If Evolution

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Law, not fact. Gotcha. :chuckle:

I'm sorry, what do you mean?
did you even read my reply or are you just fishing for chuckles, I clearly stated: "Facts are datapoints, they are the basis for the deduction of laws."

Nope. Gravity is a fact.

Yup, where did I say otherwise? Do you still think a "theory" is the opposite of a fact????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Oh. So you reject common descent?

No, I'm merely pointing out that you place unnecessary emphasis on a single source of all life, which may or may not be the case. It's irrelevant for the backbone of the theory.

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

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

Well, you can skip all other definition except number 1 cause that's the only one that relates to science. And of course you've chosen to highlight the "plausible" part

Here, try again:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+scientific+theory

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Oh.

That rules out evolution then.

I beg your pardon?

So do you think it's a theory or not .... your inconsistency confuses

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

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).

I couldn't agree more with your definition.
That's why evolution is part of it

 

[6days]

I couldn't agree more with your definition.
That's why evolution is part of it.

Again You seem to equivocate...Or, perhaps not understand the difference between empirical science / evidence and your common ancestry beliefs. Both of us observe the same comets... same mutation rates...same gravitational fields... same distant galaxies....same fossils... Etc.

 

[Stripe]

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

:darwinsm:

You have no problem with the possibility that a god directed evolution?

:mock: Darwinists

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

Sorry, I have to go with Jose this time. He's right. We are essentially saying the same thing. As he and I told you, sometimes complexity increases in evolution, sometimes things become more simple. "Complexity" isn't an issue at all.

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.

Not design. As engineers are beginning to realize, evolutionary processes work better than design for very complex problems.

And this ability of life to evolve and adapt is not something God built into biology. It's far more impressive than that. He built it into the structure of the laws that govern our universe.

Pretty amazing, um?

 

[Derf]

As you just learned, that's false.

?

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.

So, the theory of evolution is comprehensively described by: "allele frequencies change in a population over time"? No common ancestor for all living creatures? Then why is it that all the articles seem to talk about the elusive common ancestor?

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.

You are patient! Well done! But your statement is confusing the definition of evolution with the theory of evolution, apparently.

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

Yet, here I am, pointing it out.

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're confusing similarities with ancestry, begging the question.

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

Sure.

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.

You're confusing similarities with ancestry. That isn't always reliable.

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?

It's a great benefit for a particular problem, but are we really going to suggest that a single change to fight a single (well, maybe two) disease(s) is more than slight in terms of our overall fitness? And can you really say that the change is helping overall fitness at all? Not everybody thinks so: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1255740/.

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

What about the limits of mutations within a species, the falsified and misread transitional forms, the observed limits of phenotypic variation, and the thoroughly false predictions of evolutionary theory? Do they show the falsehood of evolution? Does anything show the falsehood of evolution? If not, you have to question your fidelity to the cause.

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.

That's because they are predicted to be everywhere. But most of the time we DON'T find them where they are predicted to be, which isn't so impressive.

Creationism, on the other hand...

I'm not sure I understand your inference. Yes, I'll admit there are some bad predictions, often based on a misunderstanding of our doctrinal basis. But nothing that has been shown to be wrong with the doctrinal basis.

Yep.

"Everything else" includes the Theory of Evolution, in case you didn't understand my point.

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

From a common, most complex ancestor to lesser complex descendants? I don't think that's what Darwin was trying to say.

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

...darwinists, allele counters...

Good talking with you, Barbarian.
derf

PS. I just saw you replied to another post of mine, and I don't have time to read it right now. Hopefully this one doesn't cross paths too terribly.

 

[CherubRam]

Theistic evolution is the idea that God started or directed evolutionary processes.

Species do have a limited adaptability capabilities. But yet there is no evidence of life evolving on this planet.

The bible does speak of evolution, here is what it says:
Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, I have to go with Jose this time. He's right. We are essentially saying the same thing. As he and I told you, sometimes complexity increases in evolution, sometimes things become more simple. "Complexity" isn't an issue at all.



Not design. As engineers are beginning to realize, evolutionary processes work better than design for very complex problems.

And this ability of life to evolve and adapt is not something God built into biology. It's far more impressive than that. He built it into the structure of the laws that govern our universe.

Pretty amazing, um?

Jose has no problem with that concept not because he's a theist, but because it doesn't contradict anything we know about the universe, and nicely fits with everything we know. It also happens to fit nicely with scripture as well. It would have to; nature and scripture have the same Author.

 

[Jose Fly]

You have no problem with the possibility that a god directed evolution?

Makes no difference to me.

 

[Stripe]

The bible does speak of evolution, here is what it says:
Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

:darwinsm:

Makes no difference to me.

:mock: Darwinists.

 

[The Barbarian]

?



