Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Even Richard Dawkins is Right Sometimes (Is the Biblical story of Adam and Eve a myth?)
Religious Dispatches ^ | 11/28/2011 | Paul Wallace

Posted on 11/29/2011 12:32:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind

For the last several months there has been a flurry of discussion—mostly online, of course—about the impossibility of a literal Adam & Eve (see, e.g., here and here and here). This ruling-out has been accomplished recently by the Human Genome Project, which indicates that anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors about 100,000 years ago, from a population of something like 10,000. In short, science has confirmed what many of us already knew: there was not a literal first couple. So what else can we learn from this story?

Plenty, it turns out. Peter Enns, a biblical scholar who blogs at Patheos, has been following the discussion with some care. Lately he has done us all a great favor: written a series of posts pointing out recurring mistakes made by many of those doing the discussing. Many of these mistakes are rhetorically effective but collapse upon even modest inspection.

But not all of them.

On Friday, he listed one held mostly by the pro-science crowd: “Evidence for and against evolution is open to all and can be assessed by anyone.”

Enns declares that this is not so. “The years of training and experience required of those who work in fields that touch on evolution rules out of bounds the views of those who lack such training,” he writes.

This is true but it misses the point. The open-access-to-science cliché, usually trundled out by those who wish to contrast the transparency of science with the supposed obfuscation of religion, carries some truth.

Science actually is transparent in a way that religion is not. That’s because, in science land, there is nothing but to follow the evidence. It’s out on the table, after all, able and willing to be poked and prodded and analyzed and figured out and held up and turned around and looked at from new angles. Also, what counts as evidence in science is pretty well-defined. And if you do become an evolution expert, you actually will see that 99% of all scientists back evolution for a reason: the evidence demands it.

This is the great generosity of science, and its great strength: It is actually all right there, ready to be seen and understood. It is relievedly explicit. It takes effort, sure, just as Enns suggests; it’s not easy to become a professional research biologist. But the reason biologists agree on evolution is because it’s a relatively simple matter to be objective about fossils and genes. Unlike the objects of religion—the divine and humanity’s relation to it—the objects of science give themselves up for abstraction and analysis without a fight.

Therefore Richard Dawkins (for example) is right when he says, as he has on many occasions, that the evidence for evolution is there to be inspected by anyone. It is sitting out there on the table, waiting patiently for most of humanity to catch up to it, waiting to tell us it’s time to bid the historical Adam & Eve a final, if fond, farewell.


TOPICS: History; Religion & Science; Skeptics/Seekers
KEYWORDS: adam; antichristspirit; creation; evolution; folly; fools; gagdadbob; onecosmosblog; paulwallace; peterenns; richarddawkins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-418 next last
To: SeekAndFind

I think “anatomically human” doesn’t cut it. The first human worthy of the name was Adam because there had to be a first anatomically human person who knew who he was and knew who God was. This person used words and knew they were names for things. “In the beginning was the Word.” God was there at the root of this First Man’s understanding of himself.


101 posted on 11/30/2011 7:30:17 AM PST by married21 (As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; guitarplayer1953
"When selection favored it. Female humans are highly advanced animals, more simple animals CAN reproduce without fertilization of the egg. You haven’t read much on the subject then, hermaphrodites self impregnate all the time. Yes, hermaphrodite plants are VERY common."

This is a logical fallacy for assuming that because a thing exists, that 'selection' or 'evolution' created it. Making the mistake of assuming that artifacts of complex biological systems created those complex biological systems is known as the fallacy of 'begging the question'.

It is neither logic nor argument.

102 posted on 11/30/2011 9:26:16 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Selection cannot create anything, only select among the variations that arise through mutation.

Your logical fallacy is thinking the Sun is in orbit around the Earth.

That is known as the fallacy of being a total loon.


103 posted on 11/30/2011 9:32:55 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Selection cannot create anything, only select among the variations that arise through mutation."

Thinking that artifacts of complex biological systems actually created those systems is the fallacy of begging the question.

"Your logical fallacy is thinking the Sun is in orbit around the Earth. That is known as the fallacy of being a total loon."

This is the fallacy of appeal to ridicule based on a strawman.

