Evolution... Do we believe?

[Interplanner]

This material should have been in the first post about 2 Peter 3. I'll copy it to the other discussions of creation.

2 Peter 3's vocabulary on creation and time.

v5a The heavens existed. 'ekpalai' To have existed for a long time. The NEB is not reliable here when it puts heavens and earth together as the subject. The NIV is correct.

5b. The earth was formed out of water and through water by God's word. 'sunestosa' to be given structure, sense, consistency.

Like Gen 1, there is a universe in existence while the earth was not the form we now have. There is nothing about 'sunestosa' that indicates time like 'ekpalai' does. That comes next.

v6 that (ancient) world was destroyed by water. Notice again that the habitable part is the focus. It does not mean the entire planet was destroyed, just as 'sunestosa' does not mean it came into existence from nothing. Both mean the habitable zone was given livable structure or it was taken away.

Peter is saying there was a relatively short amount of time between creation and the flood because both are grouped as being part of 'that (old) world.'

By referring only to the habitable zone, he is also validating that there was a different atmosphere. That's the world that was formed then destroyed. We are now in a world with a different atmosphere. This is yet another reason why 'sunestosa' is not from nothing at all but rather the forming of material into a certain structure. It is from no structure, but it is not from no materials.

The intention of Peter was to show that the judgement of the world did not necessarily have to happen right after the Gospel events, nor even right after the destruction of Jerusalem. That it could still be delayed a long time. For the same reason, there is no hurry when dating the 6 days of creation. The heavens existed long before. (If you think that the coming of v4 is the Gospel event, that's a separate discussion).

We know that 'formless and void' is the result of an act of judgement from Jer 4:23. So Peter is saying here that God was patient about what was going on before his own 6 days of creative work, but finally destroyed--in displeasure-- what was there and made a world habitable for mankind who would have an imprint of God like no other.

Both the gospel writers and Paul refer to the judgement of Israel as settled (the house is left desolate; the wrath of God has come upon them completely) many years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter uses the examples of the primitive earth and the flood to show that the judgement will certainly come no matter how much it is doubted.

 

[Jose Fly]

'Natural selection' means that sometimes the weak die.

So your position is that natural selection is a real thing. Is it also your position that populations evolve and speciation happens?

 

[Jose Fly]

bump

 

[6days]

So your position is that natural selection is a real thing. Is it also your position that populations evolve and speciation happens?

Depends what you mean by the terms...
Yes, the weak sometimes die sooner than the fit.
Yes, I believe in rapid adaptation. God 'programmed' the genome allowing organisms to survive in various environments.
For a more detailed explanation...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110849

 

[Jose Fly]

Depends what you mean by the terms...
Yes, the weak sometimes die sooner than the fit.

So that's a yes on natural selection.

Populations evolving means they change their genetic makeup over time in response to external pressures (e.g., antibiotic resistance), and speciation means populations evolving to the point where a new species is formed (e.g., the examples you provided earlier).

Do you still maintain that those two things are real and happen?

 

[6days]

So that's a yes on natural selection.

Populations evolving means they change their genetic makeup over time in response to external pressures (e.g., antibiotic resistance), and speciation means populations evolving to the point where a new species is formed (e.g., the examples you provided earlier).

Do you still maintain that those two things are real and happen?

Again... It depends on the definitions.
For a more full explanation...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110849 (For an explanation of how the evidence supports the Biblical creation model)

 

[Jose Fly]

In the interest of clarity, how about you tell me what populations evolving and speciation mean to you?

 

[6days]

In the interest of clarity, how about you tell me what populations evolving and speciation mean to you?

Jose... You have been asked many times to provide definitions, that evolutionists agree on to those terms .... If you have ever attempted to provide a definition, I missed it.
I think I did clarify my position in the thread 'Rapid Adaptation'.
Rapid Adaptation fits the Biblical creation model. God programmed organisms allowing them to adapt and survive in various environments.
In the beginning...God created

 

[rainee]

Aw, Greetings Barbarian,
I was kinda hoping you would just ignore me. :rain:

Yep. For example, here, we were testing Darwin's theory, which predicts that it should be impossible to formulate a universally-applicable definition of "species." As you might have noticed, that prediction is confirmed.