So, the theory of evolution is comprehensively described by: "allele frequencies change in a population over time"? No common ancestor for all living creatures?

The evidence points to that, but it's not a requirement of evolutionary theory.

Then why is it that all the articles seem to talk about the elusive common ancestor?

It all started with Linnaeus, (who didn't know about evolution). He discovered that living things fit nicely into a family tree as though they were descended from a common ancestor. He thought perhaps God make things that way, and was disappointed to find that minerals didn't fit into a similar tree.

Then Darwin figured out why. And then predicted intermediates in that tree began to turn up. And then genetics confirmed the tree to a very high degree of precision.

So there you are. Common descent isn't evolution. It's a consequence of evolution. And it didn't have to happen this way. It's conceivable that more than one kind could have appeared on Earth. Perhaps more kinds did. But only one kind has survived past the Precambrian.

You are patient! Well done! But your statement is confusing the definition of evolution with the theory of evolution, apparently.

Evolution is merely the change in allele frequency in a population over time. The theory of evolution has four premises, plus genetics. One is an observed phenomenon. The other is the theory that explains it.

Barbarian observes:
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're confusing similarities with ancestry,

Nope. You're confusing homology and analogy. For example, the teeth in thylacines (carnivorous marsupial) and canids look very similar, with shearing "carnassal" teeth. But they are demonstrably analogous, having a different dental formula, while the teeth of canids and felids are homlogous (felids have a reduction in teeth, but the remaining "carnassals" in felids are homlogous with canids)

begging the question.

It all comes down to evidence. And the evidence shows that the "similar" canids and thylacines are not closely related, but that canids and felids are much more closely related, even if they don't look so much alike.

You're confusing similarities with ancestry. That isn't always reliable.

Yep. This is why homology matters, not analogy. I think I mentioned Old World and New World vultures. The former are evolved from raptors, and the latter from storks, even though they look quite similar.

Barbarian observes:
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?

It's a great benefit for a particular problem, but are we really going to suggest that a single change to fight a single (well, maybe two) disease(s) is more than slight in terms of our overall fitness?

The plague killed maybe a third of Europeans. Yeah, I think it was a huge increase in overall fitness. Remember "fitness" counts only in terms of environment. So that changes with the environment.

And can you really say that the change is helping overall fitness at all?

Yep. Went from negligable to maybe 25% of Europeans over just a few centuries. So no question about it.

Not everybody thinks so: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1255740/.

Don't see where they claimed it wasn't. Can you show me?

What about the limits of mutations within a species

For example, another set of hands would be great for humans. However, there's apparently no way to evolve another set and meet Darwin's criteria that intermediate steps be at least neutral. On the other hand, no one has so far found a genome that has reached it's limit of variation and can have no more mutations.

the falsified and misread transitional forms

Show us one.

the observed limits of phenotypic variation

That's part of Darwin's theory.

and the thoroughly false predictions of evolutionary theory?

Among them:
"There must have been transitionals between dinosaurs and birds."
"There must have been transitionals between ungulates and whales."
"There must have been transitionals between salamanders and frogs."
"There must have been transitionals between arboreal apes and humans."

"Bacteria will evolve resistance to penicillin sooner if it's used carelessly."

"Dinosaurs should be biochemically more like birds than like lizards."

There are thousands of other verified predictions. How many would you like?

Do they show the falsehood of evolution?

They could. For example, a feathered mammal. Or a structure that was demonstrably evolved for the sole benefit of an different creature.

Does anything show the falsehood of evolution?

So far, not. One of the most striking and persuasive points is that we have a huge number of transitionals , but not a single one where the theory says there shouldn't be.

That's because they are predicted to be everywhere.

No. A lobster with bones, a gull with sacculate lungs, a whale with gills, all those would be powerful evidence against evolutionary theory.

But most of the time we DON'T find them where they are predicted to be,

That's wrong. Most of those predicted transitionals I mentioned were not verified when I was young. Now we have examples for all of them.

 

[Stripe]

Evolution is merely the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Nope.

Darwinists invented this statement in a bid to define arguments out of existence.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection.

That is what we disagree with.

To be a rational part of the conversation, that is the idea you have to defend.

We know why you want your idea to be something else.

 

[CherubRam]

Do you know what happens when you place the elements for making life in a bowl? Nothing! If life will not come forth under perfect conditions, then it did not come forth by its self.

 

[6days]

Then Darwin figured out why. And then predicted intermediates in that tree began to turn up. And then genetics confirmed the tree to a very high degree of precision.

Darwin was wrong about that also.
In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.
One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.
[qote=Barbarian]
It's conceivable that more than one kind could have appeared on Earth. Perhaps more kinds did.[/quote]
Genesis 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.” 27 So God created human beings in his own imageIn the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Evolution is merely the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

The change in allele frequency is consistent with the Biblical creationist model.

