Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

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

  • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    Did you miss the entire bit about how I spent most of my life as a YEC?
    Would you say that, when you were a YEC, evidence supported YEC, whereas, now that you oppose YEC, evidence opposes 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 Yorzhik View Post
      Did you miss the bit about how I spent my life before I studied anything scientific as a theistic evolutionist? Then I looked into my teachers claims against science and they were mostly wrong...
      So what exactly did you study as far as science goes?


      I don't think you read the about section. Here is the abstract
      I thought this was the site connected with the paper? Perhaps I was wrong about that?

      https://evoinfo.org/


      Homology ultimately depends on "looks". Which is very subjective and any scientist should realize is weak. Radiometric dating labs are a black box that don't make all their data public. Which any scientist should realize is weak. The other evidence you've brought up, like ash bores, is evidence against common descent and isn't even a criticism of YEC because your argument doesn't try to understand the flood enough to even have an opinion on the topic.
      Homology now isn't just "looks" it is based on the developmental pathways that create it.

      Have you ever read Endless forms most beautiful by Sean Caroll?

      You talk like an SJW. An SJW always lies, always doubles down, and always projects. You know I understand how science works, you just where shown why ideology trumps the truth, and common descent explains very little beyond "might makes right" in it's metaphysic. You hit all three.
      Guess I don't know what an SJW is in this context.

      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.

      I note you ignored my statement about the Big Bang theory. Is that because it doesn't fit with your paradigm?

      For the same reason that malaria can predictably and quickly become immune to some treatments and take a predictable longer amount of time to become immune to others. Did you read "Edge of Evolution" by Behe?
      Can't say I did. So in that case it appears you do accept some evolution, just not common descent.

      Because of the dynamics of the flood. Do you even know how the flood happened?
      If you cite Walt Brown's book, just understand I view his ideas as silly at best.
      “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
        Would you say that, when you were a YEC, evidence supported YEC, whereas, now that you oppose YEC, evidence opposes YEC?
        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.
        “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
          Homology now isn't just "looks" it is based on the developmental pathways that create it.
          Here's a rule for a rational debate: If you have evidence that is "based on" X, it cannot be used to support X.

          Given your "based on," homology cannot be used as evidence for common descent.
          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 Stripe View Post
            Here's a rule for a rational debate: If you have evidence that is "based on" X, it cannot be used to support X.

            Given your "based on," homology cannot be used as evidence for common descent.
            The objection to using homology was "it's just looks", in which case then we should look at the underlying mechanism for confirmation. To say, "we can't use that evidence either," then asserts that nothing biological could ever be evidence for common descent. That is quite obviously a specious argument.

            You remove any potential for "subjectivity" by comparing the genetic patterns that create the homology. If organisms have a similar shape, but very different DNA mechanisms to create that shape, then we can say that argues against recent common descent. But if those mechanisms are very similar and create very different shapes from very minor changes in DNA mechanisms, that is good supporting evidence for common descent.
            “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
              You remove any potential for "subjectivity" by comparing the genetic patterns that create the homology. If organisms have a similar shape, but very different DNA mechanisms to create that shape, then we can say that argues against recent common descent. But if those mechanisms are very similar and create very different shapes from very minor changes in DNA mechanisms, that is good supporting evidence for common descent.
              In other words everything is either homologous or analogous... Everything can be explained within the non-falsifiable belief system.

              How about,God used a similar instruction manual to perform similar functions in similar creatures?
              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                To say, "we can't use that evidence either."
                Notice how I didn't say it cannot be used.

                You remove any potential for "subjectivity" by comparing the genetic patterns that create the homology.
                Notice how this assumes that genetic inheritance causes homology?

                It's called petitio principii, which is to assume the truth of the initial point you're trying to establish. Also called "begging the question," a logical fallacy.

                Exactly what you were warned about.

                If organisms have a similar shape, but very different DNA mechanisms to create that shape, then we can say that argues against recent common descent. But if those mechanisms are very similar and create very different shapes from very minor changes in DNA mechanisms, that is good supporting evidence for common descent.
                Also, if the same genetics are used for similar features in radically different organisms, that is evidence for design.
                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 6days View Post
                  In other words everything is either homologous or analogous... Everything can be explained within the non-falsifiable belief system.
                  No. There are three possible options:

                  Option 1 - If each organism had a unique DNA code, that would falsify evolution. This is very possible because the genetic code is redundant and there are almost infinite ways to "say" the same protein coding genes. The same thing is even more true of regulatory sequences.

                  Option 2 - If each organism had an identical genetic sequence for all identical functions, that would falsify evolution. Because there is no way those DNA sequences could stay so identical over millions of years (Take Cytochrome C oxidase for an example), then organisms would be shown to be simply reusing of identical parts indicating a relatively recent de-novo creation.

                  Option 3 - If each organism differs more or less from another organism in its DNA based on how recently they shared a common ancestor, this provides powerful evidence for common ancestry.

