Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

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

  • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    So the evidence shows. And that, unlike YE creationism, is consistent with Genesis.
    Asserting your position as fact disallows proper discussion of the evidence.

    YEC says God made creatures to reproduce when He created them, and that He made man specially on the sixth day at the beginning of creation.

    The Bible says God made creatures to reproduce when He created them, and that He made man specially on the sixth day at the beginninig of creation.

    Barbarian says that God used evolution to form creatures, and somehow over millions of years, we get the creatures today, and that man is just another one of those creatures, and that somehow at some point in time God added the ability for those creatures to reproduce sexually, but Barbarian also denies that man was made at the beginning of creation.

    The evidence shows that the Bible is correct.

    Which position, YEC's or Barbarian's, more closely matches that of the Bible?



    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?

    No. In many organisms, sexual reproduction is absent or optional, so we have transitionals there as well.

    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.

    That was already evolved in some unicellular eukaryotes. So a long time before humans.

    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.
    All of that is word soup that doesn't really mean anything specific.

    Hate to break it to you, Barb, but you've jumped the gun.

    The origin of sexual reproduction is inexplicable to Darwinists, and there is currently no solid explanation (as you have just demonstrated with your poor excuse of an attempt at an explanation) at

    https://rsr.org/sexual-reproduction
    See also:
    https://kgov.com/Walter-ReMine-inter...Biotic-Message
    https://kgov.com/Walter-ReMine-2
    https://kgov.com/Walter-ReMine-on-Haldanes-Dilemma

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Alate_One
      Option 1 - If each organism had a unique DNA code, that would falsify evolution.
      The discussion was why there is similarity. Not hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios. And... Evolution (common ancestry) is not falsifiable. There are many many examples of science proving the exact opposite to be true of what Darwinists were claiming. It is an unfalsifiable belief and ultimately the evidence does not matter, it is simply finding a new explanation.
      For example... Evolutionists thought our appendix was homologous... A useless evolutionary leftover. science has shown that the appendix is functional, and does not fit any evolutionary path; So, now evolutionists claim our appendix is analogous and that I must have evolved independently dozens of times.
      Originally posted by Alate_One
      Option 2 - If each organism had an identical genetic sequence for all identical functions, that would falsify evolution.
      You are attempting to argue against hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios. (Strawman) Nobody has suggested or argued for the things, you are trying to argue against. We should expect that similar functions in similar organisms may have similar genes.
      Originally posted by Alate_One
      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.
      Hooray..... You finally got to the actual argument. The evidence is consistent is consistent with a common designer. We should expect that our DNA is more similar to other primates than it is to a carrot. It has nothing to do with common ancestry.

      And, if anything your point number three, is evidence that common ancestry is an unfalsifiable belief system. It is a system of explaining evidence to apriori beliefs. Research shows some genes such as human and armadillo most closely related.. other genes contradict that saying human and elephant are most closely related. And then a third set of genes said that armadillo and elepheant were the closest.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...975/figure/F2/

      The evidence does not much matter to evolutionists. Gene tree discordance is explained away, or more often ignored but, "... conflicting genealogical histories often exist in different genes throughout the genome."
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19307040/

      We can ... We should perform science looking for design and purpose. Our Creator used similar genes to perform similar functions in similar creatures. Sometimes, we need to investigate... There is joy in discovering ', that's why God created that way'. You should not just dismiss similar DNA sequences with 'evolution did it'. Science should involve looking for purpose and function in our genome... Not dismissing things with terms like junk, pseudogene, retrovirus, vestigial, sloppy design, backwards wired Etc.
      Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 6days View Post
        We should expect that our DNA is more similar to other primates than it is to a carrot.
        Exactly. We have an observation that a selection of organisms have variations in their genomes. There are two competing explanations:

        1. Common Designer.
        2. Common descent.

        Falsification of the design ideas would probably most obviously be done through a statistical analysis of the DNA sets. With design would come relatively low entropy within a created kind.

        Falsification of the descent idea would be to apply the study to more than just a small selection of animals.
        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 The Barbarian
          And that, unlike YE creationism, is consistent with Genesis.
          *Genesis tell us that God created the earth before the sun. Do you believe it?

          * Genesis tells us that God created birds before he created the land animals. Do you believe it?