You're confusing homology and analogy.

Funny how rubbery evolutionist beliefs are. If they can't imagine it as homologous, they imagine it as analogous. Its like a fog that can cover any landscape.

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?

Its a great benefit if you get HIV... but that benefit may come with a liver ending disease. http://www.nature.com/gene/journal/v5/n6/full/6364113a.html.

For example, another set of hands would be great for humans.

Funny (sort of) evolutionists always have suggestions for how they could do things better than God.

There are thousands of other (transional) verified predictions. How many would you like?

How about one? �� Arranging fossils in patterns to fit your beliefs is confirmation bias... as is all your 'predictions'. Actually, a lot of the 'predictions' like in genetics are consistent with theBiblical creation model.

Does anything show the falsehood of evolution?

So far, not.

Common ancestry is a non falsifiable belief system. It's all about explaining evidence to fit the beliefs IOW both good design and bad design are explained by evolutionism.... functionality and non functionality are used to support Darwinism.
Darwinism is toxic to to faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ. Encourage your family and those you know to move away from the darkness that results from Darwinism, and accept the true light of the world.... Jesus.

 

[marhig]

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?


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

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

You see it differently from what it says?

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.".
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?

It doesn't say that Eve was the mother of all, but rather the mother of all living!

And why does the word day have two different meanings in Genesis? Why does each of the 7 days mean a 24 hour period, yet in Genesis 2:4 when in the day that God created the generations of the heavens and earth that then means a period of time and not 24 hours? That's nonsense. God said let there be light, and God created in the light which is in his time, and it was in the day that the Lord God created them, which is a period of time. Each of the 6 days God created, then he rested. These are not 24 hour periods and nowhere in the Bible does it say they were. God's ways are not our ways, and God's time is not our time.

You can see that a Jewish child is naturally circumcised on the eighth day? Can you see what this means Spiritually? Just like God's rest has a spiritual meaning, so does the circumcision. There is a natural and a spiritual, you seem to be only looking at the natural and seeing the literal. Jesus said those who have ears to hear, hear. So there is a also spiritual meaning to the scriptures too.

When we enter into God's rest, do we enter into it for a 24 hour period? The natural Sabbath is a picture of Gods true rest, when we rest from the flesh. On a natural Sabbath we rest from our weekly works, but once we enter into God's rest we rest from our works, the works of the flesh and live by the will of God. And this isn't for a 24 hour period, but for the rest of our lives. We then walk in the Spirit, in the day which is in the light of God and not in the night which is darkness.

Do you take all of Genesis as literal? Don't you believe that there is a Spiritual meaning to it too?

 

[Stripe]

It doesn't say that Eve was the mother of all, but rather the mother of all living!

Therefore... something. :idunno:

And why does the word day have two different meanings in Genesis?

Words can have more than one meaning. :duh:

Why does each of the 7 days mean a 24 hour period, yet in Genesis 2:4 when in the day that God created the generations of the heavens and earth that then means a period of time and not 24 hours? That's nonsense.

Standard English.

Is it your second language?

These are not 24 hour periods.

Because you say so?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say they were.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say they weren't. And since it does say "six days," the burden of proof is upon you to show why they cannot be 24-hour periods.

God's ways are not our ways, and God's time is not our time.

Therefore... something. :idunno:

There is a also spiritual meaning to the scriptures too.

Therefore... something. :idunno:

This is a variation on the old "it's poetry" argument. So the text might have a valid spiritual meaning. So what? How does this show that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

 

[marhig]

Therefore... something. :idunno:

Words can have more than one meaning. :duh:

Standard English.

Is it your second language?

Because you say so?
Nowhere in the Bible does it say they weren't. And since it does say "six days," the burden of proof is upon you to show why they cannot be 24-hour periods.

Therefore... something. :idunno:

Therefore... something. :idunno:

This is a variation on the old "it's poetry" argument. So the text might have a valid spiritual meaning. So what? How does this show that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

Yes words can have more than one meaning, thus a day doesn't always mean 24 hours. If it was 24 a hour period in Genesis, then each day would have been the morning to the morning, not the evening to the morning which is a whole lot less hours than 24 hours!

By the way, duh is a word used by children in the playground, we are adults, thus we should act and speak to one another like adults.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes words can have more than one meaning, thus a day doesn't always mean 24 hours. If it was 24 a hour period in Genesis, then each day would have been the morning to the morning, not the evening to the morning which is a whole lot less hours than 24 hours!

The Bible does NOT says "evening TO morning". That is something that YOU made up.

Gen 1:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
​

Just evening AND morning WERE the first day.

God uses His six days of creation and His seventh day of rest as a pattern for the seven day week:

Exod 20:8-11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(20:8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (20:9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (20:10) But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: (20:11) For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
​

Obviously literal days.