Science sometimes moves backwards.

[bob b]

Bob, you have an incorrect understanding of the theory of evolution. You really owe it to yourself to study the theory until you attain a complete understanding if you claim to be a "science lover".

I have in my life and career received many academic honors. I have been studying evolutionary theory for 20+ years now and have read hundreds of books on the subject, mostly by evolutionists. If I don't understand it then I dare say there probably aren't many in this life who do. But I don't think that is the problem, instead it is that my critics seem to know less about the many broad aspects of it than I do and because of their myoptic view have a simplistic understanding which causes them to accept it without thoroughly analysing it.

The "situation" of life from non-life is NOT a part of the theory of evolution. That is fact.

This is one characteristic of the myoptic viewpoint. One can not escape the clear implications of a theory which extrapolates backward in time without limit by simply declaring "I don't wish to discuss the implications of my theory so I will simply say arbitrarily that my theory does not include such implications".

Simply put, all the theory of evolution states is that Any two distinct forms of life share a common ancestor.

That is not all that it states. You should stop lying to yourself.

Evolution is a model for explaining the diversity of life, not the origin of life.

People can be so naive.

Big Bang, abiogenesis, etc are all far beyond the scope of evolution - and possess nowhere near the certainty. This is why there is no "theory of Big Bang" or "theory of abiogenesis".

What planet do you come from? I have been reading about such theories for over 20 years.

The fact is, science doesn't really know how the universe or life started. All we have are guesses based on the scientific paradigm. In fact, it is possible that the answers to such questions are simply beyond the human capacity to understand.

Finally, a sensible statement.

My understanding of young-earth creationism is that it is accepting the literal contents of the Bible as fact and absolute truth. If this impression is wrong, please correct me.

It depends upon what you mean by literal. If you mean logical and reasonable then this would fit most young Earth creationists that I am familiar with. If you mean unreasonably and stupidly and woodenly literal then of course I would demur. I believe that the full range of analogy, metaphor, hyperbole, parable, etc. all exist within the collection of books called "The Bible", but I also believe on scientific as well as scriptural grounds that some things believed by our modern society are simply flat out wrong or even absurd.

"Random mutations plus natural selection" being a driving force which caused all life to have descended from a primitive protocell is the most oustanding example of an absurdity being translated into a modern fairy tale for adults that anyone can possibly imagine.

A consequence of this is that a literal interpretation of the Bible allows drastically less room for wiggling before it's not a 'literal' interpretation anymore!

Your problem, as well as that of most youth, is that you think that everyone who doesn't believe as you do is stupid and "old fashioned". I was no different when I was young.

I would argue that a literal interpretation of Genesis on the age of the earth means 10,000 earth revolutions around the sun as we know it, and not a day longer! Change that, and it's not literal any more!

I would agree with that. It is going to come as a great shock when science changes its collective mind about that. I wish I could live long enough to see that day!

I am old enough to remember when most scientists believed that the universe was eternal.

Bob, I can't name any other collection of ancient books that isn't also ambigious, but I'm not the one claiming that the Bible is to be taken literally for absolute truth.

Who is, other than people who like certainty, and can't stand ambiguity, like some creationists and some evolutionists and atheists? What is fascinating to me is that atheists interpret the Bible in a totally unreasonably literal way in order to discredit it!

Can we know for certain that the Bible is even meant to be taken literally?

Of course. God gave people a brain for more than a place to hold a hat.

 

[avatar382]

I have in my life and career received many academic honors. I have been studying evolutionary theory for 20+ years now and have read hundreds of books on the subject, mostly by evolutionists. If I don't understand it then I dare say there probably aren't many in this life who do. But I don't think that is the problem, instead it is that my critics seem to know less about the many broad aspects of it than I do and because of their myoptic view have a simplistic understanding which causes them to accept it without thoroughly analysing it.

That all may be, but you have posted incorrect information, so I suggest you study evolutionary theory some more...

This is one characteristic of the myoptic viewpoint. One can not escape the clear implications of a theory which extrapolates backward in time without limit by simply declaring "I don't wish to discuss the implications of my theory so I will simply say arbitrarily that my theory does not include such implications".

