Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Lon View Post
    With a PhD, you need to look this up: Tree age and ways to age a tree How can I talk with you about advanced science ideas when you don't really know the basic ones?
    If you had read your own links, you might know what I said is true. At no point does any of your links say "trees stop making rings as they get older". Occasionally they may make an extra ring or two or skip a ring under extreme circumstances, but there's no stopping for a long period of time without the tree dying. This is because tree rings are layers of conductive tissue and they typically only last a year.

    Yes. Unless you experience it by any of your five senses, then science cannot study it.
    Welp I guess X-rays, UV rays and atoms are out then.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



    - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Alate_One
      It's only "useful" as a reservoir for bacteria, which is all well and good but not why it originally existed. It is an evolutionary leftover of a Cecum found in more herbivorous animals, which serves as a fermentation chamber for plant matter. That it still has some function doesn't make the earlier statement wrong. Care to try again?
      As a PhD biologist that you claim you are, your answer shows a lack of knowledge on the subject. And as a Christian your answer contradicts scripture.

      "These results, together with immunological and medical evidence, refute some of Darwin's hypotheses and suggest that the appendix is adaptive but has not evolved as a response to any particular diet..." https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...31068312001960

      The article says the immunological and medical evidence suggests the appendix has not evolved as a response to any particular diet and is not an evolutionary leftover of a Cecum, as you believe. In fact, The researchers were unable to show any evolutionary pathway on their imaginary tree, so make the silly claim that the appendix must have evolved independently somewhere around three dozen times.

      Our appendix contains highly specialized lymphoid follicles with a rich blood supply suggesting purpose and function. We know it is a storehouse of good bacteria, which seems to be especially important in fetal and early childhood development. It is also possible that our appendix is triggered by a genetic switch serving greater function under certain environmental pressures.

      Scripture shows us that the belief we evolved from herbivorous animals as you suggest, is heretical in that God created man directly from the dust of the ground, and then later created woman from this side of the man.

      You asked 'Care to try again?' There is no need, to start mentioning other organs, as our appendix is awesome evidence against evolutionary beliefs... And awesome evidence of the truth of God's Word. We should praise God because we are fearfully and wonderfully made (psalm 139:14) but we live in a world where pain and suffering exist because of human sin (Genesis 3)
      Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
        I didn't know virtually any actual evidence when I was a YEC. As I was exposed to evidence I realized it did not support YEC. And as I continue to learn more about biology, evolution becomes still better supported by the evidence I find.
        So, while you were a YEC (which, as you say, was for "most of" your life), you never believed/said that evidence supports YEC?
        All my ancestors are human.
        PS: All your ancestors are human.
        PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          Additionally the pattern of features we see is a pattern of inheritance. Linneaus' classification system (he was a creationist and long before Darwin's time btw) creates a nested pattern of features, a tree of inheritance.

          Are you saying Linnaeus said/meant that humans inherited high foreheads and thin skull bones (or any other characteristics of humans) from non-humans? If so, then what (if anything) do you mean when you say he was a creationist?

          Why do you say your graphic, here, has to do with inheritance? And, if it does, somehow, depict inheritance of some sort, nevertheless, who, looking at it, would be able to say, rationally, that it depicts one species inheriting something from another species? If any idea of inheritance, whatsoever, could be rationally thought to be depicted in your graphic, it would seem that it could only be an idea of inheritance such that a species in some sense inherits from the genus of which it is a subclass, and that a genus in some sense inherits from the family of which it is a subclass, and that a family in some sense inherits from the order of which it is a subclass, and so on. But where in your graphic do you imagine you find anything remotely resembling a depiction of the idea of one species inheriting from another species--of one subclass inheriting from another subclass with which it is coordinate?? Wouldn't you need to stack another plunger head at the top of your picture, above the one labeled "species", and label this additional plunger head, "species", also, in order to depict one species inheriting from another species??

          Your confusion seems to stem in part from the fact that you apparently can't tell the difference between a pedigree and a tree of porphyry.