          * Genesis tells us that God gave all the animals the vegetarian diet. Do you believe it?

          * Genesis tells us that pain, suffering and death entered our world after Adam and Eve sinned Do you believe it?

          * Genesis tells us that God created whales before he created the land animals. Do you believe it?

          * Genesis tells us that God physically created woman from the side of mam. Do you believe it?

          * Genesis tells us the God destroyed all humanity, mammals and birds in a flood that covered the highest mountains. Do you believe it?

          * Genesis tells us that God created plants and trees before any sea life. Do you believe it?

          * Genesis tells us "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day". Do you believe it?
          Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

          Comment


          • The skull 2-3 seems to have evolved quite fast.

            How did the first cell evolve?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 6days View Post
              The discussion was why there is similarity. Not hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios. And... Evolution (common ancestry) is not falsifiable.
              I just gave you two ways to falsify it. The only reason they're "unrealistic scenarios" is they don't actually exist. However, they are quite biologically plausible. (PhD Biologist here)

              There are many many examples of science proving the exact opposite to be true of what Darwinists were claiming. For example... Evolutionists thought our appendix was homologous... A useless evolutionary leftover. science has shown that the appendix is functional, and does not fit any evolutionary path; So, now evolutionists claim our appendix is analogous and that I must have evolved independently dozens of times.
              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?

              You are attempting to argue against hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios. (Strawman)
              No, I'm giving you predictions that recent de-novo creationism would make for DNA sequences from biological life forms.

              Hooray..... You finally got to the actual argument. The evidence is consistent is consistent with a common designer.
              No, Identical parts between organisms would be consistent with a recent common designer. There's no reason for a sliding scale of difference that doesn't have anything to do with the function of the genes or organisms. There's no reason genes have to have these specific patterns.


              Cytochrome C oxidase does the same thing in every organism, and yet there's a pattern of nucleotide differences and similarities that are most easily arranged into a tree of ancestry.



              We should expect that our DNA is more similar to other primates than it is to a carrot. It has nothing to do with common ancestry.
              Why should our DNA be more similar to primates than other mammals? Was God intentionally trying to make us think we evolved from them? Why not intentionally create humans as unique organisms with unique genetic sequences? There's no biological necessity for it.

              Why are rats and mice so genetically different from each other despite their similar appearance while humans and primates are tremendously genetically similar?

              And, if anything your point number three, is evidence that common ancestry is an unfalsifiable belief system. It is a system of explaining evidence to apriori beliefs.
              No, it's a system of explaining the available data. It's not easy to falsify because it's designed to explain reality.

              Research shows some genes such as human and armadillo most closely related.. other genes contradict that saying human and elephant are most closely related. And then a third set of genes said that armadillo and elepheant were the closest.
              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...975/figure/F2/
              Those aren't genes, they're retrotransposons. Viral fragments that invade the genome. Occasionally you will find some individual bits of the genome that are different from close relatives. This is not especially surprising since retrotransposons can enter the genome in ways other than just inheritance. Inheritance doesn't always give perfect relationships for every gene, that's why scientists normally use many genes or whole genomes (as was true of the figure I posted).

              Your objection is classic cherry picking anyway, the YEC go to defense. Look at this tiny piece of data over here, that falsifies this mountain of data over here. Orrrrr maybe that tiny piece of data isn't what you think it is, and you're just wrong.

              We can ... We should perform science looking for design and purpose.
              That's assuming the truth of your proposition before the science is even done.

              Our Creator used similar genes to perform similar functions in similar creatures. Sometimes, we need to investigate... There is joy in discovering ', that's why God created that way'. You should not just dismiss similar DNA sequences with 'evolution did it'.
              There are also many *broken* genes that are shared between humans and primates. There's no similar function to explain them. Beta Hemoglobin pseudogene is a great example.

              This isn't a "dismissal". You're using the apriori assumption that EVERYTHING in the genome must be functional because God wouldn't create a genome with broken stuff in it. That's not how science is performed. We look at the data and go where it leads.

              Human psi beta is clearly a hemoglobin gene, or what's left of it. Interestingly enough the sequence is more similar to the same psi beta genes found in other primates than to the functional human beta hemoglobin gene.
              “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 6days View Post
                *Genesis tell us that God created the earth
                You've merely revised a figurative story to make it fit your desires. As you learned, there is no way to make a story that has mornings and evenings before there is a sun to have them, into a literal history.

