Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Burden of Proof: Why Most American Evangelicals Reject Long-Earth Evolution
ReligiousLiberty.TV ^ | 05/11/2012 | Michael D. Peabody

Posted on 05/11/2012 10:56:54 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last
To: BrandtMichaels
Yet you have no explanation for observed errors nor even what percent of these perceived errors are discarded.

And you have yet to provide any information on what percentage of the total measurements your observed errors are. One, or even a hundred bad levels do not constitute proof that levels don't work.

You submit that the existence of observed errors makes the entire methodology flawed. By that premise the existence of an unreliable level would dictate that none of them can be trusted and people should stop using them, regardless of how many times the were used without any observed error.

101 posted on 05/15/2012 9:20:45 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I’m not telling you whether or not to trust them, but I don’t mainly due to contradictions with the Bible and secondarily all of recorded human history. Science is famous for the consensus / group think that defies all known logic and common sense. Here’s the intro to the article I’ve been quoting at creation.com/age-of-the-earth:

No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.

There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all.

Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.


102 posted on 05/15/2012 9:50:29 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism.

Creationists don't appear to have any problem assuming that a "day" in the past is the same 24 hours we have now. That 24 hours is always measured by the rate of change of some process. You appear to want to restrict the luxury of assuming constants to being your exclusive domain.

103 posted on 05/15/2012 9:59:49 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Actually, rather than assuming, I trust that God and his words are true. Since he wrote the DNA for all living things why should anyone assume different meanings for his very plain and straightforward words ~ there was evening and there was morning ~ the same way we measure days today.

Furthermore, how do evolutionists explain the 7 day week?
Month = approx lunar cycle and year = solar cycle but what about that pesky week?


104 posted on 05/15/2012 10:19:21 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
BrandtMichaels: "You speak like one who has only lightly researched one side of the creation evolution debate."

"Lightly researched" is a relative term -- I've seen most, if not all, of your points posted on Free Republic in previous threads, and I've posted answers to a good many of them.

BrandtMichaels: "That’s pretty far-fetched BroJoeK - ice cores don not prove anything close to millions of years."

Greenland ice cores have been counted back to 62,000 years.

Antarctic ice has been dated back 720,000 years.

BrandtMichaels: "1. DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years."

At least two issues here: first, whether that DNA came from later contamination and second, whether some natural preservative such as anaerobic salt extended the otherwise much shorter survival of in-tact DNA code.

Neither issue challenges the well established age of Earth and its many rock strata.

BrandtMichaels: "2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old.
See also Salty saga."

Again, the first issue is potential contamination, since many life-forms survive and thrive in conditions impossible for most others.
And again the second issue is whether under certain conditions some bacteria can survive indefinitely in "suspended animation"?

And again, neither issue challenges the well established age of Earth and its many rock strata.

BrandtMichaels: "The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago."

Evolution consists of two main features: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.

"Descent with modifications" is driven largely by random mutations which happen in every generation of every species.
Most of these mutations have no effect on either the appearance or functions of an organism, since they occur in regions sometimes referred to as "junk DNA".
And once an organism is perfectly adapted to its environment, then every mutation which has some effect will be negative, and natural selection will prevent that mutation from passing onto future generations.

When an organism's environment changes, then some mutations will be beneficial and the population can begin to evolve again.

Humans, like every other species, experience mutations in every generation, and until recently were subject to the same natural selection as all other life.
In the future, human natural selection may be replaced by scientific modifications to correct DNA "errors".

BrandtMichaels: "4. The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago."

Sure, if by "several" you mean about 200 thousand years ago.

BrandtMichaels: "5. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years."

More recent studies have increased the date of "Y-chromosomal Adam" from around 60,000 to 140,000 years ago.

BrandtMichaels: "6. Many fossil bones “dated” at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all.
This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth.
See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?"

As with previous examples you cited, the first issue is potential contamination by more recent organisms.
And again the second issue is, what were the conditions of preservation?

But a third point needs to be made, namely that these examples are not, as you claimed, "many", but rather extremely rare.
That suggests something very special about them, and points back to the conditions of 99.99% of fossils ever found, which conform to our expectations.

So, unless somebody finds the remains of Fred Flintstone cooking Brontosaur burgers on his grill, these less-than-fully explained exceptions are unlikely to overturn our ideas about pre-history. ;-)

BrandtMichaels: "7. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young."

Same responses as above.

BrandtMichaels: "8. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils “dated” at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years."

Same responses as above -- very rare examples where neither contamination nor special conditions of preservation have been ruled out, and therefore no conclusions about a "young earth" can be drawn.

BrandtMichaels: "9. Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more.
That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real."

In fact, these examples confirm the basic ideas of evolution -- 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Once an organism has perfectly adapted to its environment, natural selection will weed out any and all genetic mutations which reduce its ability to survive, and so certain species can remain little changed for tens, even hundreds of millions of years.

BrandtMichaels: "10. Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various “index” fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today.
Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example?
See The “Lazarus effect”: rodent “resurrection”!"

Even you should recognize that as an argument from ignorance.
Because we haven't found certain fossils doesn't imply they are not there to be found, eventually.
Further, even you must understand that fossilization is a special and rare occurrence even under the best of conditions, and absolutely cannot happen otherwise.

In the long-term scheme of things, whole continents float around the globe, crashing into each other, bouncing away, great oceans open up and close, ice ages come and go, all the while conditions favorable to a certain species disappear over here, and arise over there.
Certain conditions will leave a nice fossil record, others leave none -- and tens of millions of years might separate those favorable conditions.

BrandtMichaels: "11. The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years."

DNAs of various species of trees, just like any other species, can be compared and contrasted, and dates calculated for their most recent common ancestors.
These dates correspond to what fossil records also reveal.

BrandtMichaels: "Read more please but don’t ever forget historical ‘science’ is hysterical science ~ you can conjur almost anything since you can never repeat natural history using the scientific method."

The fossil record is not "conjured", nor is DNA analysis, nor are the many radiometric dating techniques, nor are our understandings of geological processes, which lead us to find oil, coal, iron, copper, gold, diamonds, etc., nor are scientific techniques for dating ages of stars, galaxies and the Universe.

All of that is firmly based in science, and none is challenged by theologically driven "doubting Thomases."

;-)

105 posted on 05/15/2012 10:19:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ReligiousLibertyTV; annalex; RobbyS
Just asking your opinion here, annalex and RobbyS:

ReligiousLibertyTV is conscientiouisly trying to explain the Catholic doctrine of ensoulment accurately.

The following is the statement worked out by ReligiousLibertyTV:

"In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that the bodies of human beings were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided separately-created souls to human beings. These souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments."

Is this correct as stated?

Here's the background: The Catholic Church teaches that as soon as fertilization occurs, a new human body has come into existence by natural causal means (the sexual reproductive processes of his parents),--- this tiny body is suitable to receive a rational, spiritual soul --- and immediately the newly conceived human embryo is endowed with a rational, spiritual soul directly created by God without material causes.

Would his apply, too, to the ensoulment of the "newly developed Human sapiens" -- namely, that the bodies of the human race could have come into existence via the naural causal chain of evolution, but as soon as the suitable physical type was complete, God could have endowed the newly-developed species with directly-created, rational, spiritual souls?

And after the catastrophe of sin occurred, all human souls thereafter were deprived of sanctifying grace-- their contact with God ---but this contact can be restored by Christ via the grace of the sacraments?

(I hope I have not made myself totally obscure!!)