          Also, from what would you say the kingdom, "animals", inherited its organisms' ability to move on their own?
          Last edited by 7djengo7; October 18th, 2019, 03:57 PM.
          All my ancestors are human.
          PS: All your ancestors are human.
          PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 6days View Post
            "These results, together with immunological and medical evidence, refute some of Darwin's hypotheses and suggest that the appendix is adaptive but has not evolved as a response to any particular diet..." https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...31068312001960
            You're hanging an awful lot of supposition on one paper. That's generally a bad idea. Maybe it's accurate, maybe not. I'm not finding any other papers that cite that one, so I will reserve judgement.

            Regardless there are a few vestigial structures in the anatomy of some organisms. Things that might be actually vestigial are typically features found in only some of the population of a species. I think the appendix doesn't qualify for that.

            But there are some human structures that are:

            Darwin's Tubercle


            But the best vestigial structures are the genetic remnants themselves.

            Three Vitellogenin (egg yolk protein) genes found in several species of Marsupials - Opossums and wallabies. (Gallus gallus being the domestic chicken)


            Why would they have those genes since they don't lay eggs (and should have never done so according to the YEC "model".)


            You asked 'Care to try again?' There is no need, to start mentioning other organs, as our appendix is awesome evidence against evolutionary beliefs... And awesome evidence of the truth of God's Word. We should praise God because we are fearfully and wonderfully made (psalm 139:14) but we live in a world where pain and suffering exist because of human sin (Genesis 3)
            Even if the study you cite is correct about the appendix, that doesn't refute common ancestry or evolution in general. It just means the ideas about that one particular organ may not be in line with the evidence. If the evidence shows they're wrong, they will be changed. That is the power of science, when it's shown to be in error, it gets changed to match the data.
            “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



            - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
              Are you saying Linnaeus said/meant that humans inherited high foreheads and thin skull bones (or any other characteristics of humans) from non-humans?
              Those listed features are the apomorphies (new features) of the listed group. But each group that follows from another group inherits those characteristics. Humans inherited our hair and milk glands from our mammalian ancestors for example, and our grasping hands from primate ancestors.

              If so, then what (if anything) do you mean when you say he was a creationist?
              I mean he was a Young Earth creationist. He also lived long before Darwin.

              Also, from what would you say the kingdom, "animals", inherited its organisms' ability to move on their own?
              From simple eukaryotic organisms that also move through the use of their cytoskeletal structures.
              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                If you had read your own links, you might know what I said is true. At no point does any of your links say "trees stop making rings as they get older". Occasionally they may make an extra ring or two or skip a ring under extreme circumstances, but there's no stopping for a long period of time without the tree dying. This is because tree rings are layers of conductive tissue and they typically only last a year.
                You are lousy at reading comprehension then. How MUCH of the articles did you read? Didn't you see that in some places where the climate doesn't change, the rings are not there or not pronounced? Some Oak trees have no rings. I believe one of those links said an aging tree near death, will stop creating rings, but it could have been a third link. At least one of us is reading instead of 'nuh uh' ing.
                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                I guess X-rays, UV rays and atoms are out then.
                Right. The only thing you can verify is the evidence, not the actual. I cannot see air BUT I breathe it. In the same manner, unless it is observed with your five senses, you cannot verify it for everyone. It is this 'unverifiable' stigma that makes a thing difficult. I cannot witness macro evolution (neither can you). What we do is derive an idea based off of 'evidence.' Even if an experiment is repeatable, we don't believe it is the only way something works. We are fairly sure, for instance, that there are better cures for cancer than chemo and radiation. Science is about application and ability, not worrying whether I can or cannot prove I come from common ancestry where 'commonality' is more important. We don't have to assume I come from a common ape. Instead, we simply need to care if the experiment I'm doing 'can' be applied to humans as well as any of the test subjects (generally animals).
                My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                ? Yep

                Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                  You are lousy at reading comprehension then. How MUCH of the articles did you read? Didn't you see that in some places where the climate doesn't change, the rings are not there or not pronounced? Some Oak trees have no rings.
                  Answers.com is your source? Here is one place I do have direct personal experience. Oak tree species living in a temperate climate definitely have rings, in fact quite clear and obvious ones. Oak furniture is something you've seen I'm sure, and it has very clear rings that are beautiful when cut tangentially.

