If Evolution

[Derf]

Barbarian observes:
Those aren't contradictory. The first merely gives the scientific definition, and the second gives the consequences. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. Speciation is a consequence of that change. Evolution can happen without speciation.


It cites Darwin's theory, (and says so) which is not current evolutionary theory. Darwin merely noted natural selection produced descent with modification. Modern evolutionary theory adds Mendel's discovery.


Which is true. But the proper scientific definition is the one I gave you. Has been since the "modern synthesis following the re-discovery of Mendel's work.



It's the precise definition for Darwin's theory. That theory has since been modified to include genetics. And it correctly states that it's Darwin's theory that is being defined.



Don't think so. You were, I thought, arguing that those two different things were not being properly defined. As you see, they are.



Pleased to clear that up. Darwin's statement is quite correct; it merely doesn't add the findings of genetics, which cleared up a difficult problem for his original theory. The four basic points of Darwinism are observably true, of course.

I was, in answer to your following critique...

Barbarian observes: Evolution, as you know, is directly observed. Creationists have come up with all sorts of weird definitions of "evolution." But in science, biological evolution has one definition: "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

​

...showing you that your critique is not only unfounded against creationists, but fairly leveled against both evolutionists and those that support them.

Yep.

So you agree that "On the Origin of Species" is one of those "sources that don't have much to do with science". I give you too little credit, apparently.

Barbarian observes:
Don't think he called it "evolution" though. Everything I've read from him called it "acquired characteristics."
...
Ah, The Descent of Man came later. So there you are.

Yes, there we are...and I was really beginning to think highly of your posts--not agreeing with the content, but at least acknowledging that you write and research them well.

But by "progression", he meant fitness, not complexity or "higher" organization. Indeed, in his chapter on rudimentary organs, he discussed how organisms might lose functions through evolution.

Great bait and switch technique. Somewhere, somehow, organisms must gain complexity in order for evolution from one organism to another. You can't start with a single-celled creature and end up with a system-of-cells creature without gaining some complexity. IT CAN'T ALL BE DUE TO LOSS OF FUNCTION or the first creatures would have been the most complex, and Darwin knew it.

Now, it could be that all that we see today is a loss of function, sometimes allowing a slight benefit in fitness. You really want to hang the whole hat of evolution on only the "directly observed"? Not that I disagree--that is really all you have. Everything else is an alternate creation myth.

Loss of function, then, gets back to that word "descent", doesn't it.

Usually, because they don't listen. And, so many creationists spend much time and energy fighting an enemy they have themselves constructed while amused or bemused scientists watch the proceedings.

Because those scientist have convinced themselves that they are right, despite falling for their own illogic. Creationists are not the only presuppositionalists.

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Science is ALWAYS in agreement with God's Word.I always agree with science.

It seems that you don't.
Otherwise, how come you reject evolution then?

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Darwinists are forever messing this up:

Evolution. The theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. Theory.

Gravity. The fact that masses are attracted toward each other according to the inverse square law. Fact.

Gravity is a fact. Evolution is just a theory.

Well actually the inverse square law is just that - a law.
The Theory of gravity (tm) is more complex and contains all of Einstein's stuff as well.

Facts are datapoints, they are the basis for the deduction of laws.
E.g. the law of irreversibility, which is part of the theory of evolution.


I truly have to cringe every time I hear "just a theory" ..... c'mon man, look up the meaning of THEORY in science - it's the highest level of accomplishment science has to offer.









PS: Evo focuses on biodiversity and common ancestry. There is no strict need for just 1 initial source for all life, there may be multiple sources.

 

[Stripe]

Well actually the inverse square law is just that - a law.

:darwinsm:

Law, not fact. Gotcha. :chuckle:

The Theory of gravity (tm) is more complex and contains all of Einstein's stuff as well.

Nope. Gravity is a fact.

I truly have to cringe every time I hear "just a theory"

Good.

Evolution is just a theory.

Evo focuses on biodiversity and common ancestry. There is no strict need for just 1 initial source for all life, there may be multiple sources.