                  Option 3 is what we see in the data. Some organisms that look similar have lots of DNA differences, others that look very different, have few DNA differences. It all comes down to common ancestry, not common form.

                  The only reason you can't falsify evolution in actuality, it because it is actually true.


                  Shown below is a whole genome analysis for 29 mammal species. The longer branches represent more DNA differences found. The shorter the branches, the fewer DNA differences in comparison to other species. Note that mice and rats are about as different from each other on the DNA level as dolphins and cows. But both of those combinations are more different from one another than humans and the rhesus Macacque, a monkey.


                  Mind you, the above wasn't from a paper specifically looking to support evolution, it was looking to discover information about the human genome by comparing it to other mammals. This is, unsurprisingly from a common ancestry standpoint, quite a useful way to study genomes.

                  How about,God used a similar instruction manual to perform similar functions in similar creatures?
                  That would reflect option 2. We don't see that in the data from living organisms.
                  Last edited by Alate_One; October 17th, 2019, 11:45 AM. Reason: clarification
                  “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
                    Notice how I didn't say it cannot be used.



                    Notice how this assumes that genetic inheritance causes homology?
                    If you see a pattern of similarities and differences, as shown in the post above, rather than identity or uniqueness, inheritance makes the most sense.

                    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.



                    Also, if the same genetics are used for similar features in radically different organisms, that is evidence for design.
                    Identical genetics sure, but if you see a sliding scale of differences based on divergence time then it supports common ancestry.

                    “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 Bradley D View Post
                      Science often changes.

                      Evolution

                      1.
                      the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
                      In science, evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. You've confused evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution.

                      Where is the link between man and ape?
                      We are apes. Specifically, we form an ingroup with chimpanzees and bonobos, with other apes as the outgroup. The many transitional forms between modern human and other apes are well known. Australopithecines are one example. They are bipedal, but their skulls are transitional between humans and other apes:



                      Missing link, hypothetical extinct creature halfway in the evolutionary line between modern human beings and their anthropoid progenitors.[/QUOTE]

                      That's not a scientific term, but it's sort of like the term "transitional." Notice that Australopithecines fit your concept of a "missing link."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TrevorL View Post
                        Possibly I have approached the subject, or rather avoided the subject as I am reasonably comfortable with two major concepts. The first is what Paul says in the following:
                        Romans 1:19-20 (KJV): 1 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (or to them); for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
                        My first question is based on the above. Do you believe that the present natural world is a clear evidence of God's creative power and wisdom and divinity?
                        I certainly do. A God who could make the world so that it would bring forth life as He intended, seems like a much wiser and more powerful God than one that must make each living organism from scratch.

                        If you as an evolutionist say yes to this, why is it that many evolutionists use evolution to claim that God does not exist or is not needed?
                        In all my years in biology, I never once heard any biologist say that. Closest to that would be Dawkins, who seems to be ideologically locked into atheism, but he has admitted that God might exist,so he's really an agnostic.

                        For example, everything happened by chance
                        Darwin's great discovery was that it doesn't happen merely by chance.

                        and the survival of the fittest.
                        Survival of the fit, Darwin said. The fittest has the best chance, but time and chance happen to them all.

                        The second aspect that has in the past been the basis for my continuing on my path and not go down the evolution vs creation side road flows on to some extent from the above quotation. When I look at the creation I have highlighted in my mind the fact that every species of plant, bird, animal and man can reproduce and I suggest that this is remarkable. Take the smallest seed of a tree and 20 years later we have a full large copy of the original tree. Same with birds and animals and humans, but with these you need a male and female. Unless you can inform me in simple terms how evolution can bring about this established result, then with these two aspects I will continue on my path and leave you and others to your ideas, discussion and thread.
                        Mutation and natural selection. It's a basic chemical property of DNA, replicating itself, by the physical and chemical properties of the atoms involved. The simplest form of replication is fission. The nucleic acid replicates and the cell divides into two new individuals.

                        Conjugation is a way that bacteria can transfer genes to one another. In some organisms, eggs form and are produced identical to the parent. Sometimes, sex is an option, but not required. I don't see any stage of complexity that can't have evolved,and we have lots of transitional forms.

                        What do you think would be difficult to have evolved?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                          Let's visit something for a moment: The age of the earth is NOT scientifically verifiable (wait objection for a moment). Necessarily, for anyone to actually 'verify' the age of the earth, that one necessarily must have been able to observe it, not just count rings. Example: trees are generally aged by rings but not all trees can be aged the same way. When a tree is very old, they no longer produce rings and so getting an exact age is nearly if not impossible.
                          Sorry this is very wrong. A tree that doesn't produce rings is dead. The rings do get narrower as trees get older or suffer poor conditions but that's why dendrochronologists use microscopes. Aside from palm trees and tree ferns that never produce rings at all.