I appreciate ReligiousLibertyTV for putting forth the effort to express this intricate doctrine with precision.

106 posted on 05/15/2012 10:26:48 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels; tacticalogic
BrandtMichaels: "Perhaps you’ve not heard they did a blind test on rocks and strata from the 1980 Mt. Saint Helens..."

The key word is "blind".
Accuracy requires a full understanding of the context of the material being tested.

107 posted on 05/15/2012 10:34:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Actually, rather than assuming, I trust that God and his words are true.

So you don't "assume", you "trust that it's true", and you expect that to pass for an explanation of the difference? Seriously?

108 posted on 05/15/2012 10:41:42 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
varmintman: "The problem is “scientists” counting ice layers as years when they should be counting them as snowstorms..."

And which qualified scientist told you they were misinterpreting their data?

Just think about it logically -- the accumulation of snow and ice in polar regions can be observed, it does not have to be guessed or interpreted.

Scientists can measure annual accumulations of ice, and record the breaks between winter and summer each year.
They can then count down through the ice layers, marking where each year ends, and the next begins, and noting how the ice compresses over time, making the distance from one year to the next shorter and shorter the deeper and deeper into the ice they bore.

So tell us virmintman, at which point in this process, according to your scientifically qualified source, did those doing the actual work become confused, and began mistaking different snow storms for the annual summer break?

109 posted on 05/15/2012 10:51:09 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Whatever. They want to continue using circular reasoning ~ the index fossils determine approx age of the rocks and age of the rocks determine approx age of the fossils.

So when blinded they can not re-produce their results - how telling is that!?!?


110 posted on 05/15/2012 10:54:35 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
BrandtMichaels: "Whatever. They want to continue using circular reasoning ~ the index fossils determine approx age of the rocks and age of the rocks determine approx age of the fossils.
So when blinded they can not re-produce their results - how telling is that!?!?"

No circular reasoning involved.

First, I question the validity of those allegedly "blind" tests.
I suspect of necessity a certain amount of deception involved, and the labs were not fully aware of what they were being asked to do.

Second, the obviously correct analogy is forensic science -- the analysis of crime data.
You would never ask even Sherlock Holmes to interpret evidence from a crime scene without understanding the full context in which that data was found.

Yes, a "blind" scientific test is appropriate under some circumstances, but whenever you do one, you must control for every known variable and this, by definition, is not possible in random material of unknown origins.

So, with many variables involved in radiometric testing, all must be understood before results are relied on.
Plus ideally, results are confirmed by multiple radioactive materials, and by geologists' understandings of the rock strata they are working on.

If nearby rock strata include well known and previously dated fossils, so much the better.

So, yes, known fossils can help confirm rock dates, but only after those fossils were previously dated using radiometric analysis of the rock strata they're found in.

That is not circular reasoning.

111 posted on 05/15/2012 4:12:11 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; ReligiousLibertyTV; RobbyS
I have a problem not with the statement that you highlighted but in the one following it in the article:

In contrast, American evangelicals tend to view Adam and Eve as actual living people, who were literally created by God as clay forms into which God breathed the breath of life

These two together create an impression that the Catholics believe only in God-created evolution. This is of course not so. I am Catholic in good standing and reasonably well informed in my faith and I don't believe in any evolution. I think that God created all species as they are today, unless they went extinct. God created them in groups that resemble one another, this is why we have horses look a but like donkeys, men look a bit like the apes, etc. Evolution, as science itself teaches us is an absurd idea of one species becoming another species through a series of birth defects. That intelligent people can believe that nonsense is a testimony of human gullibility.

A Catholic may believe God-created evolution. In fact the description that man was made from mud can be interpreted as pointing to evolution. Here, indeed one can discern the Catholic way of reading the Bible taking into account the cultural environment of the historical inspired author, and the ability of the Bible to speak truths that the inspired author had no rational knowledge about. But it is wrong to suggest that Catholics as a dogma of faith believe in anything in particular about the evolution. Some, yet not all, believe in it, -- I think it is naive, but they are good Catholics nevertheless.

Another problem with this juxtaposition of paragraphs is the possibility of concluding that Catholics do not believe in the single parenthood of Adam and Eve and the historicity of Adam and Eve. While I am happy to read that the Protestant Evangelicals "view Adam and Eve as actual living [in the past, I presume] people", I am also happy to report that so do all informed Catholics.

In short, the Church being our rule of faith, not our authority on zoology, does not teach much at all about the evolution. It all can be summed up in a short statement: the account of creation is inerrant; God created all things visible and invisible; Adam and Eve are our historical protoparents. If one wants to squeeze God-directed evolution in that, he is free to do so. If one does not want to believe in evolution, he is also free to do so. If one wants to deny historicity of Adam and Eve, or believe in evolution NOT directed by God, he is no longer Catholic.

112 posted on 05/15/2012 6:19:09 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I should probably add, for the Protestant reader, that the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant; the Church does not teach that the Bible is perspicuous. So for example, the Church does not teach anything in particular about the "mud" whence we have come, or about the age of creation.
113 posted on 05/15/2012 6:25:44 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: annalex; ReligiousLibertyTV
I'm glad you added that. The Church does not teach one view or another of evolution (micro, macro, 6 day, 6000 year, 1.75 million years) as a doctrine. It does teach that Adam and Eve are historic, that we are all descended from them, that all humans are of the same species and (ultimately) ancestry, that here was a transmission of a defect in our nature which was a consequence of Original Sin, etc.

Like you said, annalex. Thank you!

114 posted on 05/15/2012 7:05:25 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Mrs. Don-o; ReligiousLibertyTV; RobbyS
annalex: "Evolution, as science itself teaches us is an absurd idea of one species becoming another species through a series of birth defects.
That intelligent people can believe that nonsense is a testimony of human gullibility."

It's not an "absurd idea", it's an observed phenomenon called "descent with modifications".
Genetic mutations happen in every generation of every species.
Most mutations have no effect on the appearance or functions of an organism because they occur in regions sometimes referred to as "junk DNA".
And for perfectly adapted species, those mutations which do change an organism are almost invariably negative and are therefore weeded out of the gene-pool by "natural selection".
That's why many generations can pass by, with no obvious changes.

But when the environment itself changes (becoming cooler, warmer, wetter, dryer, a new predator, etc.), then some mutations will increase an individual's chance of survival and reproduction, and so the species can begin to evolve again.

So a new species arises (by definition) whenever two sub-species have been separated in different environments so long they no longer successfully interbreed.
And we can see this in the process of happening, amongst horses, donkeys & zebras, to pick just one example.

None of this is "nonsense", and there's no "belief" (in a religious sense) involved.
These are simply very careful scientific observations, confirmed through innumerable repetitions.
In short, they are facts.

annalex: "It all can be summed up in a short statement: the account of creation is inerrant; God created all things visible and invisible; Adam and Eve are our historical protoparents.
If one wants to squeeze God-directed evolution in that, he is free to do so.
If one does not want to believe in evolution, he is also free to do so.
If one wants to deny historicity of Adam and Eve, or believe in evolution NOT directed by God, he is no longer Catholic."

That is also more or less the teaching of most Protestant and Orthodox denominations -- by my estimate along with Catholics totaling 80% of all Christians.

"Youg earth", anti-evolution and really, anti-science, is a distinct minority doctrine, even among Christian churches.

115 posted on 05/16/2012 3:36:50 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; Mrs. Don-o; ReligiousLibertyTV; RobbyS
some mutations will increase an individual's chance of survival and reproduction, and so the species can begin to evolve again.