                Why not just set your pride aside and let it be God's way?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bradley D View Post
                  The skull 2-3 seems to have evolved quite fast.
                  In the space of a few million years, which in geological time, is reasonably fast.

                  How did the first cell evolve?
                  That's a really good question. We can start by asking "what is the most important structure that absolutely must exist in order to have a cell? And then we can start to look at what that structure can tell us.

                  I'm not trying to be mysterious, but you asked a perceptive question, and I'm guessing you can come up with the next question here. What do you think?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                    Falsification of the design ideas would probably most obviously be done through a statistical analysis of the DNA sets. With design would come relatively low entropy within a created kind.
                    Do you honestly think people don't do statistical analysis of DNA data? There's no "created kind" that shows up. The patterns in DNA data don't follow your predictions.

                    Genomes that are small and streamlined (low entropy for you perhaps?) are typically two types of animals: Birds that are high energy fliers, and insects with complete metamorphosis. Not what you predicted, but consistent with natural selection acting on genomes.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3924074/

                    Falsification of the descent idea would be to apply the study to more than just a small selection of animals.
                    Oh if we only had more data we could get rid of that evolution stuff.
                    “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


                    • The discussion was why there is similarity. Not hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios.
                      We know very well why DNA analyses give us the same family tree as phenotypes. We can check it by looking at organisms of known descent. And as predicted, the closer the relationship, the more similar DNA will be. That's not a mystery at all.

                      And... Evolution (common ancestry) is not falsifiable.
                      See above. If organisms of known descent did not have DNA similarities to the degree of relatedness, that would easily falsify common descent.

                      For example... Evolutionists thought our appendix was homologous...
                      Turns out, it is. In other animals,it serves as a fermentation chamber. Ours is vestigial.

                      A useless evolutionary leftover.
                      No. That's a common creationist misconception, but it's false. "Vestigial" does not mean "useless." And it's been that way from the start. Darwin cited examples of such structures no longer having their original function,but evolving new ones. Our appendix is an example. There are useless vestigial organs, such as wings under the fused elytra of some beetles. But that's not the norm.

                      So, now evolutionists claim our appendix is analogous and that I must have evolved independently dozens of times.
                      Nope. Another creationist fairy tale.

                      Our appendix is a developmental derivative and evolutionary vestige of the end of the much larger herbivorous caecum found in our primate ancestors (Condon and Telford 1991; Williams and Myers 1994, p. 9). The word "caecum" actually means "blind" in Latin, reflecting the fact that the bottom of the caecum is a blind pouch (a dead-end or cul-de-sac).

                      In most vertebrates, the caecum is a large, complex gastrointestinal organ, enriched in mucosal lymphatic tissue (Berry 1900), and specialized for digestion of plants (see Figure 2; Kardong 2002, pp. 510-515). The caecum varies in size among species, but in general the size of the caecum is proportional to the amount of plant matter in a given organism's diet. It is largest in obligate herbivores, animals whose diets consist entirely of plant matter. In many herbivorous mammals the caecum is as large as the rest of the intestines, and it may even be coiled and longer than the length of the entire organism (as in the koala). In herbivorous mammals, the caecum is essential for digestion of cellulose, a common plant molecule. The caecum houses specialized, symbiotic bacteria that secrete cellulase, an enzyme that digests cellulose. Otherwise cellulose is impossible for mammals to digest.

                      The structure of the caecum is specialized to increase the efficiency of cellulose fermentation. As a "side branch" from the gut it is able to house a large, dense, and permanent colony of specialized bacteria. Being a dead-end sac at the beginning of the large intestine, it allows more time for digesting food to reside in the gut and ferment more completely, before passing through the large intestine where the resulting nutrients are absorbed. However, even though humans are herbivorous, the small human caecum does not house significant quantities of cellulase-excreting bacteria, and we cannot digest more than but a few grams of cellulose per day (Slavin, Brower, and Marlett 1980).

                      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                        In the space of a few million years, which in geological time, is reasonably fast.



                        That's a really good question. We can start by asking "what is the most important structure that absolutely must exist in order to have a cell? And then we can start to look at what that structure can tell us.

                        I'm not trying to be mysterious, but you asked a perceptive question, and I'm guessing you can come up with the next question here. What do you think?
                        All structures must have cells. At fist they did not realize cells to be made up of many parts. It takes many cells to make something exist. Therefore cells too must have evolved. Therefore to begin with evolution one must begin at the beginning. Its evolution is hard to explain is it not? How far back must we go to discover how the first cell came about without which no living thing exists.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bradley D View Post
                          All structures must have cells. At fist they did not realize cells to be made up of many parts.
                          But there is one part that absolutely must exist in order to have a cell. Think about what that is.

                          It takes many cells to make something exist.
                          It takes one cell to make a bacterium.

                          Therefore cells too must have evolved.
                          So the evidence shows. The hardest step seems to have been from prokaryote to eukaryote. The evidence says it was by endosymbiosis.

                          Therefore to begin with evolution one must begin at the beginning. Its evolution is hard to explain is it not?
                          Seems not. But of course, evolution is not about the way life began. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things.

                          How far back must we go to discover how the first cell came about without which no living thing exists.
                          That is something outside of evolutionary theory, which assumes life and describes how it changes.

                          But here's the key:
                          The simplest organelle,without which there could be no cells, is the cell membrane. It is a very simple phospholipid bilayer, which forms spontaneously into vesicles.





                          All cells retain this primitive membrane; it's modified by molecules penetrating the membrane:



                          There are surely more efficient ways, but it's very difficult to redo something this simple and basic.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                            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.
                            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?
                            Do you think that anything that cannot be personally observed cannot be studied by science?
                            Yes. Unless you experience it by any of your five senses, then science cannot study it.

                            Firsthand experience is scientifically inferior to natural evidence that can be studied.
                            True? I'd suggest there is NO way to scientifically make any statement without firsthand experience. You have to be able to test something in science or it isn't verified/verifiable.
                            Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                            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.
                            Look at True? above. Note the author says all interplay in science investigation. While I understand your general premise, I'd suggest you need to come up with a much clearer conveyance of what you mean because this, to my science knowledge, is incorrect. I DO see it in 'us/them' pseudo-science discussions(many on TOL) but rarely if ever in science discussion. You have to interpret data but must theorize before testing as well as critically analyze whether the conclusions drawn are substantive. In our discussion, the age of the earth is very much either repeated without experiment from another, or guessed/attempt at calculations. In this sense, asking whether science is doing a good job at its guesses IS good science. I have to wonder at times. When I'm teaching science, if I get a question, or even someone who disagrees, I 1) teach, and 2) look at the evidence with the student. The 'nuh uh' and 'is too' tenor of discussion by science teachers and science employees on TOL is always painful for me to watch. Such discussions do not promote good science. If science knowledge itself is the answer to any misheld idea, it is odd that it is not employed but instead the banter ensues.
                            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 Alate_One View Post
                              Do you honestly think people don't do statistical analysis of DNA data?
                              Try to react wildly to what people say, not what you wish they had said.

                              If course statistical analyses are done. I specified a particular type of study.

                              There's no "created kind" that shows up.
                              Because you've done the study, right.

                              The patterns in DNA data don't follow your predictions.
                              What prediction?

                              Genomes that are small and streamlined (low entropy for you perhaps?)
                              That wasn't a question of comparative analysis. It looks like you simply do not understand what was being said. There are two competing ideas: common Designer and common descent. An entropy study might falsify design, that is, if entropy in a single genome (for every example) were shown to be too high, we might be able to rule it out.

                              Comparing birds and bees doesn't match what I said.

                              Instead of reacting, try reading.

                              Oh if we only had more data we could get rid of that evolution stuff.
                              Only fear would prompt such a response. Maybe the data would not falsify your idea.
                              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 The Barbarian View Post
                                If organisms of known descent did not have DNA similarities to the degree of relatedness, that would easily falsify common descent.
                                This is question-begging nonsense.

                                In science, we look to falsify our ideas, not assume the truth of them.

                                Like here:

                                "Our appendix is a developmental derivative and evolutionary vestige of the end of the much larger herbivorous caecum found in our primate ancestors."

                                It's impossible to test an idea that you always assert as a starting condition.
                                Last edited by Stripe; October 18th, 2019, 07:49 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

                                Working...
                                X