The truth is so much more interesting:

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

104 posted on 11/30/2011 9:43:00 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The truth is that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun due to the gravity between them.

I didn't think selection created anything - that was your own hideously idiotic mistake.

A model explains data, but any attempt to explain the data using the model is “begging the question” to an idiot who doesn't understand logic or scientific models or gravity.

105 posted on 11/30/2011 9:49:23 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"The truth is that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun due to the gravity between them."

No, that's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

The truth is:

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

"I didn't think selection created anything - that was your own hideously idiotic mistake."

'Selection' and 'evolution' don't create anything. Thinking that artifacts of complex biological systems created those biological systems is an exercise in logical fallacy.

"A model explains data, but any attempt to explain the data using the model is “begging the question” to an idiot who doesn't understand logic or scientific models or gravity."

No, that is the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

Begging the question is assuming the validity of the proposition being presented. The fallacy of affirming the consequent then interprets subsequent data as supporting the initial assumption. As I have shown multiple times, 'evolution' and 'geokineticism' are based on the fallacy of begging the question and subsequent data is interpreted through the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

106 posted on 11/30/2011 11:07:37 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

To you using ANY scientific model to explain ANY data is “begging the question”. Either on the subject of the Earth going around the Sun (it does) or the evolution of living systems through selection of genetic variation (both observable).

I find it amusing that you place the model of biological evolution on the same level as the model of gravitation that has the Earth in orbit around the Sun.

Both are very well supported models that help explain and predict data - opposed only by the most ludicrous of loons.


107 posted on 11/30/2011 11:11:55 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"To you using ANY scientific model to explain ANY data is “begging the question”. Either on the subject of the Earth going around the Sun (it does) or the evolution of living systems through selection of genetic variation (both observable)."

You have no idea whether I would consider ANY scientific model and ANY scientific data as 'begging the question. You seem to be making this a personal issue about me.

"I find it amusing that you place the model of biological evolution on the same level as the model of gravitation that has the Earth in orbit around the Sun."

All I said was that they are both based on the logical fallacies of begging the question and affirming the consequent. You seem extremely confident in your ability to say where I would place both models in terms of some ranking-system that you evidently have in mind.

"Both are very well supported models that help explain and predict data - opposed only by the most ludicrous of loons."

Both are only 'very well supported' in terms of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You certainly seem intent on making this discussion personally about me.

108 posted on 11/30/2011 11:24:20 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

No, just ANY loon who would deny that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. Not any particular loon.

Your constant refrain on any scientific subject - gravity or evolution - is that using the model to explain the data is “begging the question”. You are at least consistent that you think using a scientific model to explain data is some sort of logical fallacy.

But what you call a logical fallacy the rest of the world calls the scientific method - using a model to explain and predict data.


109 posted on 11/30/2011 11:29:02 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; GourmetDan

Apparently you think the evolutionary ‘scientific models’ are closest to reality just because nothing else is so highly researched [read gov funded]. The problem is any contradictory data consistently gets overlooked and ignored while ridiculing anyone willing to ask you to show all the steps in your ridiculous conclusions.

Evolution fails at the ‘mathematical model’ level and therefore evolution fails at reality.


110 posted on 11/30/2011 1:12:31 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Oh, does the gravitational model that has the Earth in orbit around the Sun similarly fail at the mathematical model level?

The theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is a very helpful theory in that it explains and predicts data.

If I take a bacteria and plate it on ten different plates and subject those plates to ten different stresses - using the theory I can predict the outcome.

Can you predict the outcome?

When a novel antibiotic is introduced the theory of natural selection of genetic variation can predict what will happen in bacterial populations subject to the novel antibiotic.

Can you predict the outcome?

Mathematically what is going to PREVENT genetic variations from accumulating within a population and differential reproductive outcomes ‘selecting’ for or against these variations?

111 posted on 11/30/2011 1:27:12 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Predicts data...

for micro-evolution or changes allowed and pre existing in the DNA

but never never never has your precious macro-evolution been observed

neither in the living record

nor in the fossil record!

When will you ever concede what all the data already indicates?


112 posted on 11/30/2011 1:35:12 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Changes are both “allowed” AND are “pre existing” in DNA?

Try to have it both ways much?