                          Evolution: The ONLY way to verify a horse losing its digits and relying upon one, would be personal observation as well, including trust in someone keeping track before you got there.
                          Do you think that anything that cannot be personally observed cannot be studied by science?

                          Firsthand experience is scientifically inferior to natural evidence that can be studied. Because I could say that I've personally observed all kinds of things. Can you be sure I wasn't confused or deluded when I report them? No. But if I have evidence to show you, that you can also analyze, then we have a very different situation.
                          “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


                          • Greetings “The Barbarian”,
                            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                            I certainly do. A God who could make the world so that it would bring forth life as He intended, seems like a much wiser and more powerful God than one that must make each living organism from scratch.
                            I appreciate your response and clarification of some aspects. Are you suggesting that from your perspective that evolution is what God has used and not the direct creation of two individuals, Adam and Eve?
                            Mutation and natural selection. It's a basic chemical property of DNA, replicating itself, by the physical and chemical properties of the atoms involved. The simplest form of replication is fission. The nucleic acid replicates and the cell divides into two new individuals.

                            Conjugation is a way that bacteria can transfer genes to one another. In some organisms, eggs form and are produced identical to the parent. Sometimes, sex is an option, but not required. I don't see any stage of complexity that can't have evolved, and we have lots of transitional forms.

                            What do you think would be difficult to have evolved?
                            The major difficulty that I would suggest is the numerous items necessary to give birth to a child including the male and female parts of the body, conception and the growth of the child in the womb, and the birth process. All of these must be fully developed in separate beings, one male, one female, and all must be fully functional before any child is born. At what stage in the evolutionary process of mutation and natural selection did this result occur? How long before a male was satisfactorily formed and an independent female that matched the necessary criteria? As with humans, what about every other species of animal, bird, fish, plants, trees did the necessary criteria occur? How long did all these animals and species live before the necessary mutations occurred so that they could reproduce satisfactorily? 1,000,000 years?

                            Kind regards
                            Trevor

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TrevorL View Post
                              Greetings “The Barbarian”,I appreciate your response and clarification of some aspects. Are you suggesting that from your perspective that evolution is what God has used and not the direct creation of two individuals, Adam and Eve?
                              So the evidence shows. And that, unlike YE creationism, is consistent with Genesis.

                              The major difficulty that I would suggest is the numerous items necessary to give birth to a child including the male and female parts of the body, conception and the growth of the child in the womb, and the birth process.
                              Since there are all stages of intermediates between simple fission and mammalian reproduction,there's no stage in the evolution that could not have happened. Can you think of one?

                              All of these must be fully developed in separate beings, one male, one female, and all must be fully functional before any child is born.
                              No. In many organisms, sexual reproduction is absent or optional, so we have transitionals there as well.

                              At what stage in the evolutionary process of mutation and natural selection did this result occur?
                              The evidence shows that it was a gradual process. The complex mammalian system is not the first example. For example, the amnion is not required by many vertebrates. Only reptiles, birds, and mammals have it.

                              How long before a male was satisfactorily formed and an independent female that matched the necessary criteria?
                              That was already evolved in some unicellular eukaryotes. So a long time before humans.

                              As with humans, what about every other species of animal, bird, fish, plants, trees did the necessary criteria occur? How long did all these animals and species live before the necessary mutations occurred so that they could reproduce satisfactorily? 1,000,000 years?
                              For the first reptiles, for example, only the amnion was required. There is point in the evolution of reproduction that we don't find in nature.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TrevorL View Post
                                At what stage in the evolutionary process of mutation and natural selection did this result occur? How long before a male was satisfactorily formed and an independent female that matched the necessary criteria? As with humans, what about every other species of animal, bird, fish, plants, trees did the necessary criteria occur? How long did all these animals and species live before the necessary mutations occurred so that they could reproduce satisfactorily? 1,000,000 years?
                                The evolution of male and female in animals happened long before there were even vertebrates. We're talking about wormlike creatures that were probably hermaphrodites (as earthworms are today), being both male and female. These can mate with one another but both can lay eggs. Sometime around the origin of fish (500ish million years ago) organisms appeared that had separated the testes and ovaries into different individuals and all of their descendants from that point on (with a few exceptions) were male and female. The transition from water to land made things a bit more complicated as water couldn't carry sex cells so internal fertilization became required giving rise to sex as we understand it.

                                Plants came at things a bit differently as most plants today are still hermaphrodites. Male and female in their case is purely defined by the size of the sex cells - sperm and egg. Most plants don't have flagellated sperm unlike animals.

                                But the ultimate basis for sexual reproduction was laid down in single celled organisms through the processes of fertilization (probably to avoid unfavorable conditions) and meiosis. These two processes doubled up the number of chromosomes and then split them in half again. In some organisms with sexual reproduction, there is no male and female, just plus and minus mating types.

                                See here for the single celled Chlamydomonas' life cycle.

                                “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

                                Working...
                                X