That is not all that it states. You should stop lying to yourself.

People can be so naive.

From wikipedia: (if this is not a suitable source for you, I have others)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

First, a general definition:
In biology, evolution is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world.

A little bit of history:
In the 1930s scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern evolutionary synthesis (often simply called the modern synthesis). The modern synthesis understands evolution to be a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics: natural selection and genetic drift acting on genetic variation created by mutation, sex, and gene flow.[1] This theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology. It helps biologists understand topics as diverse as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of the living world.

Do you notice something? No mention of the origin of life, only the diversity of life.

This excerpt I will quote: (emphasis mine)

When "evolution" is used to describe a fact, it refers to the observations that populations of one species of organism do, over time, change into new species. In this sense, evolution occurs whenever a new species of bacterium evolves that is resistant to antibodies that had been lethal to prior strains.

When "evolution" is used to describe a theory, it refers to an explanation for why and how evolution (for example, in the sense of "speciation") occurs. An example of evolution as theory is the modern synthesis of Darwin and Wallace's theory of natural selection and Mendel's principles of genetics. This theory has three major aspects:

1. Common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
2. Manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
3. Mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

Do you see anything about abiogenesis or Big Bang theory or anything of the sort? No.

Bob, this is a matter of definitions. You are claiming evolution is something that it is not. The theory of evolution is compatible with a wide range of conjectures as to the origin of life - from Old earth creationism to the idea that life has always existed to "we don't know" - but it is not compatable with Biblical literalism. And, I guess that is what your problem is.

If you choose to remain willfully ignorant on this matter, that is your perogative. However, I will say it once more - the theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. I can produce source after source after source supporting this. The notion that it does is your own invention - your strawman caricature.

(Note - I didn't address the rest of your post, please don't take it to mean that I am ignoring it, I just can't see anything in there that will further the discussion. Let me know if I missed something that you would like me to respond to.)

 

[bob b]

That all may be, but you have posted incorrect information, so I suggest you study evolutionary theory some more...

Please enlighten me as to what I posted that was incorrect, but please do not bother including our disagreement regarding abiogenesis. I know we disagree about that. Is there something else?

From wikipedia: (if this is not a suitable source for you, I have others)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

This is generally a good source, but obviously not the last word, particularly on points of controversy where all points of view should properly be reflected.

First, a general definition:
In biology, evolution is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world.

That is what its proponents believe and to some degree is accepted by even creationists like myself.

A little bit of history:
In the 1930s scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern evolutionary synthesis (often simply called the modern synthesis). The modern synthesis understands evolution to be a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics: natural selection and genetic drift acting on genetic variation created by mutation, sex, and gene flow.[1] This theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology. It helps biologists understand topics as diverse as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of the living world.

The section on population genetics is not accurate. If you disagree I will amplify further in another posting.

The comment on antibiotic resistence has been shown by further research to be obsolete.

The theory is weak in that it assigns too great a role to mutations, a degrading not an organizing mechanism.

Do you notice something? No mention of the origin of life, only the diversity of life.

Obviously written by a person who has bought into the rationalization that the obvious implications of a theory which assumes that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell is exempt from questions about what that assumed ancestor consisted of or how it came to be.

What is fascinating is that the same people who exempt themselves from ultimate origins typically insist that creationists explain how God came to exist. Go figure.

Do you see anything about abiogenesis or Big Bang theory or anything of the sort? No.

Of course they exempt themselves from the obvious. They are not dumb.

Bob, this is a matter of definitions.

Wrong, it is about reality.

You are claiming evolution is something that it is not. The theory of evolution is compatible with a wide range of conjectures as to the origin of life - from Old earth creationism to the idea that life has always existed to "we don't know" - but it is not compatable with Biblical literalism. And, I guess that is what your problem is.

It is most assuredly not compatible with Old earth creationism as any serious Old earth creationist like Hugh Ross would be forced to admit. Old earth creationists assume that God intervened at key points to create new lifeforms, thus causing "macro evolution"

If you choose to remain willfully ignorant on this matter, that is your perogative.

