a general theory of tree structures (or any other theory).

Basic statistics says that the odds of any set of tests giving the same conclusion is equal to the product of those odds. Thus, different tests that "just happen" to give the same answer to indeed add to the robustness of the answer. For instance, if I have 20 tests that have a 90% chance of being right, then, if they all give the same answer, the odds that the answer is still wrong are 10%^20, or 0.000000000000000001%

Citation please.

I didn't see an answer - did you want to leave this to get to after we cover other areas using your steps ("terms")?

I said my answer will be much the same to all these questions.

Could you please cite any area that was incorrect that had even a quarter of the evidence that UCA has?

As I noted before, this is a loaded question.

Please indicate what areas of 29+ you think are an extrapolation?

Please read Stebbins.

I agree that your letters above can represent an example of convergent evolution when looking at a single, isolated feature.

They aren't just letters, but represent different amino acids. If you want a citation, look here: Parallel evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The example represents an irreversible logical process. That is, given an end state of S it is impossible to determine if, before the mutation occurred, the amino acid was originally A or T. It is impossible to determine if parallel or convergent evolution occurred (see Arendt "Convergence and Parallelism Reconsidered").

These cases can be made analogous to one parent with two offspring and two parents with one offspring each. The same conclusion holds. It is impossible to reverse the pattern and determine which of these instances actually occurred simply by looking at the offspring.

The question then becomes, is it possible according to evolutionary theory for two separate organisms living in the same environment (under the same selective pressures) to evolve similar traits? The answer is yes (see Convergence or Parallel Evolution? | Laelaps).

Once they have evolved these similar traits, is it possible for populations to be separated and, under these separate pressures, that one might maintain usage of this feature while in another it becomes vestigial? Yes.

Are the chances of this occurring small? I would expect so, but I haven't seen an evolutionist put forth a probability that they are willing to interpret as impossible. If they did, I expect creationists would jump all over it and use that benchmark to declare many other evolutionary claims impossible.

As such, I can only conclude that evolutionary theory makes it both possible for two separate organisms to evolve the same trait (hence descendants with similar traits don't have a common ancestor) and at the same time it is impossible to reverse the logic of descent in order to trace back to what those ancestors might have been.

 

[frogman2x]

I wouldn't say it's impossible since we do have examples of two body plans coming from the same DNA (Metamorphosis).

It is a stretch to try and make that an example of evoluiotn. That is the natural process that God created for that lifeform. Also, its parents were butterflies and its kids will be to and so will their grandkids.

Evolutionist don't believe a fish can grow boobs and hair while I go one step farther and don't believe a reptile grew boobs and hair which had children who had a whale-of-a-time playing in the water.

Whoever said dthat I think was talking tongue incheek. However evolutionts do believe that something that did not hve breast and hair evolved into something that did and that cannot be explained biologically.

kermit

 

[Smidlee]

. However evolutionts do believe that something that did not hve breast and hair evolved into something that did and that cannot be explained biologically.

kermit

Yes, Boobzilla. Evolutionist doesn't believe fish can evolve boobs and hair so they believe whales ancestor came from Boobzilla which came from reptiles. The bat & dolphins echo-system evolved separately yet sharing 200+ similar genes but boobs and hair can only evolved once.

 

[McMatt]

Yes, Boobzilla. Evolutionist doesn't believe fish can evolve boobs and hair so they believe whales ancestor came from Boobzilla which came from reptiles. The bat & dolphins echo-system evolved separately yet sharing 200+ similar genes but boobs and hair can only evolved once.

One of the many fascinating (and awesome) things about our world - boobs

 

[gluadys]

you are right i didn't understand any of it but I did look for a mention of a biological mechanism that woujld make the statments valid and as usual I didn't fine it.

Well, then, you missed the biological mechanisms because you don't understand the terminology. It's not that they were not mentioned.

Genes cannot change, they can mutate but you have acknowledged that mutation do not add characteristics.

Changes in genes are called mutations. Just what did sort of change did you think I was talking about? When a gene has mutated it has changed. So when you say genes can mutate, it is the same thing as saying genes can change.

How does replicateing its genome imperfectly differ from a mutation.

It doesn't. Mutation = change.

Right, but eye color is detemind by the gene pool.

No, not by the gene pool. The gene pool does not exist in each organism, but in the population of organisms. In each organism eye colour is determined by the genes affecting the formation of pigment in the iris.

What you are descdribing is not new species, it is variation within a species.

No, it is not. These are actual different species. Claiming all the species of bacteria are "variation within a species" is equivalent to saying that everything from earthworms to elephants is "variation within the species called 'animalia' ". In fact, the group of species we call bacteria constitutes a whole domain of life. The equivalent domain we are part of is the eukarya--which not only includes all animals but all fungi, all plants, all algae and a host of other unicellular eukaryotes. You can't shrink a whole domain with all its diverse forms into the confines of one species.

Genes are only modified by mutations. They can be recessive or dominant but they cannot be modified.

You see how you are contradicting yourself. Indeed, genes can be modified by mutations, so they can be modified. Genes change because they mutate. They are modified by the mutations they accumulate.

I am not. It doesnt matter if yhou call it an organism or an species,

Yes, it does. A species is always a population; an organism is never a population. That is a distinct difference which is very important to keep in mind.