No, mutations create novel variations that are not “pre existing” in the DNA. But they must be “allowed” in that they cannot be a nonviable mutation.

The creationists on this thread so far cannot even seem to DEFINE “macro” evolution - or explain how it would differ in mechanism, quality or quantity from “micro” evolution.

I somehow don't expect you to do any better.

Can you define “macro” evolution for me?

Would the change between a mouse and a rat be “micro” or “macro”?

113 posted on 11/30/2011 1:41:10 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Doesn’t the entire theory of evolution require there to be a first?

I mean, according to the theory, isn’t the first homo sapien the first because he’s the first to have the random mutation that differentiated him from his ancestors?

If there is no first human, is the author suggesting that the same random mutation struck multiple times in a population of 10,000?


114 posted on 11/30/2011 1:47:53 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Is there any know cases of a female human hermaphrodites self impregnating?
115 posted on 11/30/2011 1:51:34 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to GOD! Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
If by evolution you mean speciation, still no - there is no “first” member of a new species born intact and distinct from the parent population.

Defining when a population has diverged enough to be called a separate species is not a dividing line but a continuum.

A swamp dries up and becomes a forest over a hundred years. It was obviously a swamp one hundred years ago, and it is obviously a forest now. At what point did the swamp become a forest? Was there a particular second when it happened? One location that was obviously forest first?

116 posted on 11/30/2011 1:52:39 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
Similarly....

Do you think the theories of language require that there be a first original speaker?

That among Latin speakers there was born one individual who spoke Italian - and unless another Italian speaker were born concurrently - they would have nobody to speak to?

Do you think one day that can be precisely defined the residents of Italy stopped speaking Latin and started speaking Italian?

117 posted on 11/30/2011 1:55:55 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

We aren’t talking about a forest or arbitrary categories, we are talking genetics. Surely there was a time there was no such thing as a genetic human, and then there was, and according to evolution this happens because of mutation and natural selection.

So when and to whom did this mutation happen to?


118 posted on 11/30/2011 2:01:58 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
Yes, we ARE talking genetics - not language or geography - but similar concepts apply.

There was no “first human” born from nonhuman apes just as there was no “first Italian speaker” born from Latin speakers - and for EXACTLY the same reason.

Latin did not become Italian in one day and for one speaker - it was an accumulation of differences that happened over a great deal of time.

Nonhuman apes did not become modern humans in one day and for one individual - it was an accumulation of differences that happened over a great deal of time.

Historic evidence indicates that Spanish and Italian were once the same language. What happened?

Genetic evidence indicates that rats and mice were once the same species. What happened?

The same thing in both cases. Separate populations accumulated differences until there was a fundamental divergence.

119 posted on 11/30/2011 2:08:45 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Still doesn’t make sense, surely a geneticist can look at rats and mice and document all the genetic differences between them.

Lets say for argument sake there are 100 total differences, and let’s say the argument you’re makings, is that there is this separate population of rats, each developed some of these traits individually, until the entire population gained all the traits over time and became mice. Surely, there is at one point, one individual member of the population that was the 1st to have all one hundred of these traits. That prior to that there were many with almost all of them, but none had all of them, until this individual mice came along.


120 posted on 11/30/2011 2:33:00 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
It makes perfect sense to any but the deliberately obtuse.

There are not 100 total differences in genetics between rats and mice - there would be an AVERAGE difference between a typical mouse and a typical rat - different for each particular individuals you cared to compare.

If you invent iron clad criteria - you will often find nothing but disappointment when reality fails to comport well with the artificial criteria you invented.

121 posted on 11/30/2011 2:37:00 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: schaef21

In the beginning there was nothing ... then it exploded.


122 posted on 11/30/2011 2:39:15 PM PST by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; dartuser; Truthsearcher; GourmetDan; BrandtMichaels

Hey Allmendream..... been a long time since you’ve called me names and dismissed me... I see you’re still incapable of making an argument without insulting someone.

You said this:

“Selection cannot create anything, only select among the variations that arise through mutation.”

And you are correct (partially).... selection can’t create anything. However, since mutations are harmful (even sci-fi film makers know that... Ever seen a good lookin’ mutant?) and to reiterate something that I argued with you a long time ago.... there has never been a mutation that’s been observed that ever added any information to the genome. Mutations either remove information or they are information neutral.