                  Now yes a tree living in a tropical rainforest may not have obvious rings simply because there is no start and stop of growth (which is what creates the rings in the first place), but you might see some stopping points that indicate drought or stress. Trees in tropical dry forests produce rings due to annual wet and dry seasons. But angiosperm and gymnosperm trees living in virtually all of the USA will produce annual rings the vast majority of the time.

                  So this assertion of yours is yet again shown to be a red herring. Dendrochronology, generally speaking, isn't done with trees in tropical rainforests.

                  I believe one of those links said an aging tree near death, will stop creating rings, but it could have been a third link.
                  It would have to be quite near death and sometimes *part* of a tree will die but not all of it. But you can tell by the pattern of the rings then. Because the rings will stop on one place in the trunk but not in another. I happen to have a tree cookie with that very pattern. But the tree was still producing rings on part of the trunk up until the time it died. It ended up as a heart shape rather than round due to the dead spots.

                  Below is an example diagram of a tree cookie.



                  At least one of us is reading instead of 'nuh uh' ing.
                  One of us actually has some botanical knowledge and the other is trying to internet search their way through the problem.

                  Ultimately the problem for YEC is there are trees with good ring records that are over 5000 years old (Bristle cone pines). If we include cross dated rings from the same species we're looking at closer to 10,000 years.

                  Right. The only thing you can verify is the evidence, not the actual. I cannot see air BUT I breathe it. In the same manner, unless it is observed with your five senses, you cannot verify it for everyone.
                  Sure you can. It's called data and evidence.

                  We are fairly sure, for instance, that there are better cures for cancer than chemo and radiation.
                  Um, no we aren't. :P
                  “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                  - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                  Comment


                  • And the fallacies just keep on rolling:

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    You're hanging an awful lot of supposition on one paper. That's generally a bad idea. Maybe it's accurate, maybe not. I'm not finding any other papers that cite that one, so I will reserve judgement.
                    Presumably, there is a number of studies at which point you will accept something. Do you know what that number is? Why don't you stick with critical thinking instead?

                    Regardless there are a few vestigial structures in the anatomy of some organisms. Things that might be actually vestigial are typically features found in only some of the population of a species. I think the appendix doesn't qualify for that. But there are some human structures that are: Darwin's Tubercle
                    Assertion sans evidence, ie, question-begging nonsense. You have no reason to assert that this structure is of any significance without the assumption that people and monkeys share a common ancestor.

                    We prefer a discussion that doesn't involve constantly having to steer you on the path of rationality.

                    Why would they have those genes since they don't lay eggs (and should have never done so according to the YEC "model".)
                    Because the gene sequence has a common function in the developmental stage of birds and marsupials. It's like how airplanes and cars both have wheels. Perhaps when you learn to respect what the other side says, you will stop the diversionary tactic of a multitude of questions and engage in a scientific discussion.

                    Even if the study you cite is correct about the appendix, that doesn't refute common ancestry or evolution in general. It just means the ideas about that one particular organ may not be in line with the evidence. If the evidence shows they're wrong, they will be changed. That is the power of science, when it's shown to be in error, it gets changed to match the data.
                    And you finish it off with a moving of the goalposts. It is the Darwinists who use the term "vestigial." Creationists should not use it. When they do, as in this case, it is to criticize the importation of Darwinism through terminology that has no place in a discussion where one side rejects your ideas.

                    Darwinists used the term to mean "useless" and when their assertions are shown false, they redefine it.