Yes. That is the belief -- in the superstitious sense. No one has observed that, no one has reproduced that in a sufficiently complex species, no one has really explained how two birth defects on the same kind would occur in two specimens within the mating range, but we believe it anyway.

Evolution as a scientific proposition is junk.

Now, miracles happen. That God can make it so two turkeys of the opposite sex would spontaneously mutate into bald eagles, -- or, to that matter into sabertooth tigers, -- and live happily ever after, -- that I can believe because I am Christian who evidences miracles on a regular basis. Not because of some ape with a science degree who thought it up.

116 posted on 05/16/2012 5:28:11 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: annalex

—— Evolution as a scientific proposition is junk.——

The argument against the theory is simple: no mechanism and no fossils. What’s left?

The evidence from fossil record is in, overwhelmingly demonstrating STASIS in species. Creatures exit the fossil record the way they went in, tens of thousands of years earlier, contradicting the change predicted by the theory of gradual evolution.

Regarding macro-evolution, there exists no plausible mechanism.

So how did we get here? God knows. I don’t. We can reject evolution as a scientific theory without being able to offer an alternative explanation.”I don’t know” is an acceptable answer when it’s true.


117 posted on 05/16/2012 5:49:17 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (hViva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "Yes. That is the belief -- in the superstitious sense.
No one has observed that, no one has reproduced that in a sufficiently complex species, no one has really explained how two birth defects on the same kind would occur in two specimens within the mating range, but we believe it anyway."

You're putting a lot of your own definitions into your words, "that" and "it", so I suspect your definitions have nothing to do with actual science.
And your allegation that science equates to "superstition" is baseless.

In reality, "descent with modifications" has been observed and confirmed innumerable times, making it a fact.
That is the method by which, since time immemorial, people have created new varieties / breeds of plants and animals, and by which "natural selection" over longer periods creates new breeds, subspecies and eventually species.

So both "decent with modifications" and "natural selection" have been observed and confirmed beyond dispute.
They are not "superstition", they are facts.
And since they are the two components of evolution, that makes evolution a fact.

Of course, folks such as yourself become all agitated over the alleged distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution".

Indeed, when I first began posting on FR evolution threads, most Creationists claimed that "micro-evolution" is acceptable theologically, but that "macro-evolution" is not.
These days, it seems that some posters claim even "micro-evolution" never happens.
To me that speaks of mankind's unlimited ability to close our eyes to reality.

I say that "micro" and "macro" evolution are the same things, simply extended over longer time periods.
What, after all, is the physical difference between a "race," a "variety", a "breed", a "sub-species" and "species"?
Is it not simply a matter of word definitions?
By scientific convention, we consider a "sub-species" to have become a new "species" when it can no longer breed with its parent populations.

Zebras, for example, have three species which do not interbreed in nature, but can sometimes be forced in captivity.
And each zebra species has subspecies which sometimes can and do interbreed, given the opportunity.
Point is: if it turned out that a certain "sub-species" could not interbreed with others of the same species, it would no longer be called a "sub-species", by convention we would call it a new species.

In nature, fossil records and DNA analyses show such changes typically take millions of years, but human directed breeding programs, especially of agricultural plants, have produced new varieties which can no longer fertilize their original species.
What these breeding programs demonstrate is that "micro-evolution" can happen very rapidly indeed, under the right conditions.

Point is: the "precise moment" when one sub-species in nature can no longer effectively interbreed with another, and so by our definitions becomes a new "species" -- that "precise moment" is no "moment" at all, it normally takes a very long time.

annalex: "Now, miracles happen.
That God can make it so two turkeys of the opposite sex would spontaneously mutate into bald eagles..."

Of course He could, and possibly that's just what He did.
But if that is what God did, He left no traces for us to admire scientifically His handiwork.
Indeed, just the opposite -- the evidence He left for scientists to examine clearly shows turkeys and bald eagles descending separately from common ancestors who lived many tens of millions of years ago.

And seriously, you have to ask yourself: if God didn't want us to accept science's theories, then why did He leave so much evidence laying around to support them?

;-)

118 posted on 05/16/2012 9:45:27 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
St_Thomas_Aquinas: "The argument against the theory is simple: no mechanism and no fossils."

I have addressed this claim directly to you, and in some detail, on a previous thread.
The short of it is: your argument is bogus.

119 posted on 05/16/2012 9:53:30 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; St_Thomas_Aquinas
In reality, "descent with modifications" has been observed and confirmed innumerable times, making it a fact. That is the method by which, since time immemorial, people have created new varieties / breeds

This has a bearing on the unguided evolution hypothesis only if the definition species is artificially narrowed to breeds and varietals within the same real species. Yes, dogs and wolves, and -- I trust your word, breeds of zebras can produce healthy offspring. This does not prove evolution from one species to another such that when the evolution is done the second species no longer interbreeds at all with the first. The part I highlighted is the definition of the evolutionary theory I find no scientific proof of, only scientific dress-up of a superstition.

Microevolution -- the difficult but possible interbreeding inside several subspecies, -- does not prove the real thing. By the same logic I could "prove" to you that I can fly: I can indeed flap my hands and hop around. My hopping and flapping is not a first step of me becoming a bird. It may be a first step for me isolating myself and fellow hopper-flappers into a human colony that now has a difficulty interbreeding with the rest of humanity. That is all that the presence of breeds shows.

"It took a very long time" is not a proof of anything either , it is simply a storytelling device: "Long, long time ago there lived a unicorn..."

the evidence He left for scientists to examine clearly shows turkeys and bald eagles descending separately from common ancestors

No, He did not. The evidence is that there are two species, turkeys and eagles, and there was another species looking somewhat like both, that is now extinct. There is no evidence of "descending" of anything from anything.

120 posted on 05/16/2012 5:47:54 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: annalex

-—The evidence is that there are two species, turkeys and eagles, and there was another species looking somewhat like both, that is now extinct. There is no evidence of “descending” of anything from anything.——

Yes. Shouldn’t the fossil record display countless intermediate forms? But it doesn’t. The evidence is unambiguous. The record is in. Millions of fossils have been discovered, and they show that creatures exit the fossil record the same way they enter. Species are static over time.

The most famous supposed “transitional form” is Archaeoptryx. Yet, since the first fossil was discovered, six more have been found, and they look just like the first. So its value in supporting the theory of gradual evolution is ambiguous, at best. IMO, Archaeoptryx is as much of a transitional form as a bat or “flying” squirrel.


121 posted on 05/17/2012 5:29:53 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (hViva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

... to which the evolution cultists respond by postulating that evolution exists, but works in rapid spurts. And takes a very long time. And we just haven’t been lucky enough to find one more fossil.

When Ptolemy’s theory of round planetary orbits was contradicted by observations, the theorists added secondary circles; when that did not match the observation, tertiary circles.

When genetics proved that evolution is not possible, the cult invented some obscure “descent with mutations” and shrouded the supposed mechanism in complex explanations, piling one hypothesis on top of another. Anything can be “proven” that way.

All this is an insult to scientific method.


122 posted on 05/17/2012 5:47:58 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: annalex

——All this is an insult to scientific method.——

It’s dogmatic empiricism. Unfortunately, scientists untrained in “useless” sciences, like philosophy, are unaware of the irony.

When I question the theory of evolution, evolutionists immediately assume that I’m a young earth creationist, and that my arguments are based on theology. But my critique is purely scientific. There is as yet no remotely plausible naturalistic explanation for the rise of life and species.