Here’s my question.... that being the case, how could Natural Selection select from less information and create a new species that requires more information?

While you’re at it.... take a look at my post #82, which has some legitimate questions for you.... bet you can’t reply with out a bit of nastiness.


123 posted on 11/30/2011 3:18:40 PM PST by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

“In the beginning there was nothing ... then it exploded.”

Thereby violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, The Law of Cause and Effect and the Law of the Conservation of Matter.... not to mention the complete logical fallacy of the whole thing.


124 posted on 11/30/2011 3:21:37 PM PST by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

So all you’re really saying is that “we can’t find the definitive first human because we can’t even define what is the definitive human.”

Well, of course.


125 posted on 11/30/2011 4:06:38 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"No, just ANY loon who would deny that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. Not any particular loon."

Ah, more name-calling. When you don't like my opinion, you resort to name-calling.

"Your constant refrain on any scientific subject - gravity or evolution - is that using the model to explain the data is “begging the question”. You are at least consistent that you think using a scientific model to explain data is some sort of logical fallacy."

See below for quotes demonstrating the equivalence of geocentric and geokinetic models. After that, it's merely one's personal opinion. To claim that one model is demonstrably superior to the other in the face of quotes stating their equivalence, one must use logical fallacy as 'support'. If you don't want me to point out your use of logical fallacy as arguemnt the solution is obvious, don't use logical fallacy as argument.

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

"But what you call a logical fallacy the rest of the world calls the scientific method - using a model to explain and predict data."

That would be the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion.

126 posted on 11/30/2011 4:37:50 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

I don’t know of any but I haven’t looked for it.


127 posted on 11/30/2011 4:39:35 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: schaef21
When you start with a bad premise you get bad results.

All mutations are not harmful. Mutations cause variations.

Here we see the utility of the theory.

Bacteria have a gene for error prone DNA polymerase in addition to its high fidelity one. Each ‘error’ introduces mutations into the bacterial genome.

Under stress this gene is expressed in preference to the high fidelity one.

The theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation has an explanation at the ready for this.

Your false construction that all mutations are somehow information neutral or negative has no explanation for it, because it is false.

A mutation of the DNA of a codon can cause expression of a different amino acid in a working protein. This doesn't subtract information and often it turns out to NOT be information ‘neutral’.

So why would a bacteria under stress have and express a gene for an error prone DNA polymerase?

128 posted on 11/30/2011 5:23:06 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
According to evolutionist that is the way it use to go before the dividing of the sexes which occurred across the animal species. Another thing that has bothered me is where did all the plants and trees and such come from? It's one thing to say that we came from a primordial soup so to say but where did all the ingredients come from?
129 posted on 11/30/2011 5:26:09 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to GOD! Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; schaef21
"Here we see the utility of the theory. Bacteria have a gene for error prone DNA polymerase in addition to its high fidelity one. Each ‘error’ introduces mutations into the bacterial genome. Under stress this gene is expressed in preference to the high fidelity one. The theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation has an explanation at the ready for this."

No, this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent in action.

The fact that bacteria have multiple genes and choose to express them differently according to stress-levels is not evidence that these mechanisms and strategies 'evolved'. Unless you invoke logical fallacy, that is.

What exists, exists. That is pure science and scientific evidence. Assuming that it 'evolved' because 'evolution' 'predicts' it is pure logical fallacy. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, that is. Logical fallacy should never be confused with science. Not even if all the scientists believe it. That is simply the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion.

130 posted on 11/30/2011 5:30:58 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

The underlying problem is that evolutionists simply believe that evolution has created all biological systems and effects. Arguing what biology can or cannot do is difficult because we really don’t know what the limits really are to this thing called ‘life’. Biology is turning out to be much more wonderful and complex than ever predicted by anyone.

This doesn’t matter to evolutionists because they simply incorporate the newest discoveries into a framework that says “it exists because it evolved”. That is a logical fallacy. It begs the question by assuming that everything that is observed, evolved.