                    The fact is, the appendix is a useful part of the human body, pointing to the Designer.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      Answers.com is your source? Here is one place I do have direct personal experience. Oak tree species living in a temperate climate definitely have rings, in fact quite clear and obvious ones. Oak furniture is something you've seen I'm sure, and it has very clear rings that are beautiful when cut tangentially.
                      Ask as compared to you? Sorry, with your batting average, I'll take Ask at this point. You can laugh at that, but why do we need to be doing inane basal humor? How old are you? 27 with a PhD? You need to work on it.
                      See, most of us with degrees actually ask question, attack later. Perhaps you are getting it from other's, but I'm seldom shooting for lowbrow humor or discussion. Rather, I'm asking you what you are reading and "why" you aren't reading the same material I'm reading. I don't, for example, dismiss Ask.com sight unseen. That'd be a huge mistake that I'll leave to you. I'm just not that arrogant or ill-informed. Sorry, this one backfires on you. Bring your PhD back up to par.

                      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      Now yes a tree living in a tropical rainforest may not have obvious rings simply because there is no start and stop of growth (which is what creates the rings in the first place), but you might see some stopping points that indicate drought or stress. Trees in tropical dry forests produce rings due to annual wet and dry seasons. But angiosperm and gymnosperm trees living in virtually all of the USA will produce annual rings the vast majority of the time.
                      That is fine 'when it works.' It isn't when it doesn't. Point? One: This is an example, not THE discussion. Rather, you are attacking what you don't know as if you do then reading to quickly back yourself up. For what? To naysay what generally passes for age? The original point was that we cannot always use the same standards, thus dating the earth is a difficult prospect. Some things point to an old earth and others that it isn't quite that old( like dinosaur skin -try not to get lost in details, you've a PhD).

                      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      So this assertion of yours is yet again shown to be a red herring. Dendrochronology, generally speaking, isn't done with trees in tropical rainforests.
                      Sorry. You are lost in inane details trying to assert prowess but losing respect over your hard-earned PhD for it. You are digging in the gradeschool playground dirt. Let's try to rise above it. I really don't like banter. Perhaps you felt slighted at my jib regarding trees (that you admit here is true, red-herring or not and STILL just lost in example ). I don't agree often with Barbarian, but the two of us can carry on an adult conversation. I don't think he has a PhD, but he does have a science degree.

                      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      It would have to be quite near death and sometimes *part* of a tree will die but not all of it. But you can tell by the pattern of the rings then. Because the rings will stop on one place in the trunk but not in another. I happen to have a tree cookie with that very pattern. But the tree was still producing rings on part of the trunk up until the time it died. It ended up as a heart shape rather than round due to the dead spots.

                      Below is an example diagram of a tree cookie.



                      One of us actually has some botanical knowledge and the other is trying to internet search their way through the problem.
                      At one point, I was going to take the high road and thank you for attempting to bring this back to an academic high standard, but then you've dropped down to attempt to one-up like a school-yard brawl No, I've taught science, so get that part right at least. This is beneath me, if it isn't beneath you

                      Ultimately the problem for YEC is there are trees with good ring records that are over 5000 years old (Bristle cone pines). If we include cross dated rings from the same species we're looking at closer to 10,000 years.
                      Several points: "If" you've a love for the Word of God, then God created full-grown trees Genesis 1:2-4 If the days are literal, then these were all made 'already mature.' I've no idea at this point whether God is where you get your truth or not so have to hope this means something to you. If not, then go ahead and stay committed to science, but it does cast doubt, as I said, on one's commitment to Loving Christ. When I was in college, I had several science hod's that were YEC. That at least, should mean something to you and give you pause. My daughter's Science hod also heads the campus bible study. That makes at least a couple of genuine science majors that are YEC and STILL teaching in Public College school systems. It's important to this conversation because even if you've gone to banter at this point in thread, you should be treating those with science degrees on par, who disagree with you, with some respect. Why? Because more important than science is your fellowship with the saints 'if' Christ is your love. I think about this every time I enter this conversation with you. I WANT to see the love of Christ. I want to contend with a brother as iron sharpens iron. I'd suggest that I'm the only one at this point even addressing that part of the OP premise but I cannot and will not do it on a subpar banter level.