It seems to me that is the most that we can say, scientifically, at this time. Scientists should not pretend that they know more than they do.


123 posted on 05/17/2012 6:16:07 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (hViva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

None so blind as those who will not see!

Evolution is fraudulent science ~ not only never proven ~ but all scientific data describes devolution.


124 posted on 05/17/2012 6:49:24 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "This has a bearing on the unguided evolution hypothesis only if the definition species is artificially narrowed to breeds and varietals within the same real species.
Yes, dogs and wolves, and -- I trust your word, breeds of zebras can produce healthy offspring.
This does not prove evolution from one species to another such that when the evolution is done the second species no longer interbreeds at all with the first."

First, I note your struggles with the definition of the word "species".
Scientifically, it's a simple concept, the key to it being a natural ability to interbreed, but it is only one term of many used to describe family relationships among animals, plants and other living things.
Indeed, there is a whole hierarchy of biological relationships, starting in the case of humans, with our individual families.

Traditionally, biological families grouped into closely related clans, which organized into larger tribes and nations, several of which might include all members of a particular human race/breed, and all of those races together constituting the sub-species homo sapiens sapiens = all human beings.

The overall species of homo-sapiens includes us, plus other subspecies which DNA and other analyses show interbred, including Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo sapiens idaltu, and possibly even Homo floresiensis.

And that is the key scientific distinction: if they successfully interbred, then they are sub-species.
But it not, then they are separate species.

Again, we can follow the zebra example all the way up their scientific hierarchy.
Three separate species do not interbreed in the wild, even when they live together.
Yes, they can be forced-bred in captivity, but their offspring are not fully viable.

But within each species are sub-species which do successfully interbreed in the wild.

The three zebra species, plus donkeys and horses are grouped into a larger genus called equids.
And between species in that equid genus, the best that interbreeding can produce are those infertile offspring of donkeys and horses = mules.

Moving up, the equid genus belongs to the "horse family" which includes many extinct species going all the way back to eohippus about 54 million years ago.

Next up the hierarchy of groupings is the order Perissodactyla = "one toed ungulates".
These include the horse family, rhinoceroses and tapirs.

And so biological classifications go... up the ladder to eventually include all mammals, then all animals with backbones, all animals and finally all living things.
And all that is basic high-school biology, which is why I know it.

So those are the various scientific classifications, as defined by scientists.
Your problem is how to shoe-horn the biblical word "kinds" into those scientific classifications, and I would suggest to you that it simply cannot be done.

One reason: a biblical "kind" is not strictly defined, even in the Bible, and any efforts you make to define it are just matters of your theologically based opinions, and have nothing to do with real science.

annalex: "Microevolution -- the difficult but possible interbreeding inside several subspecies, -- does not prove the real thing."

Sorry FRiend, but as an anti-scientist, you don't get to define scientific terms -- if you wish to argue science, then you have to use the definitions scientists developed.
In the case of micro-evolution it is not what you say.
Rather, the definition (simplified) means the accumulation in every generation of DNA mutations.
As I've said before, most mutations have no effect, and of those which do cause changes most are negative, and so get weeded out by natural selection.

Over many generations -- typically hundreds of thousands or millions of years -- these minor changes eventually produce sub-species, species and genera which can no longer interbreed.
And that's what evolution is all about.

annalex: "There is no evidence of "descending" of anything from anything."

There is almost endless cogent evidence in fossil records and DNA studies showing relationships and ancestry of all living things.
Of course, people with eyes closed can't see it, but the evidence remains persuasive to anyone not committed to an anti-science theology.

125 posted on 05/17/2012 3:09:55 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; St_Thomas_Aquinas
those are the various scientific classifications

I am aware of classifications. The ability of subspecies to interbreed and undergo natural selection under certain conditions says nothing about creation of new species from old ones. You are simply trying to bury a proposition that fails experientially and logically under irrelevant detail.

as an anti-scientist, you don't get to define scientific terms

I am not "anti-scientist" and I do not derive my inability to believe the evolution cult from anything written in the Bible. My first post on this thread was to explain that the Bible can be interpreted in a way compatible with your beliefs. Your beliefs are wrong precisely because they fail the scientific method of testing hypotheses with evidence, -- not because of some turn of the phrase in the Bible.

almost endless cogent evidence in fossil records and DNA studies showing relationships

They are similarities. Yes, distinct species are often similar and so their DNA are similar. That does not prove the relationship of evolution, just the similarity of the design.

Go to a junk yard and observe "fossils" of cars there. You will find "endless and cogent evidence" that car models originated from other car models by breeding with one another, won't you?

126 posted on 05/17/2012 5:51:00 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "The ability of subspecies to interbreed and undergo natural selection under certain conditions says nothing about creation of new species from old ones."

You continue to ignore a key factor here: descent with modifications -- modifications caused by genetic mutations.
These mutations and modifications have been observed and confirmed, so they are facts.

Indeed, since time immemorial, humans have used these modifications as they accumulated over many generations, to create innumerable new breeds and sub-species.

But, has human husbandry replacing natural selection created any new species?

Answer: yes, of course -- any time a new breed of plants, for example, can no longer interbreed with its wild ancestors, it is by definition, a new species.

And what human husbandry can do over a few years or decades, natural selection accomplishes in hundreds of thousands and millions of years.
We know this from both the fossil record, and analyses of different species' DNA.

annalex: "I am not "anti-scientist" and I do not derive my inability to believe the evolution cult from anything written in the Bible."

I don't believe that for a second, and the proof of it is your inability to accurately report what the science of evolution says.

annalex: "That does not prove the relationship of evolution, just the similarity of the design."

Obviously many designs are similar, the question is why?
Scientifically, there's no reason to suspect any mechanism other than evolution.
Yes, certainly "intelligent design" was required, but at what points, exactly? Well, consider that if a perfect God created a perfect natural Universe, then it would require very little in the way of further tinkering and interventions for God to accomplish His purposes.
Therefore the scientific assumption of methodological naturalism should work in nearly all cases, and the need to posit Divine Intervention should be reserved for the most unusual of circumstances.

But a dearth of examples of Divine Intervention in the natural world should not in any way suggest that God's Creation is not doing exactly what He intended it to do.
Indeed, wouldn't an abundance of such examples suggest that God's natural Universe was "out of control" and that He had done a sloppy job in creating it?

Of course, the arrival of rational humans capable of sinful behavior changed everything, and does require frequent Divine Interventions, as we have seen.

So, are there limits to what scientific naturalism can explain?
Of course, but for God's purposes those limits are irrelevant, because by definition science cannot explain God, or His purposes, or the souls of human beings.

annalex: "You will find "endless and cogent evidence" that car models originated from other car models by breeding with one another, won't you?"

There is no scientific evidence that any car ever mated with another car or produced an offspring, so your analogy is bogus.

127 posted on 05/18/2012 6:40:01 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
These mutations and modifications have been observed and confirmed

Not between complex species.

has human husbandry replacing natural selection created any new species?

Answer: yes, of course -- any time a new breed of plants

Plants, yes. Comlpex creatures like mammals -- no. We only have breeds, not species that get selected around.

I don't believe that for a second

Your beliefs are absurd generally. You, for example, believe in evolution.

Obviously many designs are similar, the question is why?

I don't know why, but that is not "the question". The question on hand is that whatever similar fossils you observe, they only prove that similar creatures existed. They do not prove that creatures of one species produced creatures of another species. That was the meaning of the car junk yard example, -- you seem to have missed it.