Sir, that's bizarre to put anything like that...
Let's do a different one, ok?
Darwin found a very long tube in a flowering plant and predicted there would be a creature with an incredibly long tongue that could eat and pollinate this plant. Familiar with this story?
Lo and behold, a moth with an incredibly long tongue was seen coming and unrolling its tongue and feeding and pollinating this bizarre flowering plant.
Was Darwin's prediction fulfilled?
Well, uhm, no.
Darwin thought more complicated creatures came after simpler creations and so thought it was the moth that had evolved to survive its environment and get food...
And indeed how would more complicated come before the more simple in the theory of evolution??

But Darwin was wrong. Scientists who have been studying plants and how they sense and then move toward sunlight, find evidence in its makeup that it was the plant responding to stimulus that changed and made it nectary so very far down there... So...

Yep. Many, many predictions of evolutionary theory have been tested and confirmed.

But not in the very real example I just mentioned, though science teachers may not teach it or writers of science books even record it.

Theories either gain increasing confirmation, or are refuted. Darwin's theory remains increasingly confirmed.

Oh good, glad there is no bias going on.

Want to see some examples?

I've seen so many claims challenged and sometimes it amounts to merely figuring out which possibly correct possibility is chosen to go with...

Around 1940, when it Mendel's work was rediscovered, and it became apparent why new alleles can persist in populations. That pretty much settled it as far as science was concerned.

Really? I've read a couple of science guys talking about how impossible it would be for alleles to have changed one group from another under simple reproduction of mammals...

But as more and more predictions (such as Huxley's prediction that birds evolved from dinosaurs) were confirmed, it became more certain.

It was a bird expert evolutionist who had fought hardest against some
trying to say birds did not exist when the first Dino some thought had feathers did. He said he could prove birds were already there.

Science is based on increasing levels of confidence.

Ok. True science has to improve its errors though, right?

Sort of like you believe there will be oxygen atoms in your room overnight.

Sir, most of us have never had to think on that level. For most of us it never occurs to us that we may not live through the night. Sad but true. And when we are faced with that reality - we pray, Barbarian.
Don't we?

It's not that we know all there is to it. It's just that we have so much evidence to confirm it, that it's foolish to argue otherwise. That's how well-established theories like evolution go.

For some, I guess.

 

[The Barbarian]

6days is still puzzled as to why evolution produces new information:

'Natural selection' can SOMETIMES remove the unfit from a population.*It can NEVER add information to the genome.

Barbarian explains:
So if natural selection often tends to remove genetic variation, from where does all that new variation come? Mutation.

You are making progress!

Apparently so. At one time, you denied that evolution could produce new information. Now, you seem to have realized how it does this. As I showed you, Darwin's theory is that variation (which he knew appeared spontaneously) plus natural selection accounts for the variety of life we see today.

Yes, mutations do add variation...and natural selection leads to the loss of genetic variation.*

No. Sometimes it does. Other times, such as in the case of disruptive selection, it actually increases variation. Would you like to learn how?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. For example, here, we were testing Darwin's theory, which predicts that it should be impossible to formulate a universally-applicable definition of "species." As you might have noticed, that prediction is confirmed.

Sir, that's bizarre to put anything like that...

It's a devastating problem for creationism, which requires that there be easily-defined species.

Let's do a different one, ok?

OK

Darwin found a very long tube in a flowering plant and predicted there would be a creature with an incredibly long tongue that could eat and pollinate this plant. Familiar with this story?
Lo and behold, a moth with an incredibly long tongue was seen coming and unrolling its tongue and feeding and pollinating this bizarre flowering plant.

Yep. So the only way this could have happened, would be if the flower gradually gotten longer after this particular insect started feeding on it. Incremental length increases in the flower would select those insects with the longest proboscis, if they depended on that flower. There are a number of butterflies so adapted, including some that don't even pollinate this particular flower. It's not surprising, since the required modification would be no more than lengthening of the two galeae that form the tube.

Was Darwin's prediction fulfilled?

Yep. He described a number of coevolutionary changes. They are quite common in interacting species. Would you like to talk about some of them?

Darwin thought more complicated creatures came after simpler creations

He described cases in which evolution produced simpler organisms from more complicated ones. It's not what some people think.

But Darwin was wrong. Scientists who have been studying plants and how they sense and then move toward sunlight, find evidence in its makeup that it was the plant responding to stimulus that changed and made it nectary so very far down there... So...

I'd like to see that research. There's actually a lot of literature on this particular case, and it all indicates gradual change in both the flower and the insect species visiting it.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Many, many predictions of evolutionary theory have been tested and confirmed.