                      For a moment, if it comes between 'science' or 'God' then science is out for me. I love truth and see science as exploring truths, but if the two come in conflict, I'm sorry, I've got to depart from science and any Christian who chooses unwisely at that point. I'm not trying to do much, but give you the cards on the table at this point, because unless I can discuss actual scripture with you, the premise of your thread is simply "I love science and kind of love Jesus." "I love Jesus" means something or it doesn't. We have to be able to explain what we mean as well as discuss what we are doing because of that love. Love motivates. 1 John 4:20

                      Sure you can. It's called data and evidence.
                      I just said that. It is derivative AND interpretive knowledge. Most of science is, but things that you can see, feel, hear, smell, or taste, or at least perceive (like mathematics), then the verifiable nature of the science truth is always going to be in question. Further? That's a 'good' thing for science. It makes it have to be more and more sure by testing theory that isn't as solid. It is why chemo and radiation may no longer be used in the future, we are replacing the iron lung, etc.

                      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      Um, no we aren't. :P
                      Incorrect. and [emoji14] ?

                      How old are you and why aren't you able to do emojis correctly?

                      I may have to leave you and talk with adults after this. I will not sustain schoolyard banter with one who claims to love my Lord and Savior.

                      This ain't it, and no you can't take your toys and go home. Your PhD doesn't grant you that right.

                      My mother has cancer. Chemo and radiation would kill her. A highly recognized doctor from UW agreed. Comparatively? You just aren't that big of a fish in that large of a pond. I can give you all kinds of medical websites that are curing cancer without chemo or radiation. Your opinion just to be contentious? Noted, as it is over the aging of trees where counting rings at times, doesn't work. Do better or I'm done with this chat. I want to say 'please' but wonder if such already lowers the expectation that asking for an adult conversation should already be the expectation.
                      Last edited by JudgeRightly; October 19th, 2019, 12:05 AM. Reason: Added a missing quote tag
                      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                      ? Yep

                      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                        I don't, for example, dismiss Ask.com sight unseen.
                        I didn't either, but virtually all of the questions I saw in your linked list had one word answers. "Do all trees have rings?" "No."
                        Then you said some oak trees don't have rings, and those questions and answers were your citation.

                        Firstly, "oak" is a common name that's usually applied to an extremely large number of tree species that mostly live in temperate zones (Genus Quercus) all of which would presumably produce rings. Maybe there is some tropical tree out there with the common name "oak" that I'm not aware of that would fit your description? In any case you weren't precise enough for me to make that determination.

                        Several points: "If" you've a love for the Word of God, then God created full-grown trees Genesis 1:2-4 If the days are literal, then these were all made 'already mature.'
                        Then you're positing that God is creating false history in those trees, since that's what tree rings are.

                        Personally I do not believe those days are literal. Instead they fit a poetic pattern. If you look at the first three days, You see separation happening. Light separated from darkness, water from land etc. Then in the next three days those separated parts of creation are filled, given purpose etc. This is why the light and dark precede sun and moon on the fourth day. It makes the story easier to remember and effectively demotes the sun and moon to just lights in the sky. That idea was quite revolutionary for the ancient world since so many cultures worshiped the sun and the moon.

                        I've no idea at this point whether God is where you get your truth or not so have to hope this means something to you. If not, then go ahead and stay committed to science, but it does cast doubt, as I said, on one's commitment to Loving Christ.
                        I disagree on that point, that science is merely studying and interpreting the world God has given us. The Bible's function isn't to tell us how the natural world works. It is to teach us how to treat other human beings, something science cannot do.

                        I'm not trying to do much, but give you the cards on the table at this point, because unless I can discuss actual scripture with you, the premise of your thread is simply "I love science and kind of love Jesus." "I love Jesus" means something or it doesn't. We have to be able to explain what we mean as well as discuss what we are doing because of that love. Love motivates. 1 John 4:20
                        Sorry, it's easy to pick up a no holds barred habit when arguing with half a dozen people at once.