128 posted on 05/19/2012 7:17:32 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: annalex
BJK, post #127: "These mutations and modifications have been observed and confirmed.

annalex: "Not between complex species."

I'll say it again: you obviously don't understand basic facts & ideas of evolution.
All species (whether simple or complex) reproduce, and every reproduction can involve some modifications due to mutations in genes.
In Evolution Theory this is called, unsurprisingly, "descent with modifications".

If, rarely, a mutation improves an individual's chances to survive and reproduce, then it will become part of that species' gene pool, and will contribute toward its evolution.
This is due to the action of "natural selection", which is the second major factor in Evolution Theory.

Both descent with modifications and natural selection have been observed and confirmed innumerable times, in every species (whether simple or complex).
Since, by definition, a confirmed observation is a fact, that makes the basic elements of evolution facts.

Evolution Theory says that genetic mutations, accumulating every generation, can eventually lead to offspring which no longer interbreed with their original species -- whether that species is simple or complex.

We see innumerable examples in nature, and I've sited one -- the horse family, where sub-species readily interbreed, but different species do not produce viable offspring.
And in every case (whether simple or complex), fossil records and DNA analyses confirm Evolution's Theory of common ancestors in the distant past.

annalex: "Plants, yes.
Comlpex creatures like mammals -- no.
We only have breeds, not species that get selected around. "

Genetically speaking, plants are not less "complex" than mammals.
Indeed, many plants have much larger genomes than humans do.
So "complexity" has nothing to do with evolution.

Yes, plants do more readily interbreed and hybridize, and that's why there can be new human-created species of plants.
In animals, change is slower and takes longer, but the process is the same -- descent with modifications and natural selection.
And as with plants, evidence for animal evolution is found in fossils and DNA.

So I ask: why scientifically would a process (evolution) that you acknowledge has over time produced new species of plants, not also produce new species of animals?

annalex: "Your beliefs are absurd generally.
You, for example, believe in evolution."

The real issue here is the philosophy behind science, "methodological naturalism".
If you reject that, then you reject all of science and you are in fact, anti-science -- whatever claims you make to the contrary.

Evolution is a theory of science, based on methodological naturalism.
No other such theory of "creationism" or "intelligent design" is fully grounded in scientific naturalism.

annalex: "The question on hand is that whatever similar fossils you observe, they only prove that similar creatures existed.
They do not prove that creatures of one species produced creatures of another species. "

But there is no scientific alternative to the naturalistic assumptions that every fossil came from closely related ancestors, and those older fossils can often be found by looking in older geological strata.

But your contrary assertion -- that God created each and every species individually, and that no two species are related to each other by ancestry -- is first of all by definition unscientific, and second without any physical evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- to support it.

annalex: "That was the meaning of the car junk yard example, -- you seem to have missed it."

I totally understood your junk-yard analogy, and the flaws which make it bogus: unlike all of life, no car ever mated and reproduced itself.
"Evolution" among cars is a function of their factory-manufacturing processes.
By contrast, in every living thing, evolution is a function of individuals' reproduction.

Of course you can well say, as most religious people believe, that God's Hand is involved in every act of reproduction, but such belief simply confirms that Evolution is God's chosen method for creating life as we know it.


129 posted on 05/20/2012 6:05:09 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Evolution Theory says that genetic mutations, accumulating every generation, can eventually lead to offspring which no longer interbreed with their original species

That is precisely the fantasy not supported by fact. The rest is natural or artificial selection and is supported by facts. There is no need to explain it to me, it is a well-known thing. When you so easily bring over ideas of selection into origination of species, it is you who doesn't understand "basic facts & ideas of evolution".

why scientifically would a process (evolution) that you acknowledge has over time produced new species of plants, not also produce new species of animals?

I don't know why (I obviously meant "complex" in the sense that animal behavior is more complex: they hunt, chase pray, choose a mate, etc., -- not the genome). A scientist should perhaps look into this and ask himself: why is it so that viruses, plants and insects evolve between species and mammals don't? That would be a worthy use of effort, - unlike trying to beat a square peg into a round hole and call that "science".

No other such theory of "creationism" or "intelligent design" is fully grounded in scientific naturalism.

That is true. Science simply cannot explain the origin of species, any more than it can explain what will I have in a minute for breakfast. Both are matters of a reasoning individual's choice.

there is no scientific alternative to the naturalistic assumptions that every fossil came from closely related ancestors

Right. So evolution is something you first assume and then you see the world through the prism of that assumption. This is where it stops being science.

your contrary assertion -- that God created each and every species individually, and that no two species are related to each other by ancestry -- is first of all by definition unscientific, and second without any physical evidence

How can anything be "by definition" unscientific? It is not atheistic, but atheism is nowhere in the definition of science. Observation supports the separate creation theory: the fossils do not form a contiguous trace form species to species, but rather they appear in groups that show a stable species each time.

unlike all of life, no car ever mated and reproduced itself.

True, but you derive the hypothesis that one species became another through observation of similar fossils, -- like on your picture, -- and I point out that that is all you observe: similarity. Between fossilized cars there is the same similarity, but, thanks for noticing, cars don't even reproduce themselves, let alone evolve.

130 posted on 05/21/2012 5:59:50 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "That is precisely the fantasy not supported by fact."

But you have already confessed, in post #127, that evolution is "supported by fact" in the case of plants.
Now you wish to draw an unnatural distinction between evolution in plants which you admit can happen, versus evolution in mammals, which you pretend cannot.

The truth of the matter (not a "fantasy") is that descent with modifications and natural selection occur in both plants and animals, and that these leave records we can observe in fossils and in their DNA's.

For an example of evolution "caught in the act," consider these sub-species Grant's Zebras, which can interbreed with these closely related sub-species of Burchell's Zebras:

But neither interbreeds successfully with these different species Grevy's Zebra.

To anyone with a scientific mind, that is evolution "caught in the act" of happening.

annalex: "There is no need to explain it to me, it is a well-known thing.
When you so easily bring over ideas of selection into origination of species, it is you who doesn't understand "basic facts & ideas of evolution." "

You have repeatedly admitted one of the two key factors in evolution theory: "natural selection", but you have not yet confessed the truth of the other key factor, "descent with modifications."
As with "natural selection", "descent with modifications" has been observed and confirmed innumerable times.
So both are facts, but you won't admit them, will you?

annalex: "A scientist should perhaps look into this and ask himself: why is it so that viruses, plants and insects evolve between species and mammals don't? "

You again use a very odd, indeed meaningless, form of expression: "evolve between species".
I suspect it may be your devotion to the concept of biblically fixed "kinds" which causes you to employ such a strange locution.
Regardless, it is not scientific.

In reality, evolution happens from each generation to the next, and the definition of a new "species" is simply a matter of scientific convention.
By convention, we say that a new "species" has evolved whenever separated new populations can no longer successfully interbreed with their originals, as in the cases of different zebra species.

annalex: "Science simply cannot explain the origin of species..."

Of course it can.
By definition, scientists say that a "new species" has evolved whenever off-spring can no longer successfully interbreed with other off-spring of their common ancestors.
And the basic biological mechanisms are 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Why should that be so difficult to understand?

annalex: "So evolution is something you first assume and then you see the world through the prism of that assumption.
This is where it stops being science. "

No, science itself by definition, is the assumption of "methodological naturalism".
If a theory such as evolution meets the requirements of methodological naturalism then however correct or incorrect it may be, it is still a scientific theory.

