Evolution... Do we believe?

[Stripe]

??????????How bizarre are creationists?[INDENT][I]Creationist: "Trees and fish are different kinds."[/I]Me: How do you know?[I]Creationist: "By looking at them. It's obvious."[/I]Me: What are you looking for and how is it obvious?[I]Creationist: "They can't interbreed."[/I]Me: So is the inability to interbreed the criterion for "kinds"?[I]Creationist: "Where did you get that idea?"[/I][/INDENT]There's something fundamentally wrong with you 6days.

Nope.

You're playing the same silly game others like to use to distract from the scientific nature of our position. We speak of "kinds" when evolutionists demand respect for their undefinable "species." Then evolutionists demand a definition of kind, pretending it has never been presented before. Once they get the definition, they pretend that difficulties in classification undermine the definition, which would be like if we defined a sphere as the collection of points equidistant from a common center and the Darwinists objected to the definition because we could not tell them whether a body orbiting a distant star was rounded by its own gravity.

The definition of kind is rock-solid and clear. The means we might use to classify animals is not the definition.

A classification system is not a definition.

We go through such fundamental errors by Darwinists every time this conversation comes up because their No. 1 goal is to reject anything that might point to their savior.

Not according to Stripe and some other creationists here.

Nope. Rapid adaptation is the model I hold to. And even if it weren't, you are playing more silly games, pretending a disagreement between your opponents has some bearing on the correctness of an idea.

What you need to do is learn to engage rationally. Unfortunately, that would mean running the risk of having to revise your worldview.

 

[Jose Fly]

Rapid adaptation is the model I hold to.

And does that include populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection?

 

[6days]

:darwinsm:

Ha... Good response.
I was going to start doing a list, but then thought 'Why bother?'

 

[6days]

And does that include populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection?

You haven't defined the word species yet... Perhaps Stripe would like you to stick to one definition rather than ask questions with rubbery words.

Or perhaps see his answers in this thread...
Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:
Fruit flies grow longer wings...
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'
New Scientist 165 wrote:
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"


Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...
... Evolutionists are surprised.
Science Daily wrote:
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm


And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110849

 

[Stripe]

Ha... Good response.
I was going to start doing a list, but then thought 'Why bother?'

Exactly. Evolutionists find themselves painted quickly into a corner the moment science gets started, so they must immediately launch into irrational nonsense — an example quoted below — to keep themselves convinced they do not need to analyze what they believe.

Evolution is not science. Or at least, evolutionists do not practice it.

And does that include populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection?

 

[6days]

Except that peer review is generally how a scientific consensus or correction comes about, but being corrected by creationists however isn't.

I'm sure you are aware of SOME of the flaws in the peer review system. For example... Most journals are private enterprises, and cater to a particular subscriber base.
Journal of Creation will not accept articles promoting common ancestry from evolutionists.
Journal of Theoretical Biology will not accept articles promoting a common designer.

 

[Jose Fly]

You haven't defined the word species yet

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

You've posted examples of populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection and claimed them to be part of the "Biblical model of creation". Yet Stripe says none of those things happen, ever.

Is he wrong?

And you ignored the other points. Why did you say that you could tell that trees and fish are different "kinds" by noting that they can't interbreed, if an inability to interbreed isn't the criterion for identifying "kinds"?

And is "Then God said..." part of creationism or not?

 

[6days]

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

You've posted examples of populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection and claimed them to be part of the "Biblical model of creation". Yet Stripe says none of those things happen, ever.

Is he wrong?

It is relevant... See post 464 ... It will give you a link to Stripes answers. And, I think he just told you... he uses the term rapid adaptation.

And you ignored the other points. Why did you say that you could tell that trees and fish are different "kinds" by noting that they can't interbreed, if an inability to interbreed isn't the criterion for identifying "kinds"?

Be accurate in what I REALLY said please.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is relevant... See post 464 ... It will give you a link to Stripes answers. And, I think he just told you... he uses the term rapid adaptation.

So to be clear, according to you the "Biblical model of creation" includes populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection, correct?

Be accurate in what I REALLY said please.

Quit dodging.