                        I just said that. It is derivative AND interpretive knowledge. Most of science is, but things that you can see, feel, hear, smell, or taste, or at least perceive (like mathematics), then the verifiable nature of the science truth is always going to be in question. Further? That's a 'good' thing for science. It makes it have to be more and more sure by testing theory that isn't as solid.
                        Scientific knowledge is always subject to more testing and improvement.

                        My mother has cancer.
                        I'm sorry to hear that. I've had plenty of family members with cancer.
                        Chemo and radiation would kill her. A highly recognized doctor from UW agreed.
                        There are times when cancer treatment will actually make someone sicker with little chance of benefit. When I first read your statement I thought you were rejecting chemotherapy in general. I had a relative do this and take vitamin C injections for a cancer that should have been treatable, she unfortunately died far too early. I think chemotherapy of some time will always be the workhorse of cancer treatment, although some GE immune cells are starting to be used in some cases.

                        My grandmother went through radiation and chemo only to have the cancer reappear. The second round we chose not to treat and she had a healthy happy life for many years before the cancer finally took her.

                        In any case my apologies for that assumption and I wish you and your mother well.
                        “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                        - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          Presumably, there is a number of studies at which point you will accept something. Do you know what that number is? Why don't you stick with critical thinking instead?
                          Any time a new ideas is published, I hesitate to accept the science until it has been repeated by another group. That's called scientific skepticism. It should be default posture in science. What is in scientific textbooks always comes from multiple papers. Humans can make mistakes so we wait for lots of independent confirmation before something is considered "settled".

                          You have no reason to assert that this structure is of any significance without the assumption that people and monkeys share a common ancestor.
                          Really the whole external ear is evidence of common ancestry. Our ears are monkey ears. Your argument boils down to a denial of mountains of evidence. Humans share countless features with the great apes, from grasping hands to forward facing eyes to dental formulae to genes etc. In any other group of organisms you'd posit hyperevolution and say we shared a common ancestor. (You believe housecats and lions share a common ancestor no?) But with humans it has to be ANYTHING other than common ancestry, it can't be that . . .

                          Because the gene sequence has a common function in the developmental stage of birds and marsupials. It's like how airplanes and cars both have wheels.
                          Marsupials don't lay eggs so . . . I'm not seeing how your analogies make sense.

                          Darwinists used the term to mean "useless" and when their assertions are shown false, they redefine it.
                          Darwin himself may have asserted it meant "useless" but scientific ideas do change as we gain more information.

                          Just as a thought though . . . are nipples on male mammals useful?
                          “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                          - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                            Any time a new ideas is published, I hesitate to accept the science until it has been repeated by another group. That's called scientific skepticism. It should be default posture in science. What is in scientific textbooks always comes from multiple papers. Humans can make mistakes so we wait for lots of independent confirmation before something is considered "settled".
                            Science is never settled.

                            Your argument boils down to a denial of mountains of evidence.
                            What argument?

                            You assert common descent because of a bump on the ear on people and monkeys that you've decided is the same thing, sans any actual evidence.

                            Marsupials don't lay eggs.
                            Great. When you find someone who says that they do, you'll have a "gotcha."

                            Darwin himself may have asserted it meant "useless" but scientific ideas do change as we gain more information.
                            Do you intentionally miss the point every time?
                            Last edited by Stripe; October 19th, 2019, 10:21 AM.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              I thought this was the site connected with the paper? Perhaps I was wrong about that?

                              https://evoinfo.org/
                              Is that a question? That's embarrassing.

                              The reason you wouldn't know about a computer model for common descent, even if you were an evolutionary computer scientist, is because Ev failed so miserably and as far as I know no one can even speculate how to make a model work.

                              That's the reason you have to insist that biology is magic and it cannot be modeled. A logic step in understanding common descent would be to model it but since early models have failed so spectacularly the best argument to make now is the one you are making. Of course your rhetoric isn't going to use the word "magic", but that is what you are describing as to why computer models don't exist for common descent. Ev was made in the 00's, so perhaps you know of something more recent. Please let me know.