But if another theory, such as "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design", does not meet those requirements, then by definition, it is not scientific.

In other words, even if (somehow) pure "Creationism" turned out to be correct, and "Evolution" to be wrong, Evolution would still be a scientific theory, and Creationism would not.
And the reason is that Evolution is based on the scientific assumption of methodological naturalism, while Creationism is not.
Of course, if Creationism were somehow confirmable through methodologically natural methods, then it would become a scientific theory.
But today no possibility of a natural confirmation exists.

annalex: "How can anything be "by definition" unscientific?"

Obviously, you don't understand the basic concepts here.
The scientific enterprise is based on methodological naturalism and anything which does not meet that criteria is, by definition not scientific.

annalex: "Observation supports the separate creation theory: the fossils do not form a contiguous trace form species to species, but rather they appear in groups that show a stable species each time."

The existence of any fossil for any species is very rare, and no doubt that many separate species, much less sub-species, have come and gone without ever leaving even one fossil.

But no species receive more intense study than pre-humans, and there dozens of transitional forms -- of breeds, sub-species, species, genera and biological families -- are identified, for examples:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls.
Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

•(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
•(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
•(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
•(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
•(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
•(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
•(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
•(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
•(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
•(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
•(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
•(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y •
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
•(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

annalex: "Between fossilized cars there is the same similarity, but, thanks for noticing, cars don't even reproduce themselves, let alone evolve."

But all creatures, great and small, do reproduce themselves, and therefore do evolve due to the scientifically observed and confirmed operations of descent with modifications and natural selection.

No other scientific theory fully accounts for these confirmed facts.
Of course, the science of evolution in no way excludes the Hand of God for those of Faith, as the old song says:

Science suggests the Hand of God works naturally through evolution.

131 posted on 05/22/2012 10:02:25 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

This is getting repetitive and, as it typical for your cult, attempts to drown the opponent in irrelevant detail, verbosity, and silly illustrations.

I responded to your zebras about a week ago. This is selection, not “evolution caught in the act”. “Descent with modifications” is a fantasy not observed among birds or mammals.

If there is anything you introduced in your last post that I did not react to, kindly point that out.


132 posted on 05/22/2012 4:50:00 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "“Descent with modifications” is a fantasy not observed among birds or mammals."

So now you claim that neither birds nor mammals experience genetic mutations from one generation to the next?
And your scientifically recognized source for this choice bit of misinformation is what, exactly?

Here's the truth of the matter:
Evolution consists of two key factors: descent with modifications and natural selection.
Since you have already admitted the fact of natural selection, I won't spend more time on it.

Descent with modifications begins with genetic mutations during reproduction.
These have been observed and confirmed innumerable times -- so they are facts.
How many mutations for each generation?

First, remember that the human genome -- the genetic code, those biological instructions by which DNA makes us -- that code has about 3 billion individual "base pair" instructions.
Not all perform useful work, a good many are sometimes called "Junk DNA", and mutations to "junk base pairs" have zero effect.

The previous estimate was about 100 mutations per generation, but this new study reported high variability in the small sample, and one can imagine mutation rates increasing during times of high physical stress caused by new environmental factors.
In other words, individuals highly stressed by a changing environment might generate more mutations than others living in more species-friendly locations.

Regardless, "descent with modifications" is a scientifically confirmed fact.

So what exactly is your problem with it?

annalex: "I responded to your zebras about a week ago."

You have seriously responded to nothing, whether zebras or humans or anyone else, FRiend.

133 posted on 05/23/2012 4:01:52 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Again, you don’t understand. Thank you, however, for the brevity and the pointed character of your last post.

There is no dispute that random mutations occur in every species. They are called birth defects.

The dispute is that those of them that conform with the environment and even provide an environmental advantage, and occur so that the two species with it (or one if the mutation is not only advantageous but dominant) successfully mate, occur statistically insufficiently for the new species to be produced over generations of such lucky streak.

Let us not forget that for a random mutation to be advantageous something equivalent of improving a poem through letting a monkey retype it needs to happen. It is a probabilistic non-zero and that is about it. Not observed in organisms that reproduce like mammals or birds do: few and vulnerable offspring per mate.

Further, there is no fossil evidence of a gradual movement from one species to the next, but there is plenty of fossil evidence of stable, not mutating species.

Regarding zebras and dogs and cats — understand that selection of breeds is not the same mechanism, — no mutations of the genome are needed. This is why that breeding occurs does not speak to the issue of origin of species.


134 posted on 05/23/2012 5:18:49 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "Again, you don’t understand."

I understand completely. It is you who refuses to confess the obvious truth of the matter, FRiend.

annalex: "There is no dispute that random mutations occur in every species.
They are called birth defects."

Mutations are only "defects" if they harm the individual's chances to survive and reproduce.
Most mutations have no effect, but if occasionally a mutation improves an individual's survival, then that is called, yes, "evolution".

annalex: "The dispute is that those of them that conform with the environment and even provide an environmental advantage, and occur so that the two species with it (or one if the mutation is not only advantageous but dominant) successfully mate, occur statistically insufficiently for the new species to be produced over generations of such lucky streak."

There's no dispute if you consider the example of woolly mammoths and African elephants.
Their genomes are about 99% identical, but even that 1% difference means roughly 30 million genetic mutations to "base pairs" -- mutations necessary for mammoths' adaptations to cold and elephants to African climates.
Based on mitochondrial DNA and fossils, the estimate is that woolly mammoths and African elephants shared common ancestors around 6 million years ago.
So, can you follow the math here? -- 30 million mutations over 6 million years works out to about 50 mutations per 10 year generation.
And that is roughly the same rate observed / confirmed by scientists referenced in my post #133 above.

So, genetic mutations in every generation are facts, not "fantasy", and these mutations accumulate at a more-or-less steady rate over many generations, allowing for simple adaptations, in this example, of mammoths in the arctic versus elephants in Africa.

annalex: "Let us not forget that for a random mutation to be advantageous something equivalent of improving a poem through letting a monkey retype it needs to happen."

But in the case of elephants migrating from southern to arctic climates, any mutation which helps it survive the cold (i.e., longer hair, more fat under skin, shorter ears, etc.) will by natural selection get passed on to future generations.

So there's no big mystery here -- the process, evolution, is obvious and undeniable.
And since most denominations teach that this process is always directed by God, there's nothing anti-Christian about it.

annalex: "Further, there is no fossil evidence of a gradual movement from one species to the next, but there is plenty of fossil evidence of stable, not mutating species."

I've answered this now many times, but you still don't "get it", do you?
The word "species" as used by scientists has a fairly precise definition: a group which can interbreed naturally.
Among Zebras, for example, some sub-species do interbreed, but separate Zebra species cannot.
So, merely referring to fossils of those Zebras would not, by itself, tell you which ones are sub-species and which are separate species.

Point is: you don't really know by just looking at fossils whether or not one could interbreed with similar looking fossils from a different location.
And chances are that if any serious length of time separates one fossil from another, then regardless of how similar they appear, they could not interbreed and so would be classified as separate species.

And the basic rule is simple: fossils don't change much as long as their environments don't change.
Major evolution only really happens when a sub-group gets separated from its species in a changing environment which forces the sub-group to either evolve or die out.

annalex: "Regarding zebras and dogs and cats — understand that selection of breeds is not the same mechanism, — no mutations of the genome are needed.
This is why that breeding occurs does not speak to the issue of origin of species."

But mutations do happen in every generation, and over many generations these mutations will prevent separated sub-species from interbreeding with each other, and then scientists will label them new species.