Oh. So you reject common descent?

 

[way 2 go]

Well actually the inverse square law is just that - a law.
The Theory of gravity (tm) is more complex and contains all of Einstein's stuff as well.

Facts are datapoints, they are the basis for the deduction of laws.
E.g. the law of irreversibility, which is part of the theory of evolution.


I truly have to cringe every time I hear "just a theory" ..... c'mon man, look up the meaning of THEORY in science - it's the highest level of accomplishment science has to offer.

theory:


1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory


3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

 

[Stripe]

theory:

1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

Oh.

That rules out evolution then.

 

[6days]

I always agree with science.

It seems that you don't.
Otherwise, how come you reject evolution then?

Me thinks you are equivocating your beliefs about the past, with science. Science is the "intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." (Adaptation, fossils, geological layers, mutation rates, DNA, etc).

 

[The Barbarian]

I was, in answer to your following critique...
...showing you that your critique is not only unfounded against creationists, but fairly leveled against both evolutionists and those that support them.

As you just learned, that's false.

So you agree that "On the Origin of Species" is one of those "sources that don't have much to do with science".

Nope. As you learned, Darwin's four points are still valid. Modern evolutionary theory adds the findings of genetics to Darwin's theory. As you realize, one of those definitions was Darwin's theory, and the other is for the modern synthesis of Darwinism and genetics. Hence, today, evolutionary theory is defined as "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." Yes, as you indicated, creationists often come up with other definitions, but if you want to talk about the theory, you'll have to go with the scientific definition.

Yes, there we are...and I was really beginning to think highly of your posts--not agreeing with the content, but at least acknowledging that you write and research them well.

I do my best. As you see, I'm rather patient, and don't mind helping to clarify things for people. You seem to have it pretty well understood, now. Mostly, the confusion comes from creationists, often trying to conflate evolution with the consequences of evolution. It's intentional, meant to muddle the issue.

Great bait and switch technique.

Only as long as someone doesn't point it out.

Somewhere, somehow, organisms must gain complexity in order for evolution from one organism to another.

Nope. Sometimes, evolution simplifies things. Our jaws and shoulder joints, for example, are simpler than those of our ancestors. That's another major misconception.

You can't start with a single-celled creature and end up with a system-of-cells creature without gaining some complexity. IT CAN'T ALL BE DUE TO LOSS OF FUNCTION

Yep. Sometimes, we see new functions arise by modification of existing things. Would you like to learn about some of those?

Now, it could be that all that we see today is a loss of function,

Here, you're confusing simplification with loss of function. Mammalian jaws actually work better than reptilian jaws, in most cases. And yet they are less complex.

sometimes allowing a slight benefit in fitness.

The CCR5-Δ32 allele became widespread in Europe a few hundred years ago. It confers resistance to bubonic plague (and apparently to HIV as well). You think that's a slight benefit?

You really want to hang the whole hat of evolution on only the "directly observed"?[/quote[

Not at all. Genetics, transitional forms, phenotypic variation, confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory, and so on, also show the fact of evolution.

--that is really all you have.

That's a lot. And while it's impressive that we find so many predicted transitional organisms, it's even more impressive that we never find one where it's not predicted to be.

Creationism, on the other hand...

Everything else is an alternate creation myth.

Yep.

Loss of function...

and new functions, too.

...gets back to that word "descent", doesn't it.[

Yep. "Descent with modification", as Darwin put it.


Creationists have convinced themselves that they are right, despite falling for their own illogic.

Creationists are not the only presuppositionalists.

No, they aren't. There are bigfoot buffs, UFO enthusiasts, birthers...

 

[Jose Fly]

Somewhere, somehow, organisms must gain complexity in order for evolution from one organism to another. You can't start with a single-celled creature and end up with a system-of-cells creature without gaining some complexity.

You really want to hang the whole hat of evolution on only the "directly observed"?

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595

"We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production. These results show that key aspects of multicellular complexity, a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from unicellular eukaryotes."

 

[6days]

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595

"We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production. These results show that key aspects of multicellular complexity, a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from unicellular eukaryotes."