You have been deceived. No serious evolutionist can believe in the Bible, because it is the antithesis of Biblical teaching. Why people cannot see this is a mystery to me..

However, I will say it once more - the theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. I can produce source after source after source supporting this. The notion that it does is your own invention - your strawman caricature.

I didn't say that they don't deny it. I simply said that logically there are implications when you claim that all life descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell and that one can not escape such implications by simply saying "we don't have to talk about them because they are not part of what we do want to talk about".

(Note - I didn't address the rest of your post, please don't take it to mean that I am ignoring it, I just can't see anything in there that will further the discussion. Let me know if I missed something that you would like me to respond to.)

In closing I would only say that you are not alone in not wanting to talk about the implications of listening too "literally" to the evolutions. They speak with "forked tongue" as Tonto would say.

If you would listen to God instead of men you would realize that you can't have it both ways: if God created first life then there is no reason that He could not have created it in multiple types as He said he did.

And if He did that then the "protein folding problem" goes away because the life we see today is nothing more than a diversified and slightly degraded version of those multiple forms created by God in the Beginning. The degradation has escaped the notice of the evolutionists for at least two reasons, 1) it hasn't been going on all that long, and 2) the repair mechanisms, redundancy and failsoft nature of the design has permitted us to survive fairly well in the face of the increasing number of deleterious mutations accumulating over time.

 

[avatar382]

Please enlighten me as to what I posted that was incorrect, but please do not bother including our disagreement regarding abiogenesis. I know we disagree about that. Is there something else?

Well Bob, it seems to be me there isn't much we can debate, since we cannot agree on a definition for evolution. You should reconsider your position on this matter and accept the scientific definition of evolution.

Obviously written by a person who has bought into the rationalization that the obvious implications of a theory which assumes that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell is exempt from questions about what that assumed ancestor consisted of or how it came to be.

Who said anything about a "hypothetical primitive protocell"? What is this 'protocell', anyway? All the theory of evolution says is that any two forms of life share a common ancestor. While it is possible that there was a (presumably unicellular) organism that is the ancestor of all life, but I am not aware of any such thing in biology that is not conjecture.

Here we see another place where you hold something to be true of evolution that is outside of it's scope.

Bob, the so called 'logical conclusion' that evolution implies abiogenesis (life from nonlife) is an invention of yours.

The theory of evolution has the existance of life as a premise. Think about that. Because it assumes life exists, it makes no effort (and cannot, without begging the question) explain where life came from in the first place.

It is most assuredly not compatible with Old earth creationism as any serious Old earth creationist like Hugh Ross would be forced to admit. Old earth creationists assume that God intervened at key points to create new lifeforms, thus causing "macro evolution".

Catholics generally are OEC and accept evolution.
Muslims are generally OEC and accept evolution.
Jews are generally OEC and accept evolution.
...and that is just the abramhamic religions!

There are many that believe that God is the ultimate origin of life, and evolution is the mechanism by which life is diversified.

You have been deceived. No serious evolutionist can believe in the Bible, because it is the antithesis of Biblical teaching. Why people cannot see this is a mystery to me..

Why is it the antithesis? Because it contradicts a literal interpretation?

In closing I would only say that you are not alone in not wanting to talk about the implications of listening too "literally" to the evolutions. They speak with "forked tongue" as Tonto would say.

Well, to be honest, I don't want to discuss what is literal in the Bible and what is not, since that's probably outside the scope of the thread.

 

[SUTG]

avatar382:I would argue that a literal interpretation of Genesis on the age of the earth means 10,000 earth revolutions around the sun as we know it, and not a day longer! Change that, and it's not literal any more!
bob b:I would agree with that. It is going to come as a great shock when science changes its collective mind about that. I wish I could live long enough to see that day!

Isn't 10,000 Earth revolutions around the sun less than 30 years?!??

 

[Johnny]

Isn't 10,000 Earth revolutions around the sun less than 30 years?!??

Revolutions around the sun, not around Earth's axis.