We can see this (for example) in Zebra sub-species and species, we see it in human modifications of plant species, and over many generations amongst domesticated animals.
Indeed, I would question today whether every breed of, say, milk cows could successfully interbreed with their Auroch ancestors:

Modern Holstein:

Ancient Auroch:

135 posted on 05/24/2012 7:01:50 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

You keep turning everything into breeding inside the species and selection afterwards. Somehow, it becomes very important to you that breeding at the margin produces cases where further mating between breeds is difficult and only occurs when no other choice exists. This has nothing to do with the evolutionary hypothesis. We’ve seen dogs, and zebras and mammoths/elephants and they all are good examples of a species stretching into breeds that look very much different. Yet none of this provides a kind of evidence you really need: one species evolving into a separate one.

I understand that a mutation can be, by chance, beneficial. In principle, that could be a mechanism for the origin of species. But I think all that you have shown with zebras and now cows, is routine natural selection of breeds that would have happened without any mutations whatsoever. For example, if a breeder wants a dog that, say, is good with children and pees once a day he will not depend on the appropriate mutation to happen, — he will simply breed suitable for his goals specimens of dogs. The result will also be a dog, only with different features. Natural selection works similarly, only slower.

You also try to obfuscate the concept of species. But evolution between species can ONLY happen through beneficial mutations: specimens with incompatible genomes cannot produce offspring (Darwin and his finches did not know that, so they mixed up selection with evolution, — you in 21 c. should know better). That is the mechanism the evolution cult postulates but for birds and mammals cannot prove.


136 posted on 05/24/2012 5:59:51 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "You keep turning everything into breeding inside the species and selection afterwards."

I don't understand your confusion, it's not that complicated:

And again, the obvious examples are those two sub-species of Zebras, and one separate species -- none of whom you can tell apart by their fossils, except we know the separate Zebra species does not successfully interbreed with the other two sub-species.

These two Zebra sub-species can interbreed.

But neither interbreeds with this separate species of Zebra:

annalex: "Somehow, it becomes very important to you that breeding at the margin produces cases where further mating between breeds is difficult and only occurs when no other choice exists.
This has nothing to do with the evolutionary hypothesis."

No, that is the confirmed theory of evolution -- separated populations adapt separately to their different environments until they can no longer interbreed, at which point scientists classify them as different species.
That's the theory of evolution, in a nut-shell.

annalex: "Yet none of this provides a kind of evidence you really need: one species evolving into a separate one."

The evidence is everywhere for anyone to see, who doesn't deliberately blind themselves to truth.

annalex: "But I think all that you have shown with zebras and now cows, is routine natural selection of breeds that would have happened without any mutations whatsoever."

Do you not understand that DNA analysis maps out our entire genetic codes, and counts up the precise number of mutations separating any two individuals or species?
In the case of Zebras, those sub-species have relatively few mutation differences in their DNA, but the separate species of Zebra has many more.
Yes, on the outside, they look more-or-less the same, but their DNAs have so many differences they don't naturally interbreed.

In the case of a modern dairy cow versus its ancient Auroch ancestor, could they still interbreed?
Answer: likely, though it's impossible to say for certain, and every new generation of human-engineered cows grows more and more genetically separate from their wild ancestors.

annalex: "You also try to obfuscate the concept of species."

No, not "obfuscate" -- I've reported the definition of the word "species" -- populations which interbreed naturally.

annalex: "But evolution between species can ONLY happen through beneficial mutations: specimens with incompatible genomes cannot produce offspring..."

Precisely. Who said that annalex has a problem with reading comprehension?

When the genomes of separated sub-species mutate to become so incompatible they can no longer interbreed, then scientist say they are two different species.

annalex: "That is the mechanism the evolution cult postulates but for birds and mammals cannot prove."

First of all, "evolution" is not a "cult", it's an important part of science, and so your attacks on evolution are really attacks on all of science -- you are not just anti-evolution, you are also anti-science.
And that's fine, you're free to believe whatsoever you wish, but you can't have it both ways -- you can't be anti-science and also claim to represent "true science".

What you really represent is a theological commitment to Creationism, or some more recent mutation thereof.

Second, the proof of evolution is everywhere for anyone with eyes to see it.
So it takes a willful act of ignorance, or an unbreakable commitment to your theological views, to avoid the truth of evolution, FRiend.

137 posted on 05/25/2012 5:26:48 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Of course it's a cult -- unlike any other science I know. Science explains. Cults sell. For example, confronted with an argument scientist speaks to the argument or says: I don't know. A cultist just repeats the original story till it sticks or the questioner goes away.

they don't naturally interbreed

Observe: "naturally". They could but they won't. There is a large swath of humanity I, too, wouldn't have interbred in my bachelor days. But put me on a deserted island with one, chances are great that I would. These "different species zebras" are all zebras. Mutations accumulating inside the zebra genome is a process that occurs alongside natural selection, but it is not a mechanism that would produce a new viable genome. If you call these a "different species zebra" that is your shaman's incantation.

I covered that particular line of pseudo-scientific salesmanship before.

138 posted on 05/25/2012 6:18:00 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex: "Of course it's a cult -- unlike any other science I know.
Science explains. Cults sell."

You obviously know more about cults than I do, and that may explain your eagerness to accuse "science" of something familiar to you: cults.

Evolution is one branch of science, and follows the same rules as all others, indeed, evolution draws much of its confirming data from virtually every other branch of science.
That's why I say an attack on evolution theory is an attack on all of science itself.

As for just who, exactly, researches, reports, proposes, "explains", teaches, clarifies, instructs or "sells" an idea, those are words you can define however you wish.
In the proper context, there's nothing wrong with any of them.

By definition, science is the opposite of a "cult".
First and foremost, science is a-religious -- not anti-religious, simply dedicated to the enterprise known as "methodological naturalism", which means: natural explanations for natural events.

Second, the essence of scientific activity is to question everything, even its own basic assumptions.
But every possible question is not necessarily scientific.
A question only becomes scientific when put in a format which can be answered using scientific methods.
And this rules out most of "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" ideas.

annalex: "A cultist just repeats the original story till it sticks or the questioner goes away."

Sorry FRiend, but if you ask any scientist a question such as, "what is two plus two", he or she will repeat the same answer "till it sticks or the questioner goes away."
That's because much of the nature of truth doesn't change, no matter how you explain it.

annalex: "Observe: "naturally".
They could but they won't....
These "different species zebras" are all zebras.
Mutations accumulating inside the zebra genome is a process that occurs alongside natural selection, but it is not a mechanism that would produce a new viable genome.
If you call these a "different species zebra" that is your shaman's incantation."

The important concept for you to grasp here is that as any sub-species accumulates more and more mutations, becoming more and more different from other sub-species, it also becomes more and more difficult to interbreed, and when the point arrives that natural interbreeding is not successful, then scientists (not me, and certainly no "shaman") define them as different species.

The Zebra example is perfect in this regard, because the separate species of Zebra cannot successfully interbreed with those other sub-species.
Even when forced by humans, their offspring are more often not viable.
In that sense, it's similar to breeding horses and donkeys -- yes, you get a mule, but it's infertile, and so not naturally viable.
And by scientific definition (having zero to do with "shamans"), this is the precise dividing line between species and sub-species.

annalex: "I covered that particular line of pseudo-scientific salesmanship before."