Here is another. Genes and genomes exist only in organisms. Gene pools exist only in species.

proliferation is not a mchanism for a change in species.

Right, it is not a mechanism, it is a consequence.

Poliferation meas to continue in the same species.

No, it means to increase rapidly in numbers. It doesn't even need to be speaking of biology. So, for example, we can speak of the proliferation of computers which have in just a few decades gone from being rarities owned only by institutions to a practical home necessity, as common as a stove.

One could speak of the proliferation of a species like the dandelions that proliferate on one's lawn. But I was speaking of the proliferation of diverse (different) species-- an increase in the number of species, not the population of one species.

I just understand how you can keep saying the present never changes but the future can. That makes no sense. We are always producing offspring in the present.

Well, the present actually does change. We can measure the genetic differences which show up in offspring as compared to their parents, and there are always differences. There are always some places in the genome that are not exact copies of what was in the parental genome. But they are so minimal that they are not noticeable, and not enough to make them a different species. But increase the number of generations, and you increase the number of differences, so eventually they do become noticeable, and do constitute a difference of species.

Yes.

OK, so "gene pool of the parents" makes no sense if the parents are just two out of a population of 400. They only have 4 of the 800 genes in the pool. And each of their kids have only two of those four, and possibly one of those has been changed as it was replicated. Further, the other 798 genes in the gene pool don't affect the way the two genes you have are expressed in your characteristics. Their effect is on the other 399 organisms in the population. (Numbers vary according to the size of the population, of course.)

Kids CANNOT have a gene that its parents did not have. You keep ranting and raving that they can but you have offered no mechanism for it to happen. How can a kid get a gene that its parents did not hve.

One way is that the gene mutates. There are several ways in which a gene can mutate. For example, a piece of DNA can move from a different part of the chromosome (or even from another chromosome) and plunk itself into a gene. (You will recognize this as a transposon or "jumping gene".)

Another is for the whole gene to duplicate, so that the child has two genes where the parent had only one. The extra gene is one the parent did not have.

Another fascinating way to get new genes is through recombination. You know that step in the process of meiosis called "cross-over". Just after the two paired chromosomes (one from mum one from dad) have duplicated (so now there are two from mum and two from dad) the two middle chromsomes (one from mum, one from dad) cross over. At the point where they cross, each detaches itself form the rest of its own chromosome and re-attaches itself to the other. So, now you have a two chromosomes that are part from mum and part from dad.

Now here is the fun part. Most of the time these crossovers occur between genes, or in introns where they have no effect on genes or gene expression. But occasionally one of these exchanges can take place right in the middle of a gene. So what these two chromosomes end up with is a gene pieced together from part of mum's gene and part of dad's gene. A completely novel gene. Or, you might get the crossover occurring in the middle of the regulatory machinery that controls gene expression, and that can create a whole new variation as well.

So, yes, there are plenty of mechanisms that produce genes which are different from those mum and dad began with.

I know yu know wh a recessive gene is, but tll me the mechanism for a gene being modified/

Just did. And those are only a few examples. There are lots more.

I don't think the basice of genetics dhas channged.

Indeed it hasn't. You just needed some reminding about the way genes change through mutation.

What new gene can a kid have through replication?

Replication is copying. When the copying is not perfect, that introduces a change i.e. a mutation. Whenever that happens, the kid who gets the copy with the mutation has a new gene, different from the parental gene that it was copied from.

Now, for more clarity, we can use a more technical term: allele. Are you familiar with what an allele is?

Even if all of that is true, it is not a mechanism for what is in my body to be a cause of evolution. You have admitted that the species ALWAYS produces after its kind.

Yes, but the kind generates a lot of internal diversity. 600 different species of oak trees, 3,000 different species of frogs. Assuming that each kind began with just one species, how do we get so many new and different species in each kind?

Different varieties of oak trees is no different than different varities of dogs. They remain the exact same species

Not true. The many varieties of domestic dogs have remained the same species, but the many different oaks have not. They are different species, not varieties of one species. Pollen from one species of oak tree will not fertilize an oak tree of a different species. (Or if they do, you get some of the same problems of hybridization as you do with mating animals of different species: sterility, reduced viability, etc.) Among frogs, not only do spring peepers not mate with other types of frogs, they even keep apart from other spring peeper species. (There are four different species and they each have their own distinct mating call.)

When you learn that what you are calling a species is only a variaion within a species, you will see that evolution does not work.

When I say species, I mean species, not varieties within the same species.

Irrelevant. The chineese genome is distinct from the caucasian gnome, but all 3 are still homo.

The question is how much difference is there. The Chinese genome is much more like the Caucasian genome than either is to the Neanderthal genome. In fact, you can throw in the African, Inuit, South Asian, Australian and Amerindian genomes as well. They are all more similar to each other than any one of them is to a Neanderthal. If we were to compare the varieties of H. sapiens to dog breeds, the comparison to a Neanderthal would be to a wolf.

Well when you provide some actual biological evidence that proves evoution is a fact, I will stop. So far all you have done is say it is. I'm from Missouri, figuratively speaksing.

Already did, but you said you hadn't watched it all yet. And when I provided some at a more difficult level, you said you didn't understand it. I suggest you go watch more of those Evolution Basics videos.