What complex biological system did any evolutionist ever look at and say, “This couldn’t have evolved”? None. And they never will because they operate from a logical fallacy that is assumed ‘a priori’ or as a “first principle”. IOW, credulity is the realm of the evolutionist who will believe that anything they see ‘evolved’, no matter how complex or interrelated such a system is.

It’s their basic belief paradigm and cannot be questioned. Those who do become creationists. :-)


131 posted on 11/30/2011 5:46:23 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

I can possible see where microbes and such have evolved but all the plant life all the diversity in the plant life is enough to make one wonder. It would seem that there would not be much diversity in anything a few plant that made it so to say and how they started is quite a mystery but just a few and only limited life forms not the diversity we see in the water and land is quite the mystery to me. Evolution is quite a powerful mechanism and who put the desire, the will to mutate In the first place in the mechanism?


132 posted on 11/30/2011 5:58:25 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to GOD! Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You cannot even understand the argument I am making.

I am not saying the mechanism evolved - the mechanism itself accelerates evolution.

You think gravity explaining the Earth's orbit around the Sun is affirming the consequence - but the scientific method is not a logical fallacy - posting your ignorant drivel about coordinate systems and thinking it explains the glaring hole in your thinking IS a logical fallacy.

So how can YOU explain why a bacteria under stress would chose to introduce mutations into its genome?

This should be amusing! :)

133 posted on 11/30/2011 5:58:57 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"You cannot even understand the argument I am making. I am not saying the mechanism evolved - the mechanism itself accelerates evolution."

You're saying the mechanism was created then? You cannot say the mechanism accelerates 'evolution' without begging the question of the existence of evolution in the first place. You again engage in logical fallacy.

"You think gravity explaining the Earth's orbit around the Sun is affirming the consequence - but the scientific method is not a logical fallacy - posting your ignorant drivel about coordinate systems and thinking it explains the glaring hole in your thinking IS a logical fallacy."

You are in no position to say what I think and the 'ignorant drivel' about CS is based on quotes from Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis.

"So how can YOU explain why a bacteria under stress would chose to introduce mutations into its genome?"

As I have previously explained, bacteria ramp up mutations when stressed to search a design-space for possible solutions to the stressor they are subjected to.

"This should be amusing! :)"

LOL!

134 posted on 11/30/2011 6:41:01 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

You still have to be extremely credulous to believe that even ‘microbes and such’ have ‘evolved’ (that really has no meaning as it can mean anything). Even simple microbes have the complexity of small cities and we know those don’t spontaneously generate themselves. And yes, survival of the fittest (were it a real phenomenon) would tend to end up with a single life form that is ‘fitter’ than everything else that went before.

I think you are confusing adaptation with the term ‘evolution’. Adaptation is very powerful and all life forms have incredible abilities of adaptation. That doesn’t mean that these abilities ‘evolved’. ‘Evolution’ can mean anything and therefore means nothing.


135 posted on 11/30/2011 6:48:09 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

So my Ford Focus will not adapt and evolve into a hummer one day?


136 posted on 11/30/2011 6:56:04 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to GOD! Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

Sorry... I know that’s difficult to accept. Smashed paradigms and all... ;-)


137 posted on 11/30/2011 6:58:51 PM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Darn it just when I was beginning to believe in macro evolution.../Sarc
138 posted on 11/30/2011 7:03:25 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to GOD! Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
So then if the bacteria “ramp up mutation” that would counter an argument that all mutations are going to be detrimental or have no effect at all, that being the context in which I brought it up; wouldn't you say, using logic?

Einstein was not a loony Geocentrist. Logical fallacy of appeal to authority anyway. An authority that doesn't even agree with you. Rather sloppy, silly and stupid, wouldn't you say? Using logic?

139 posted on 11/30/2011 8:35:03 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

We all argue from assumptions. Sometimes the assumptions are based on facts in evidence, sometimes, not. Mirco-evolution really deals with those events that we can actually put to the test, which means with a few human generations. Macro-evolutiion is a kind of historicism based on what remains from the past and then by spinning speculations. One thing we do know is that most of life is microscopic: the sheer weight of them is greater than that of the more complex forms. But the question remains unanswered how these complex forms emerged from the simpler ones. The greater question is, however, how the simple ones emerged from dead matter. For dead matter is infinitely less complex than the simplest form of living matter. We were fooled when we looked at organic matter and saw that it was made of of pretty much the same stuff. But as we look deeper and deeper, we find ourselves in the position of Ben Franklin holding a cell phone in his hand. We just don’t understand the principles behind it.


140 posted on 11/30/2011 9:44:36 PM PST by RobbyS (Viva Christus Rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; allmendream; GourmetDan; guitarplayer1953; schaef21; Truthsearcher; metmom

‘We just don’t understand the principles behind it.’ - well,

err...

except for amd. None of us are even worthy to discuss such weighty matters w/ amd. He just deigns to try to teach us all some new learnin from time to time.

And never ask any questions re: beginnings nor all the complexities to support life, the Earth and the Universe.

They just are there - poof - to allow all the other complexities to work themselves out and re-code for every nuance of every kind of living thing.

Through complete and utter mistakes [mutations] every life form just figured out, on its own, completely undirected, going from about 7 million lines in the bacterial DNA upto the 3 billion for human DNA and then surpassing all others with the Paris Japonica planticus thingy at about 50 billions of coded sequences but actually showing [like most plants] less complexity than mankind [often assumed to be the highest most advanced and complex of all the physical lifeforms]. see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101007120641.htm for more...

Why you ask? Well just because the newly self-appointed masters of all knowledge and intelligence [mostly in recognized universities with lotsa letters after their names, but also including any who agree with them] say so.

WHY WOULD SHOULD COULD ANYONE EVER DOUBT THIS STUFF -

IT JUST IS -

S#!+ HAPPENS...

Oh and don’t anyone ever dare broach the subject abiogenesis again when discussing evolution or it’s head boppin time!!!


141 posted on 12/01/2011 6:17:16 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Is the word “literal” in there? Did I miss it?


142 posted on 12/01/2011 6:29:36 AM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: JenB

Incorrect.

A person’s faith can be STRONGER when he sees the profound SYMBOLIC implications of the Adam & Eve story.


143 posted on 12/01/2011 6:34:10 AM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; ...

Ping


144 posted on 12/01/2011 6:34:16 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty; HarleyD

What? Is naming the people not literal enough for you?


145 posted on 12/01/2011 6:36:25 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

What AMD describes is actually Creationism, because he ignores the origins (as you said, “poof, it’s there”), and then describes observable species adaptation as “evolution”.


146 posted on 12/01/2011 6:40:45 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty

You know, I tried similar lines on my mom when I was a kid - something about honor the spirit of her rules and not actually doing what she said - and she didn’t buy it.

I can’t speak to the state of your faith. Not my place. But I believe anything that weakens our belief in the Bible as the literal, inerrant Word of God weakens our view of who God is. If that means I’m mocked for believing in a historical Adam, so be it.


147 posted on 12/01/2011 6:43:43 AM PST by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
The principles behind abiogenesis - the formation of life from nonlife - yes - we just don't understand the principles behind it- so far all we have is highly speculative hypotheses.

However the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is -as you said - based upon facts in evidence and is put to the test.

So what is going to stop this “micro” from accumulating into “macro” when the observed rate of change is both necessary and sufficient to explain the amount of DNA divergence between species?

You have not defined either or explained how either differ in quality quantity or mechanism.

It is as if you claimed that we can only observe “micro” erosion - and that what we observe in “micro” erosion in our living time frame is not sufficient to explain the “macro” erosion of major geological features and cannot explain how “micro” or “macro” erosion differ in quality quantity or mechanism.

148 posted on 12/01/2011 6:49:15 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Adaptation is Not evolution.

Adaptation gives us all the breeds of dogs, which all come from a dog.

Evolution would have us believe that a dog could come from an animal that is NOT a dog; or a man would come from a non-man.


149 posted on 12/01/2011 6:54:03 AM PST by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Any observable species adaptation through change in DNA is, by definition, evolution.

If it happens through natural selection of that genetic variation - then it was Darwin's theory that explains it.

Why? Do you have your own Humpty Dumpty meaning when you say “evolution”?

Do you mean “common descent of species” when you say evolution?

Do you find it frustrating that after years of discussion on this topic you still don't even understand the terms being used?

150 posted on 12/01/2011 6:54:36 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-418 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