You've covered nothing of any significance.
But I note how you are shifting from discussion (however weak) to insults (growing stronger), FRiend.
;-)

139 posted on 05/25/2012 8:11:19 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; annalex
Lost in this back and forth between one consistent and confident person with 100% of the facts on his side (BroJoeK) and one of the hundreds of scientfically illiterate FReepers (annalex),was this comment by annalex:

[BroJoeK keeps posting] "irrelevant detail, verbosity, and silly illustrations."

Which demonstrates the "other half" of the creationist brain - the half not wadded up with creationist dribble. It's the half that can't comprehend the details and the actual science involved in actual science. Their level of understanding of how much work and how many years goes into each and every new discovery is essentially zero.

Those "silly ilustrations" are anything but, and your hand-waving dismissal of them shows your true failing: This stuff is hard. This stuff uses big words. I can't handle it. God.

The only thing more pathetic is the fact that Free Republic has driven almost every scientifically literate person away in the last 10 years. Bravo to you, BroJoeK, Bravo.
140 posted on 05/25/2012 10:29:22 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
when the point arrives that natural interbreeding is not successful, then scientists (not me, and certainly no "shaman") define them as different species.

Unlike 2+2=4, this is an interesting statement, and the only one you made on the subject.

So is the definition of species "specimens that do not naturally interbreed" or is it "specimens that cannot produce a viable offspring regardless of conditions"?

Bonus question: Are dogs (insert a picture of a daschund and a dane here) a group of species or a single species?

Background: Dog breeders can produce a desired breed (sometime, and if the desire is within reason) without any mutations helping along, by pure selection. So therefore, while mutations do occur in subspecies differentiation, they are not the mechanism or at least not an essential mechanism.



Scientific Proof

(No it is not a proof of anything. It is another picture of zebras, to show you that I can post pictures too. Come to think of it, it is shopped,-- considering the source).

141 posted on 05/25/2012 5:18:55 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; BroJoeK
the half not wadded up with creationist dribble

Yes, thank you for noticing that. My problem with evolutionary hypothesis that is is bad science.

the half that can't comprehend the details and the actual science involved in actual science

I am not a dumb man, have an applied math degree, and worked all my life gainfully employed in engineering. I can understand a scientific theory when I see one. If you have a logical proof from evidence I will recognize it. When I hear voodoo that masquerades as science I can tell that as well.

When someone who believes that nonsense repeatedly tells me a story about selection of subspecies -- something no one has disputed to be a fact, -- then varnishes it with irrelevant count of some mutations that may or may not have contributed to the selection, which in the lab could have been produced without them, -- then it becomes clear, with repetition, that the actual science is not there, and, further, plain logic is not there. There is a script being read. It's a cult.

It is good that you come to support a fellow Freeper though. The forum benefits from multi-faceted conversations.

142 posted on 05/25/2012 5:31:57 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

And yet no answer from the creationists to the problem of fossil assemblages.

Maybe you were thinking of gravity?


143 posted on 05/25/2012 5:33:03 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
And yet no answer from the creationists to the problem of fossil assemblages.

When you refer to the "fossil assemblalges(TM)", are you referring to the tens of millions of fossils which show no evidence of ever having evolved, or to the zero fossils which show evolution?

A few comments and notes by real experts:

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..."

David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology)
Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum
Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."

Francis Hitching
The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Penguin Books, 1982, p.19

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London
As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89

"We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history and has been conservative in habitat."

G. S. Carter, Professor & author
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
Cambridge, England
Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution
University of Washington Press, 1967

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (p. 206)

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292)

Charles Robert Darwin
The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint
Avenel Books, 1979

The Abundance of Fossils

"Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

David M. Raup, Curator of Geology
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago
"Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology"
Field Museum of Natural History
Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist)
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems,
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson
Lund University, Sweden
Famous botanist and evolutionist
As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51

144 posted on 05/25/2012 6:03:05 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

Comment #145 Removed by Moderator

Comment #146 Removed by Moderator

To: annalex
I am not a dumb man, have an applied math degree, and worked all my life gainfully employed in engineering.

I know more than a few engineer creationists - 2 in my family alone. It's taken me a long time to reconcile how intelligent people can have such a gap in their willingness to accept biological science. Is it because results are often difficult to come by immediately? Or because you can't necessarily control the forces of nature? It is an interesting question.

But your opposition to 160 years of solid theory, on the basis of your engineering background, does nothing to diminish the strength of the theory. Sorry. I know engineers hate that.

I can understand a scientific theory when I see one.

Good. Then let's go have a beer now that you've come to accept the fact of evolution.

Anyway, I see you're the type of creationist who accepts evolution and all its tenets - except you can't wrap your head around speciation for some reason. Ring species mean nothing to you, nor does the fossil record. Ok... let's discount reality for a moment and pose a simple question: What is the biological mechanism wherein alleles "know" not to change anymore than just a little "subspecies" bit over millennia or millions of years?

It MUST exist, right? You accept lots of tiny "subspecies" speciation. So you must know the biochemical switch that shuts off when that type of speciation gets to be just a bit too much. Note: Your discovery WILL be published if we can repeat your results.
147 posted on 05/26/2012 8:46:15 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Normally creationists don’t believe in fossils since the Bible makes no reference to them. Pulling quotes out of context isn’t much of an argument in any case.

Since creationists have created their own theory of evolution to argue against, it’s hard for them to understand that evolution comes from Christians working in the field. Christianity is the rational religion and has long tried to understand why fossil organisms appear in the same order all around the world regardless of whether they’re in valleys or on top of mountains.

Still waiting for a creationist to address this fact with some other description than that they are tears of angels or sweat of the devil.


148 posted on 05/26/2012 9:14:21 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Speciation is the root of its problem. In order for the evolution between species to work for advanced animals (those that have few and vulnerable offspring) there must be a sufficient probability of beneficial mutations occurring in a population, while birth defects — what mutations statistically are — remaining at relatively low probability. I have not seen a proof from observation that it is the case. Statistics militate against it: if you have a random copy error and you start with “Hamlet”, you will not statistically speaking end up with “Othello” no matter how long you wait.

That’s all there is to it; there is nothing to psychoanalize evo-skeptics for. Anyone with an engineer’s mind and training, who has the courage to tell the king that he has no clothes, will see through it, and many do.


149 posted on 05/26/2012 11:58:08 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Statistics militate against it: if you have a random copy error and you start with “Hamlet”, you will not statistically speaking end up with “Othello” no matter how long you wait.

Quite true. Of course, works of literature, no matter how great, are not biological organisms as you well know. That sorta makes a difference. You analogy isn't as bad as the old "747 in a junkyard" canard, but it's not as good as DNA and RNA either.

If I'm understanding correctly, you've now moved the goalposts even a little farther (to the good). You've singled out "advanced animals (those that have few and vulnerable offspring)..." I don't know why you think they are different than any other living thing, but so be it.

Again, this only leads to a different form of the same exact question I asked earlier. Since you are making the rules here, could you please tell us where, exactly, in the taxonomy that speciation fails according to an engineer's statistical understanding. And, since you (apparently) accept speciation in those organisms with very short generations, your new theory of limited evolution" needs to explain the mechanism as to why we see speciation in so-called "non-advanced animals" but not in your "advanced" animals.

What you are proposing goes against all of biology and you cannot simply SAY it, you must explain the hows and whys.

It's important. I'll warn you though... whichever magic dividing line you choose, I'm 100% confident we can show you the evolutionary speciation that occurred in the next "Most advanced" (your term) species. What then?
150 posted on 05/26/2012 2:42:43 PM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-278 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson