-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Is "evolution" (which you say you "understand") a province of "biological science" (which you say "is not my field of expertise")? If so, then what, exactly, do you mean when you say "I understand it"?
6days
New member
So. You obviously must understand and agree with Tony Reed?User Name said:
I did not listen to the full clip, so maybe you can help me out. I heard him say 3 deleterious mutations are added to our genome every generation. Even if we ignore the 70+ VSDM'S added to our genome every generation (which most geneticists consider to be the biggest problem) the 3 new deleterious mutations added to the thousands that already exist in our genome suggest common ancestry is impossible. So, my question is how doesTony Reed brush away the evidence? Geneticists have for a long time understood that more than one mutation added to our genome every generation is inconsistent with common ancestry beliefs... And that is why geneticists have written about the problem in numerous journals calling it a paradox. Back in 1950, Mueller recognized the problem and said even 0.1 mutations per generation would be too much. So.... What type of magical wand is Tone Reed using?
BTW.... you might be interested to know that the evidence is totally consistent with the Biblical creation model.we have a perfectly created genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of deterioration.
Of course it is. It's just not at all consistent with YE creationism.
I understand you want to believe that. But reality says something quite different:
Observations of natural populations have shown that even slight changes in environment will result in a change in the population phenotype, and an increase in fitness. All the theoretical speculation in the world won't change observed reality.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 25; 105(12): 4792–4795
Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource
Anthony Herrel et al
Abstract
Although rapid adaptive changes in morphology on ecological time scales are now well documented in natural populations, the effects of such changes on whole-organism performance capacity and the consequences on ecological dynamics at the population level are often unclear. Here we show how lizards have rapidly evolved differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure after experimental introduction into a novel environment. Despite the short time scale (≈36 years) since this introduction, these changes in morphology and performance parallel those typically documented among species and even families of lizards in both the type and extent of their specialization. Moreover, these changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure, providing a compelling example of how the invasion of a novel habitat can evolutionarily drive multiple aspects of the phenotype.
And there it is. Precisely what the "experts" claim couldn't happen. But it did. Reality vs. Wm. Dembski's numbers. Reality wins.
Except that we have genetic samples from humans who lived thousands of years ago which show that they were no better off then than we are now.
Saying it doesn't make it so, as you have been shown.
"Six days" and "from the beginning of creation" is VERY consistent with YEC, but not at all consistent with evolution.
I honestly don't understand why you would want to believe something that is not only inconsistent with the Bible, but contradicts it, evolution.
No matter how many times you repeat your assertion that evolution is "change," it is no less false than the previous time you said it.
Evolution is not change.
Stripe has given you the actual definition MULTIPLE times. It is "the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection."
No one argues against changes in response to the environment, because change in response to the environment is what we see.
What we DON'T see is all life being descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I'm not all too well-versed in biology terminology, as some people may be, and as some people, perhaps, like to pretend to be. So, I, for one, have to ask questions, as I go along, about what (to me, at least) would seem to be fundamental things that should be gotten cleared up right away, before going on to other things.
My question, here, is this: Is the phrase, "population phenotype", biologically legitimate? Is it meaningful? See, when I briefly look up the term 'phenotype' on the internet, I find things such as, "the observable physical properties of an organism", and "the set of observable characteristics of an individual..." What I, so far, have not found, is that a phenotype is said to be "the observable physical properties of a population", or "the set of observable characteristics of a population..."
Now, as a student sitting at the feet of one proudly professing intelligence, and as one trying to learn, I take the opportunity to ask you exactly what (if anything) is the meaning of modifying (or appearing to modify) the term 'phenotype' by the word 'population'? Obviously, since a phenotype is "the set of observable physical characteristics of an individual", a phrase such as "individual phenotype" would seem to be a redundancy. But, it would seem that, by putting the word 'population' next to the word 'phenotype', as you've done, above, creating the phrase, "population phenotype", you intend to, somehow, modify the word 'phenotype'. So, then, if a plain, old phenotype is the set of observable physical characteristics of an individual, what would you say a "population phenotype" is? How, that is, does whatever you would call a "population phenotype" differ from a plain, old phenotype?
Now, it seems like, when you're talking about an individual, say, giraffe, one of this individual giraffe's observable physical characteristics would be a tail: one, single tail. But, a population of, say, 10 giraffes, does not have this as an observable physical characteristic, does it? A population of 10 giraffes, rather than having the observable physical characteristic of one, single tail, would it not have the observable physical characteristic of 10 tails? That is, would not a population of 10 giraffes be a 10-tailed (not to mention, a 40-legged) population?
I'm asking all this, because
So, what (if anything) would you say is the difference between, on the one hand, what you call a "population phenotype", and, on the other hand, a phenotype that you would not call a "population phenotype"?
If you have no reason, whatsoever, to say "population phenotype", when you could have simply said "phenotype", how do you think that you are being helpful to your readers by inflating your sayings with meaningless jargon? In my experience, every last Darwin cheerleader I encounter has a burning penchant to do just that, and then to grumble at me, when I try to find out what (if anything) they mean.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I do not know if he meant to, but, in his reply to 6days, The Barbarian just implied that he considers his Darwinist view to be a "creation model":
I wonder how many of his fellow Darwin cheerleaders would approve of calling their "evolutionary theory" a "creation model". I wonder whether The Barbarian would be willing to be consistent with what he has said, here, and start calling himself a "creationist"--nay, a "Biblical creationist". (Well, not really....I don't really wonder. There's definitely no earnestness about personal consistency coming from The Barbarian's quarters.
)
6days
New member
So...we have been working at the differences between evolutionism and creationism. You have chosen a false belief system, which contradicts God's Word and science. God's works are perfect, and the genomes of Adam and Eve would have been perfect until sin corrupted that perfect creation.Barbarian said:
We are not the result of millions of years of pain, suffering extinctions and death. Those things entered our world after Adam and Eve sinned. The Bible calls death the final enemy... It is not a creative process that God use to create with.Barbarian said:
Romans 5 and 1st Corinthians 15 and other passages explain that Jesus suffered physical death because death entered our world from one mans sin. If physical death it's not the result of Adam and Eves sin, then it was not a result of the curse and did not need to be defeated as the Bible explains.Evolutionism is often a denial of science, and it certainly is a corruption of the Gospel.
6days
New member
You totally avoided the question.... And I understand why. Your belief is inconsistent with science, and you would need to use a hypothetical answer. Please try again to address the actual question.User Name said:
Regarding your above sentence... That is pure nonsense. Geneticist JF Crow admits our Stone age ancestors were more fit than ourselves. He suggests that there is a decrease in viability from mutation accumulation of some 1 to 2% per generation. He says "if war or famine force our descendants to a stone-age life they will have to be content with all the problems their stone age ancestors had, plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9237985/
Again..... I did not watch the whole video that you posted. So, I asked you a simple question, providing an answer from the video... If you actually watched it.
Yeah...watch the full clip. It's all of 10 or so minutes.
How many species do you estimate have gone extinct due to deleterious mutations?
If "genetic entropy" is really a thing, how do you explain this:
The E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 66,000 in November 2016. Lenski performed the 10,000th transfer of the experiment on March 13, 2017.
Over the course of the experiment, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of phenotypic and genotypic changes in the evolving populations. These have included changes that have occurred in all 12 populations and others that have only appeared in one or a few populations. For example, all 12 populations showed a similar pattern of rapid improvement in fitness that decelerated over time, faster growth rates, and increased cell size.
Over the course of the experiment, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of phenotypic and genotypic changes in the evolving populations. These have included changes that have occurred in all 12 populations and others that have only appeared in one or a few populations. For example, all 12 populations showed a similar pattern of rapid improvement in fitness that decelerated over time, faster growth rates, and increased cell size.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment#Changes_in_fitness
And yet, even after all of those generations, it's still E. coli, no?
Bible: "Six days."
Barbarian: "Billions of years."
Not "will." It "can."
Also, this happened in a few years, eliminating the possibility that random mutations or natural selection were at play.
Ie, clear evidence of genes reacting to a change in the environment.
Thanks for doing our work for us. :up:
| Rapid large-scale divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource. Rapid adaptive changes in morphology on ecological time scales are not documented at all. However, the effects of such changes on whole-organism performance capacity and the consequences on ecological dynamics are clear. Here we show how lizards' head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure adapted after experimental introduction into a novel environment. These changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure, providing a compelling example of how the invasion of a novel habitat can drive change to multiple aspects of the phenotype. |
And there it is. Precisely what I said does happen.
Reality wins. :up:
Yep, and no signs of "genetic entropy." On the contrary, fitness, growth rates, and increased cell size were observed in all 12 populations over 66,000+ generations and counting.
Pretty easily. :up:
Then go for it. :up:
Why? So you can ignore it?
If you cared, which you don't, it would take you all of 15 seconds to find a YEC response. You know, like the only thing you ever post on here: Your top Google response to stuff you know nothing about and refuse to engage over.
So, nah.
I'm quite content leaving you in your ignorance. :up:
We understand you value your revision of God's word more than the original. But most Christians like it the way it is.
That's what it means. In biology, though, it means "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
Yes, I know that some creationists want to obfuscate and confuse evolution with natural selection (an agent of evolution) with common descent (a consequence of evolution that even Answers in Genesis is now willing to concede exists to a degree), with "evolutionism", which is the collection of misconceptions creationists have about evolution.
That's what the word means...
Dictionary.com:
evolution
[ ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, esp. British,
noun
any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
Nope. That's a consequence of evolution. Here's what it means in biology:
NatureEducation:
Evolution is a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time.
Merriam-Webster
Definition of evolution
1a : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.— Stephen Jay Gould also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization) Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution. — Nature In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive. — Pamela Weintraub
b : the historical development of a biological group (such as a race or species) : phylogeny
NCSE:
Since evolution may be defined as cumulative change in the genetic makeup of a population resulting in increased adaptation to the environment, the fundamental process in evolution is change in allele frequency (Hartl 1988: 69)
Darwin merely called it "descent with modification." Since the Modern Synthesis integrated genetics with Darwin's theory, the definition has been "change in allele frequency in a population over time.
That's not all that evolution is, however. Because there are things like neutral mutations and genetic drift, some evolutionary changes are not in response to the environment. Lacking understanding of biology, you and Stripe don't get some of the most basic concepts of it.
The first person to notice the evidence for universal common descent was Linnaeus, who realized that all living things fit neatly into a family tree. Later on, after Darwin figured out why, and genes were found to be based on DNA, it was hypothesized that the same family tree could be obtained by genetic relationships.
And that was confirmed shortly thereafter. And we know it works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.