When I asked what you were looking for to tell whether trees and fish are different "kinds", you answered: "A good starting point would be to note that trees and fish don't breed with each other." That's the entirety of your answer.

Why did you say that if the inability to interbreed isn't the criterion for "kinds"?

And again, is "Then God said...." part of the creationist model or not?

 

[The Barbarian]

6Days tries again:
Of course genetics helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
Jeffrey Tompkins PhD "Yet another study, this one published in the journal Nature, ( exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants) accessed even more extensive data and unintentionally confirmed the recent human history described in Genesis."

(Barbarian notes that Jeffery the agronomist doesn't even agree with the paper he cites, written by real geneticists)
In fact, the results suggest the opposite conclusion

(6days removes the citation)

So I'll restore it.
We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes....Furthermore, European Americans had an excess of deleterious variants in essential and Mendelian disease genes compared to African Americans, consistent with weaker purifying selection due to the Out-of-Africa dispersal. Our results better delimit the historical details of human protein-coding variation, show the profound effect of recent human history on the burden of deleterious SNVs segregating in contemporary populations, and provide important practical information that can be used to prioritize variants in disease-gene discovery.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11690.html

Wrong... You are talking about the evolutionist interpreting the results within their belief system of millions of years

As you learned, the data is consistent with very long periods of time, but cannot be reconciled to a few thousand years. It shows that harmful mutations take longer to be removed from founder populations.

Barbarian observes:
I notice that Jeffrey has, on Creationwiki, claimed that his degree is in Genetics, but his alma mater says it's in growing crops.

Would you agree that attacking the person, or trying to discredit their education

Pointing out that he misrepresented his education? It doesn't discredit his ability to understand farming. It discredits his honesty and his ability to understand genetics.

rather than attack their argument is ad hominem?

When you presented him as an expert on genetics, you put the question on the table. Turns out, he's not a geneticist at all, and that dishonesty does no small damage to his credibilty - and yours.

"He has a PhD in genetics"... according even to atheist 'Rationalwiki'.

Clemson, where he graduated, says "agronomy."

Dr. Robert Carter... Human genetics confirms the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwRqlFzZ0cU

Barbarian observes:
The problem is that there are many, many alleles for each human gene locus. If they all evolved by mutation, then there is not enough time on the creationist belief for all of them to have formed.

This is based on a major misconception about genetics. Robert thinks that Adam and Eve could have all of the dozens of alleles present today for each gene locus. But we only have two chromosomes. Which means that Adam and Eve could have had at most, four different alleles between them. The dozens or even hundreds of others must have evolved. Even 50,000 years would be entirely too short a time for that to have happened.

The "problem" is your lack of understanding of genetics,

See above. You don't know what you're talking about, so you were easy to sucker into that argument.

The issue of you rejecting God's creation in Genesis is a separate issue.

Dr. Georgia Purdom (molecular biology) "One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson....He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago.”

Georgia has another issue. "Mitochondrial Eve" wouldn't be the first woman. She would merely be the last woman who was the ancestor of every human living today.

Dr. Purdom is discussing how genetics supports God's Word of the BIBLICAL Eve.

She got a little confused. "Mitochondrial Eve" is not the first woman. And the evidence is that mitochondrial Eve lived about 200,000 years ago.

 

[Stripe]

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

You've posted examples of populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection and claimed them to be part of the "Biblical model of creation". Yet Stripe says none of those things happen, ever.

Is he wrong?

And you ignored the other points. Why did you say that you could tell that trees and fish are different "kinds" by noting that they can't interbreed, if an inability to interbreed isn't the criterion for identifying "kinds"?

And is "Then God said..." part of creationism or not?

Nope.

You're playing the same silly game others like to use to distract from the scientific nature of our position. We speak of "kinds" when evolutionists demand respect for their undefinable "species." Then evolutionists demand a definition of kind, pretending it has never been presented before. Once they get the definition, they pretend that difficulties in classification undermine the definition, which would be like if we defined a sphere as the collection of points equidistant from a common center and the Darwinists objected to the definition because we could not tell them whether a body orbiting a distant star was rounded by its own gravity.

The definition of kind is rock-solid and clear. The means we might use to classify animals is not the definition.