                              Homology now isn't just "looks" it is based on the developmental pathways that create it.
                              That would be great if common descentists would ignore looks these days and focus on the information that makes the looks. But they don't. It's not even what you lead with in your OP.

                              And that's for good reason. Developmental pathways are a big loser for common descent the more we understand it. It's precisely the reason "the third way" is becoming a thing. You can read one group's site here, and they have lots of credentials without any interest in religious or political views to support their assertion that "The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules."

                              But there's more. A view of nested hierarchy fits the structure of DNA information much better than mutation plus natural selection.

                              Have you ever read Endless forms most beautiful by Sean Caroll?
                              No, but I'll look it up. So far, books like "your inner fish" and Dawkin's books are weak.

                              Guess I don't know what an SJW is in this context.
                              It's just a parallel between you and another misguided group. Perhaps your support for failed ideas comes from the same pattern of thinking.

                              Just for clarity:

                              Common descent explains why mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA and ribosomes.
                              It explains the recurrent laryngeal nerve and why testicles in mammals have to descend.
                              It explains why the mammalian and bird heart has four chambers instead of just two.
                              It explains why animals and plants on islands are often unique and why invasive species from very distant places are so damaging.
                              It explains why hippos and cows have the highest similarity of DNA with whales over any other living mammal and why rats and mice have about the same amount of DNA differences.

                              What it doesn't explain is what ethical standards we should live by or the ultimate purpose of creation.
                              It doesn't explain any of those things, unless you call "just so" stories explanations. So many of the things you mention have glaring exceptions that are just explained away with the wave of a hand sans science.

                              I note you ignored my statement about the Big Bang theory. Is that because it doesn't fit with your paradigm?
                              Because the Big Bang has it's own problems and I wanted to keep the discussion on track.

                              Can't say I did.
                              It's much more well argued than anything I've read from Sean Carroll. But it would be outside your confirmation bias bubble so you better not read it.

                              So in that case it appears you do accept some evolution, just not common descent.
                              Of course. Since evolution just means "change", I don't think you'll find anyone that doesn't accept some evolution. I'm glad to see you might be joining the conversation - it's never been about evolution and only been about common descent.

                              If you cite Walt Brown's book, just understand I view his ideas as silly at best.
                              I think you view anyone's work on the flood as silly at best. That's why people can correctly say you live in a confirmation bias bubble.
                              Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                              Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                                Those listed features are the apomorphies (new features) of the listed group. But each group that follows from another group inherits those characteristics.
                                Again, one of your problems, here, is that the Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species taxonomy graphic you posted has not the slightest thing to do with the idea of something inheriting something from something, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of any group chronologically following/preceding any other group.

                                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                                Humans inherited our hair and milk glands from our mammalian ancestors for example, and our grasping hands from primate ancestors.
                                Since you would say that humans are mammals, and that humans are primates, what you're telling me, here, is that mammals inherited something from mammals, and that primates inherited something from primates. But, what does that have to do with the Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species taxonomy graphic you posted, which has nothing to do with a progression of time--and thus, nothing to do with inheritance??

                                Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                                I mean he was a Young Earth creationist. He also lived long before Darwin.
                                And so, what was your purpose for mentioning Linnaeus where you mentioned him, and for pointing out that he was a YEC, and for pointing out that he lived long before Darwin?

                                Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                                From what would you say the kingdom, "animals", inherited its organisms' ability to move on their own?
                                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                                From simple eukaryotic organisms that also move through the use of their cytoskeletal structures.
                                1. I suppose I should have been a little more specific in the wording of my question: From what taxon would you say the kingdom, "animals", inherited its organisms' ability to move on their own?
                                2. Do "simple eukaryotic organisms that also move through the use of their cytoskeletal structures" have the ability to move on their own, or do they not? If they don't, then how could animals have inherited the ability to move on their own from things that have no ability to move on their own? If they do, then why would you exclude them from the kingdom, "animals", and why would you say that the ability to move on their own is a (to use your phrase) "new feature" in the kingdom, "animals"?
                                All my ancestors are human.
                                PS: All your ancestors are human.
                                PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X