"No new kind of organism has evolved in Travisano’s lab. His team is merely reporting the results of two months of standard agricultural husbandry principles applied to yeast.

"Some evolutionary biologists have posed questions about the genetics underlying the results. Massachusetts evolutionary biologist Mansi Srivastava, for instance, commented, “What remains to be seen for me is how relevant is it to actual transitions to multicellularity” and “what the underlying genetic changes were.”Stony Brook biochemist Todd Miller likewise wonders if there were “any changes in expression of signaling genes after they selected the snowflakes.” That work may yet be forthcoming and might reveal a mechanism for variation within the created kind. But since the yeast were already proven to have the ability to do what they later did, they did not evolve into anything new, just fluffier yeast." https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/yeast-begat-yeast/

 

[Jose Fly]

"No new kind of organism has evolved in Travisano’s lab. His team is merely reporting the results of two months of standard agricultural husbandry principles applied to yeast.

So unicellular and multicellular organisms are the same "kind". How about that.

"Some evolutionary biologists have posed questions about the genetics underlying the results. Massachusetts evolutionary biologist Mansi Srivastava, for instance, commented, “What remains to be seen for me is how relevant is it to actual transitions to multicellularity” and “what the underlying genetic changes were.”Stony Brook biochemist Todd Miller likewise wonders if there were “any changes in expression of signaling genes after they selected the snowflakes.”

Those arr indeed interesting questions.

That work may yet be forthcoming and might reveal a mechanism for variation within the created kind. But since the yeast were already proven to have the ability to do what they later did, they did not evolve into anything new, just fluffier yeast." https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/yeast-begat-yeast/

Given how AIG operates under a biased and anti-scientific framework, does anyone outside of their circle of fundamentalists care what they think?

 

[6days]

Given how AIG operates under a biased and anti-scientific framework, does anyone outside of their circle of fundamentalists care what they think?

I was correct. I figured you wouldn't argue with logic but instead just attack the source.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was correct. I figured you wouldn't argue with logic but instead just attack the source.

Attack? IIRC, you previously agreed that AIG's framework of "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record" is unscientific. And it's clearly biased, is it not?

 

[marhig]

You are right it may not have been a sister. It possibly could be a niece. In either case it would have been a close relative and a descendant of Adam and Eve. And we don't know when Cain got married, it may have been a hundred years later.

It doesn't say any of that in the Bible, it says that Cain took a wife from the land of nod, (another land) no sister, no niece etc mentioned. You can't say you take the Bible literally, and then add on what you believe is right to the scriptures. If you take it literally, then it doesn't say anywhere that Cain married a sister or niece etc. But rather that he married a wife from another land.

Maybe I misunderstood... it seemed like you were suggesting pre-adamite people.

Yes I do believe that there were people here before Adam, and the Bible says so too God had created man (male and female) at the same time, before Adam. As shown in Genesis 1. But what's that got to do with God creating in darkness and death? God is light and life, there is no darkness and death in God. The only creating in darkness God does is in us, we're in darkness, until we see the glorious light of Christ and we are brought forth into light and life through him.

Sripture tells us in 6 days God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in .

And I believe it, I just don't see it as you do.

I don't know if I described how God created. I did quote a little bit from the Bible though. The context of the word day in Genesis one does not allow for anything other than what we refer to as a 24-hour day. We can look at the context of the word throughout scripture and it has a variety of meetings which is always determined by the context. Why would we ignore the context or exegesis for the one chapter in the Bible?

Quote: "Ignore genesis for the one chapter in the Bible?" What do you mean? Thanks

Also why does the word day in Genesis mean a 24 hour period? It doesn't say in Genesis that a day is 24 hours. Have you read this in Genesis 2, is this (below) a 24 hour period?

Genesis 2

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, IN THE DAY that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

God created in the day (light)

Romans 13

The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light

The night is far spend (our time in darkness) the day is a hand (our time in the light)

Anyway, I've said enough, i don't see Genesis as you do, I believe it has a natural and a Spiritual meaning.