A classification system is not a definition.

We go through such fundamental errors by Darwinists every time this conversation comes up because their No. 1 goal is to reject anything that might point to their savior.


Nope. Rapid adaptation is the model I hold to. And even if it weren't, you are playing more silly games, pretending a disagreement between your opponents has some bearing on the correctness of an idea.

What you need to do is learn to engage rationally. Unfortunately, that would mean running the risk of having to revise your worldview.

Is there any point explaining an idea to a Darwinist?

 

[6days]

Is there any point explaining an idea to a Darwinist?

It gives me practice making speling mistakes.

 

[Jose Fly]

Stripe,

What is the difference between the "rapid adaptation" you describe and populations evolving via mutation and natural selection?

 

[alwight]

I'm sure you are aware of SOME of the flaws in the peer review system. For example... Most journals are private enterprises, and cater to a particular subscriber base.

Rather like when you present supposedly regular scientists with letters after their name, who are apparently supporting YEC and ID by using real science but who instead turn out to be committed YECs who write for the likes of AiG etc. :AMR:
Their missives are nevertheless there for everyone to read and thereby to form a general consensus on, why, they even get a prime billing and praise from their acolytes.
However, YEC "scientists'" first allegiance is in their adherence to a literal Genesis and therefore it isn't their honest rigorous pursuit of natural science that leads them anywhere near Adam & Eve or a young Earth, it is entirely their YEC supernatural beliefs which for them always trumps all science, even their own.

That is why I think that you are being highly dishonest when you present YECs who have somehow managed to acquire letters before or after their name, as being ordinary scientists honestly perusing science, when clearly their real agenda is to only use science if it can somehow be accommodated or spun into their existing YEC presuppositions. They are not being honest scientists even if they are really scientists at all. :nono:

Journal of Creation will not accept articles promoting common ancestry from evolutionists.
Journal of Theoretical Biology will not accept articles promoting a common designer.

So what? Rigorous honest science gets published by respected scientific organisations, presenting testable facts and evidence, while YEC pseudoscience gets published by AiG or ICR etc and is widely ignored by honest scientists, except for entertainment value perhaps.

 

[Jose Fly]

Journal of Theoretical Biology will not accept articles promoting a common designer.

They won't? How do you know?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe,

What is the difference between the "rapid adaptation" you describe and populations evolving via mutation and natural selection?

How about you concede that there is a difference between a definition and a classification system.

While you're at it: You can give us a definition of "species."

 

[Jose Fly]

How about you concede that there is a difference between a definition and a classification system.

How about you answer the question?

What is the difference between the "rapid adaptation" you describe and populations evolving via mutation and natural selection?

 

[6days]

Rather like when you present supposedly regular scientists with letters after their name, who are apparently supporting YEC and ID by using real science but who instead turn out to be committed YECs who write for the likes of AiG etc. :AMR:

No true Scotsman, right?
Like when evolutionists present supposedly regular scientists with letters after their name, who are committed to atheism by using 'science'.

That is why I think that you are being highly dishonest when you present YECs who have somehow managed to acquire letters before or after their name, as being ordinary scientists honestly perusing science, when clearly their real agenda is to only use science if it can somehow be accommodated or spun into their existing YEC presuppositions. They are not being honest scientists even if they are really scientists at all. :nono:

The same can be said for atheists committed to materialism. Some are even honest enough to admit they that their science when it comes to origins is essentially a religion.

So what? Rigorous honest science gets published by respected scientific organisations, presenting testable facts and evidence, while YEC pseudoscience gets published by AiG or ICR etc and is widely ignored by honest scientists, except for entertainment value perhaps.

That explains why scientists such geneticist John Sanford has been published about 70 times in secular journals and a dozen times in creationist journals. We could say... he understands the science. He says based on genetics that "evolution (common ancestry) is impossible".

 

[Bright Raven]

Nope! You believe in the Bible or you believe in evolution. I'll take the bible every time. Example;

Genesis 2:19-20 King James Version (KJV)

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope! You believe in the Bible or you believe in evolution.

Then since we see evolution happen right before our eyes, all the time, we should reject the Bible.