But not in the very real example I just mentioned

You've been misled:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467803910001003

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11829-015-9379-7

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...r_handling/links/0deec5215b2825cff5000000.pdf

though science teachers may not teach it or writers of science books even record it.

It's discussed at some lengths. I learned about it in my first entomology class.

Barbarian observes:
Around 1940, when it Mendel's work was rediscovered, and it became apparent why new alleles can persist in populations. That pretty much settled it as far as science was concerned.

Really? I've read a couple of science guys talking about how impossible it would be for alleles to have changed one group from another under simple reproduction of mammals...

Lateral gene transfer is rare in mammals, but it's not unknown. Usually due to viruses that pick up bits of DNA from other hosts. Typically, they become non-functioning introns, but rarely, they remain functional.

Not very common, though.

Barbarian observes;
But as more and more predictions (such as Huxley's prediction that birds evolved from dinosaurs) were confirmed, it became more certain.

It was a bird expert evolutionist who had fought hardest against some
trying to say birds did not exist when the first Dino some thought had feathers did. He said he could prove birds were already there.

No, but he felt the evidence was conclusive that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor. I admire Feduccia's work. He has a very good book on bird evolution, that is accessible to non-experts. (Name escapes me at the moment) However, since a number of things, such as the discovery that at least some theropod dinosaurs had bird-style respiration (and no other group of dinosaurs seems to have had this), the number of those who support Feduccia's claim has dwindled.

Barbarian observes that nothing is for sure:
Sort of like you believe there will be oxygen atoms in your room overnight.

Sir, most of us have never had to think on that level. For most of us it never occurs to us that we may not live through the night. Sad but true. And when we are faced with that reality - we pray, Barbarian.
Don't we?

Logical certainty is not part of science. So we never get absolute confidence. However, somethings are sure enough that we don't worry about them.

 

[Kdall]

However, since a number of things, such as the discovery that at least some theropod dinosaurs had bird-style respiration (and no other group of dinosaurs seems to have had this)

That's interesting. I've never heard that before. For others here, I want to elaborate slightly. Birds are the only vertebrates that do not exhale. Others, like us, must take in air, wait for the gases to exchange, then exhale out the same airway. For birds, air comes in one passage and leaves out another, providing a constant flow of air. It's far more efficient and completely unique. The fact that therapod dinosaurs have the same breathing adaptation is compelling evidence that birds are descended from them. And when you factor in hip structure, presence of feathers and even some hollow boned specimens, denying that birds came from therapods seems foolish

 

[lifeisgood]

Just a parenthesis.

I have discovered lately, to my dismay, that DEFINITIONS of words no longer have the same meaning.

Thank you Liddell, Scott, Thayer, Brown, Driver, Briggs, Strong, Zhodiates, Wuest, Genesius, Trench, Moulton, Milligan, Vincent, etc.

I have discovered that some of the latest editions of Strong’s Concordance are not even Strong’s original anymore.

Imagine, a Christ-rejecting Unitarian like Thayer, giving English interpretations from a German grammar.

Well, this is a theme for another thread. Back to the KJV.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose... You have been asked many times to provide definitions, that evolutionists agree on to those terms .... If you have ever attempted to provide a definition, I missed it.

That's kinda strange, since in my last post I did just that. So to repeat...

Populations evolving means they change their genetic makeup over time in response to external pressures (e.g., antibiotic resistance), and speciation means populations evolving to the point where a new species is formed (e.g., the examples you provided earlier).

I think I did clarify my position in the thread 'Rapid Adaptation'.
Rapid Adaptation fits the Biblical creation model.

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if you still maintain that populations evolving and speciation both happen and are part of the "Biblical model of creation".

God programmed organisms allowing them to adapt and survive in various environments.

And does that process involve mutation, natural selection, and speciation?

 

[Stripe]

Populations evolving means they change their genetic makeup over time in response to external pressures and speciation means populations evolving to the point where a new species is formed.

Evolutionists love equivocation.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. "Species," which you failed to define, is a vague and malleable concept that has next to no value in a scientific discussion. Speciation less so. I once saw evolutionists defend the notion that a bird singing a different song was the beginnings of speciation. :chuckle:

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if you still maintain that populations evolving and speciation both happen and are part of the "Biblical model of creation".

And that's the problem. You think evolution is "change," which would mean you descended from your father is evolution — clearly a concept that nobody, and certainly not the Bible, would refute. Meanwhile you use the useless term "species."

All this to try and justify your use of a logical fallacy. If Six and I disagree on something, it provides you nothing in the way of evidence.