 

[marhig]

I have a few Bible apps on my phone, and one of them gives me a verse a day to look at, and just now, Psalm 118 v24 popped up.

118:24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.

 

[6days]

It doesn't say any of that in the Bible, it says that Cain took a wife from the land of nod, (another land) no sister, no niece etc mentioned.

So Eve was not the mother of all?

Yes I do believe that there were people here before Adam

So when Jesus referred to Adam and Eve and used the words "the beginning", He didn't mean the beginning in Genesis 1? Are you suggesting that Jesus should have chosen his words more carefully?


Marhig... the problem, or rather the biggest problem, of believing in pre-adamites is it contradicts the Gospel. Rom.5:12 NWT "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.

I don't understand exactly what you believe Marhig, but if people lived before Adam they must not have had any suffering or death... but because of Adam they did? Worse problem is that Last Adam died for descendants of first Adam only. I am a descendant of first Adam and I assume you would say the same?

God had created man (male and female) at the same time, before Adam.

But That isn't what God's Word tells us. You must believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory?

But what's that got to do with God creating in darkness and death?

Sorry... not sure what you are referring to?

Scripture tells us in 6 days God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them .

And I believe it, I just don't see it as you do.

You see it differently from what it says?

Quote: "Ignore genesis for the one chapter in the Bible?" What do you mean? Thanks

Your 'quote' is dishonest. This is what I really said... "The context of the word day in Genesis one does not allow for anything other than what we refer to as a 24-hour day. We can look at the context of the word throughout scripture and it has a variety of meetings which is always determined by the context. Why would we ignore the context or exegesis for the one chapter in the Bible?"


IOW... The word 'day' (YOM in Hebrew) has a variety of meanings, and the meaning is always understood by the context. For example you quoted a verse from Genesis 2:4 where the context of the word 'day' clearly refers to a period of time. If we look at verse 3, the context is clearly referring to what we call a 24-hour day. The meaning of the word day is always understood by context. Here are those two verses from the NWT...3 And God went on to bless the seventh day[ and to declare it sacred, for on it God has been resting from all the work that he has created, all that he purposed to make.

4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

Further examples... There is hundreds of to.ds the word day is used in scripture.. and the meeting is always easy to understand by context. We don't imagine that Jonah was in the fish for an undetermined amount of time... etc. I can try explain Hebrew context with examples if you wish. But here is something to consider...James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

Anyway, I've said enough, i don't see Genesis as you do, I believe it has a natural and a Spiritual meaning.

Then.... if that is true, wouldn't it seem logical that Christ only needed to have spiritual death? Don't you think that the cross is necessary for us?

 

[Derf]

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595

"We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production. These results show that key aspects of multicellular complexity, a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from unicellular eukaryotes."

Again, you want to hang the whole hat of evolution on such, when it shows the creature already has the ability to adapt? Adaptability is a design trait that exhibits foresight on the part of the designer. And if evolution posits that all life came from a single ancestor, and evolution posits that that ancestor had the innate ability to adapt to become all the world's different species, then the question really does just get back to how that single ancestor came to be so complicated when it suddenly popped into existence.

I know, I know... evolution is not about how that first creature came to be. But both you and [MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION] are pushing all the hard stuff into that first creature's innate ability/complexity. And I'm pretty sure it's because you don't have any answers for how such ability/complexity come to be.

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, you want to hang the whole hat of evolution on such, when it shows the creature already has the ability to adapt?

Recall the reason I posted the article in the first place, specifically in response to your argument about increases in complexity and what's been directly observed. So now we can safely say that evolutionary mechanisms producing increases in complexity has indeed been directly observed.

Adaptability is a design trait that exhibits foresight on the part of the designer.

I'm sure that's what you believe.

And if evolution posits that all life came from a single ancestor, and evolution posits that that ancestor had the innate ability to adapt to become all the world's different species, then the question really does just get back to how that single ancestor came to be so complicated when it suddenly popped into existence.