What you need to do is think rationally and engage sensibly.

And does that process involve mutation [and] natural selection?

When you leave them out of your definition? Do you believe in random mutation and natural selection when the evidence shows they play no part in the examples of evolution that Darwinists commonly promote?

 

[Jose Fly]

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

That's "universal common ancestry".

But your response makes even less sense in light of your previous statement that "no population evolves, ever" and your definition of "kind" where you said it is "populations that share a common ancestry".

Looks to me like you're just jumping from post to post and reflexively disagreeing, with no concern about consistency.

"Species," which you failed to define, is a vague and malleable concept that has next to no value in a scientific discussion.

Sure it does. For example, would you agree that if we have two populations of living organisms that reproduce sexually but physically are unable to interbreed, they are different species?

Speciation less so.

6days doesn't seem to think so.

And that's the problem. You think evolution is "change,"

Evolution is defined as a change in a population's allele frequencies over time.

The journal Nature: "Evolution is a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time."

There are hundreds of other scholarly sources that define the term the same way.

which would mean you descended from your father is evolution —

Pay closer attention. I'm not a population.

If Six and I disagree on something, it provides you nothing in the way of evidence.

The fact that both of you are fighting so hard to avoid this issue is a good indication that it's more important than you're letting on.

Do you believe in random mutation and natural selection

Of course. They're trivially easy to observe.

when the evidence shows they play no part in the examples of evolution that Darwinists commonly promote?

Empty assertion that's already been shown false. Remember the examples I posted of the observed evolution of antibiotic resistance via mutation and selection, and how when the experiment is run again the population evolves along a different pathway?

 

[Stripe]

That's "universal common ancestry".

Which is part of evolution and only part of what I wrote. Defining evolution as "change" is equivocation.

But your response makes even less sense in light of your previous statement that "no population evolves, ever" and your definition of "kind" where you said it is "populations that share a common ancestry".

But you won't explain how. :idunno:

Looks to me like you're just jumping from post to post and reflexively disagreeing, with no concern about consistency.

Sure it does. For example, would you agree that if we have two populations of living organisms that reproduce sexually but physically are unable to interbreed, they are different species?

No. Ignoring the self-contradiction, there are dogs that fit what I think you're trying to describe.

6days doesn't seem to think so.

Therefore, something. :idunno:

When you have a rational point to make, let us know.

Evolution is defined as a change in a population's allele frequencies over time.

Which is something nobody can disagree with because it omits the key concepts of evolution.

It's called equivocation and is one of the key ways Darwinists can remain in a conversation.

There are hundreds of other scholarly sources that define the term the same way.

Equivocation is rife within evolutionary circles.

I'm not a population.

However, your generation has a different genome from your father's.

The fact that both of you are fighting so hard to avoid this issue is a good indication that it's more important than you're letting on.

We answered all your questions in that other thread. You pretending this hasn't been settled is the only way you can stay in the conversation.

You're being a troll. :troll:

Of course. They're trivially easy to observe.

Pay attention. Nobody said there is no such thing as mutations and selection.

It is evolution that is bunk.

Empty assertion that's already been shown false.

Nope.

Evidence, remember?

Remember the examples I posted of the observed evolution of antibiotic resistance via mutation and selection, and how when the experiment is run again the population evolves along a different pathway?

Remember my response?

 

[Jose Fly]

Which is part of evolution and only part of what I wrote.

Right. Universal common ancestry is one possible outcome of evolution occurring. But there are other outcomes that are possible as evolution occurs.

For example, let's say that after the flood of the Bible, there were only 2-7 individuals representing each "kind". That means each "kind" at that time consisted of a single species. After the flood was over, these 2-7 individuals eventually give rise to all the species that are within each "kind" (e.g., a pair of cats eventually give rise to all the species within the "cat kind").

If that process occurred via mutation and selection, then it was via evolution. So we have a scenario where evolution occurs but does not result in universal common ancestry.

No. Ignoring the self-contradiction, there are dogs that fit what I think you're trying to describe.

So let's change it to....if we have two populations of living, sexually reproducing organisms that are genetically unable to interbreed, do you agree they are two different species?

Therefore, something.

Let's see where it goes. The only reason it's gone on this long is because of the endless dodging and avoiding you two engage in.

Which is something nobody can disagree with because it omits the key concepts of evolution.

So now you agree that through the primary mechanisms of mutation and selection, populations change their genetic make up over time?

However, your generation has a different genome from your father's.

Likely so, but not because of me. One generation is not enough for my genetics to have become fixed in the population.

Pay attention. Nobody said there is no such thing as mutations and selection.

I thought earlier you said natural selection didn't happen. Please clarify.

Nope.

Evidence, remember?

Yep. It's trivially easy to observe populations evolving via mutation and natural selection. Undergrads do it all the time via experiments with E. coli and antibiotics.

Remember my response?

Yep. You tried to argue that if you run the experiments again the population evolves via the same pathway. Apart from the fact that that doesn't mean the population didn't evolve, I posted a link to the Hall experiment where they ran it multiple times and the population evolved along different pathways. You ignored it.

 

[Stripe]

Right. Universal common ancestry is one possible outcome of evolution occurring. But there are other outcomes that are possible as evolution occurs.For example, let's say that after the flood of the Bible, there were only 2-7 individuals representing each "kind". That means each "kind" at that time consisted of a single species. After the flood was over, these 2-7 individuals eventually give rise to all the species that are within each "kind" (e.g., a pair of cats eventually give rise to all the species within the "cat kind").If that process occurred via mutation and selection, then it was via evolution. So we have a scenario where evolution occurs but does not result in universal common ancestry.

:dizzy:

Meanwhile, your definition of evolution does not contain its defining attributes.

So let's change it to....if we have two populations of living, sexually reproducing organisms that are genetically unable to interbreed, do you agree they are two different species?

Certainly. Is this your definition for species?

Let's see where it goes. The only reason it's gone on this long is because of the endless dodging and avoiding you two engage in.

Nonsense. We answered your questions up front. That you have ignored them is not our fault.

And this will go nowhere. At best you will find that either Six or I will adjust our terminology and remain in agreement on the fundamentals, playing into the evolutionist's hands by talking about one of their nonsense rabbit trails instead of looking at the evidence.

So now you agree that through the primary mechanisms of mutation and selection, populations change their genetic make up over time?

No. You would do well to respond to what I say, not what you wish I would say.

I thought earlier you said natural selection didn't happen. Please clarify.

It does not play a part in the examples of evolution held up by Darwinists. It might be a real effect, but it would be so weak as to be negligible when it comes to defining a genome.

Yep. It's trivially easy to observe populations evolving via mutation and natural selection. Undergrads do it all the time via experiments with E. coli and antibiotics.

Nope. They assume the truth of what they believe and ignore the data they generate. For example, when such experiments are repeated, they generate the same outcomes in the same timeframes — clear evidence that there is no random factor involved.

You tried to argue that if you run the experiments again the population evolves via the same pathway.

Nope. Evolution is not a player.

That doesn't mean the population didn't evolve.

Sure it does. However, you are probably using your definition of evolution where everything is evolution.

That they change in the same way in the same timeframe shows that there is no random mutation involved. No random mutation, no evolution.

I posted a link to the Hall experiment where they ran it multiple times and the population evolved along different pathways.

Nope. Try again.

 

[Jose Fly]

Meanwhile, your definition of evolution does not contain its defining attributes.

Yes it does. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Universal common ancestry is one possible outcome of evolution occurring.

Certainly. Is this your definition for species?

When we're dealing with living, sexually reproducing organisms, yes.

No. You would do well to respond to what I say, not what you wish I would say.

Ok, you don't agree that populations undergo genetic change via mutation and selection. Let's keep that in mind.

It does not play a part in the examples of evolution held up by Darwinists. It might be a real effect, but it would be so weak as to be negligible when it comes to defining a genome.

So what mechanism do you believe determines whether an allele becomes fixed or eliminated from a population?

Nope. They assume the truth of what they believe and ignore the data they generate. For example, when such experiments are repeated, they generate the same outcomes in the same timeframes — clear evidence that there is no random factor involved.

I already showed you the Hall experiment that negates this argument. There are plenty of others too.

Nope. Evolution is not a player.

Yes it is. How else do you think the population developed resistance (and remember, these are single-clone experiments, so it can't be that the trait was already in the population)?

Sure it does. However, you are probably using your definition of evolution where everything is evolution.

I'm using the definition as stated by the scientific community. Why would anyone do any different?

That they change in the same way in the same timeframe shows that there is no random mutation involved. No random mutation, no evolution.

So how do you think the traits arise then?

Nope. Try again.

Seriously Stripe? That's your rebuttal to the Hall experiment? "Nuh uh"? If that's all you can muster, I'll let it speak for itself.