I would figure if you're of the belief that God created organisms with the ability to adapt, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to also believe that God created organic molecules and compounds with the ability to self-organize.

I know, I know... evolution is not about how that first creature came to be. But both you and [MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION] are pushing all the hard stuff into that first creature's innate ability/complexity. And I'm pretty sure it's because you don't have any answers for how such ability/complexity come to be.

Funny how you went from arguing about increases in complexity to arguing about the origin of the first life. I guess that's progress in a way.

 

[Derf]

Recall the reason I posted the article in the first place, specifically in response to your argument about increases in complexity and what's been directly observed. So now we can safely say that evolutionary mechanisms producing increases in complexity has indeed been directly observed.

It's probably not fair to pit your arguments against [MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION]'s, but you guys are opposing each other. Barb says that apparent gain in complexity is really a loss of complexity. You are saying that apparent gain in complexity is a real gain in complexity.

Your article agrees with Barb, not you, at least in suggesting that the complexity already existed.

I'm sure that's what you believe.

And observe.

I would figure if you're of the belief that God created organisms with the ability to adapt, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to also believe that God created organic molecules and compounds with the ability to self-organize.

Why would you say that? Maybe if you said "God could have created...". But why would you suggest that one follows from the other, unless you are just trying to view things from your presupposition? Is there really any point in a conversation if everyone just sticks with their own presuppositions and nobody ever considers the others' (yes, I have that tendency, too, but I like to go view the other side's offerings--I hope you would be willing to do the same)? Wouldn't you want me to consider your point of view? Therefore, wouldn't you be willing to consider mine.

Funny how you went from arguing about increases in complexity to arguing about the origin of the first life. I guess that's progress in a way.

Why is that funny? Isn't it the natural thing to do? I was pointing out that both your article and Barbarian were supposing that the creatures already had the capability built in to adapt, or at least lose complexity that must have existed for it to be lost, and that can only suggest that the previous creature had that ability and the creature before that back to the first one. And if the first one had the ability to adapt to situations it had never seen, it is prime evidence of a planned design, as observed in both nature and human designs.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's probably not fair to pit your arguments against [MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION]'s, but you guys are opposing each other.

Not at all. The Barbarian simply noted that evolution doesn't always have to produce increased complexity. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Barb says that apparent gain in complexity is really a loss of complexity. You are saying that apparent gain in complexity is a real gain in complexity.

How about we let Barbarian speak for himself?

Your article agrees with Barb, not you, at least in suggesting that the complexity already existed.

Can you quote from the article where it says that?

And observe.

Really? You directly observe God creating organisms with pre-programmed abilities? Where? And how?

Why would you say that? Maybe if you said "God could have created...". But why would you suggest that one follows from the other, unless you are just trying to view things from your presupposition? Is there really any point in a conversation if everyone just sticks with their own presuppositions and nobody ever considers the others' (yes, I have that tendency, too, but I like to go view the other side's offerings--I hope you would be willing to do the same)? Wouldn't you want me to consider your point of view? Therefore, wouldn't you be willing to consider mine.

It's just something I thought would be logical. If someone believes God created organisms with the ability to adapt, it shouldn't be that difficult to also believe God created molecules with the ability to self-organize. After all, we observe both. But I guess if you disagree and believe that self-organization of molecules didn't come from God, that's fine too.

Why is that funny? Isn't it the natural thing to do?

It's called "moving the goalposts" and it's a very common tactic among creationists. You started off by challenging whether we'd observed organisms increasing in complexity, but once that challenge was met you quickly pivoted to "you still don't know how the first life began".

I was pointing out that both your article and Barbarian were supposing that the creatures already had the capability built in to adapt

If creationists want to stop arguing against evolution and start believing that God created life with the ability to evolve, I'm good with that.

or at least lose complexity that must have existed for it to be lost, and that can only suggest that the previous creature had that ability and the creature before that back to the first one.

That makes no sense at all.

And if the first one had the ability to adapt to situations it had never seen, it is prime evidence of a planned design, as observed in both nature and human designs.

That's basically theistic evolution, which I have no problem with.