 

[SUTG]

:doh:

 

[Jukia]

Who said anything about a "hypothetical primitive protocell"? What is this 'protocell', anyway? All the theory of evolution says is that any two forms of life share a common ancestor. While it is possible that there was a (presumably unicellular) organism that is the ancestor of all life, but I am not aware of any such thing in biology that is not conjecture.

Here we see another place where you hold something to be true of evolution that is outside of it's scope.

Bob, the so called 'logical conclusion' that evolution implies abiogenesis (life from nonlife) is an invention of yours.

The theory of evolution has the existance of life as a premise. Think about that. Because it assumes life exists, it makes no effort (and cannot, without begging the question) explain where life came from in the first place.


.

You miss the point, many here are stuck on abiogenesis because it enables them to jump and avoid the evidence that supports evolution. Allows them to use various slogans, "molecules to man" etc.

They are either simply ignorant, deceitful or afraid to confront the obvious conflict between a literal interpretation of Genesis and the real world or a combination of all three.

 

[bob b]

Well Bob, it seems to be me there isn't much we can debate, since we cannot agree on a definition for evolution. You should reconsider your position on this matter and accept the scientific definition of evolution.

The definition excluding first life is disingenuous, and unscientific to boot.

Who said anything about a "hypothetical primitive protocell"? What is this 'protocell', anyway?

Would you prefer "replicating molecule"?

All the theory of evolution says is that any two forms of life share a common ancestor.

I have already pointed out that this is not all that is said. besides, there is abundant evidence that this is not the case.

While it is possible that there was a (presumably unicellular) organism that is the ancestor of all life, but I am not aware of any such thing in biology that is not conjecture.

All of macroevolutionary theory is an unsupported conjecture. In fact the fossil record falsifies macroevolution. Gould and Eldridge "spilled the beans".

Here we see another place where you hold something to be true of evolution that is outside of it's scope.

So how far back should we go with the extrapolation?

Bob, the so called 'logical conclusion' that evolution implies abiogenesis (life from nonlife) is an invention of yours.

Not true. It is simply a logical inference that any non-brainwashed person can easily see.

The theory of evolution has the existance of life as a premise.

Do you think life doesn't exist? Some premise.

Think about that. Because it assumes life exists, it makes no effort (and cannot, without begging the question) explain where life came from in the first place.

Your logic here is incoherent.
Cars exist, therefore one cannot explain where they came from. ????

Catholics generally are OEC and accept evolution.
Muslims are generally OEC and accept evolution.
Jews are generally OEC and accept evolution.
...and that is just the abramhamic religions!

Wow. Great scientific argument!! Russians and Chinese accept communism, so why shouldn't everybody?

There are many that believe that God is the ultimate origin of life, and evolution is the mechanism by which life is diversified.

Conclusion: educational indoctrination works!!

Why is it the antithesis? Because it contradicts a literal interpretation?

I choose to interpret your statement allegorically. What you actually meant by that is that you agree with me.

Well, to be honest, I don't want to discuss what is literal in the Bible and what is not, since that's probably outside the scope of the thread.

Interpretation: the "non-literal" sense of that statement is that you would probably lose that argument too.

 

[avatar382]

Would you prefer "replicating molecule"?

So how far back should we go with the extrapolation?

"Replicating molecules" are also beyond the scope of the theory of evolution.

Repeat after me: "The theory of evolution states that any two forms of life share a common ancestor".

In terms of extrapolation - All you can "extrapolate" is that if you find two forms of life A and B, there must exist (or have existed) a form of life from which A and B descended.

The anscestor may not necessarily be more simple than the descendants. (this is another common misconception of the theory of evolution).

The theory of evolution is silent on the start of life. When you talk about "replicating molecules", "protocells", etc. you are referring to conjecture on abiogenesis, NOT the theory of evolution!

I have already pointed out that this is not all that is said. besides, there is abundant evidence that this is not the case.

Please start a thread with your "evidence" that any two forms of life do not share a common anscestor - I'm willing to discuss that, but I want to keep this thread on track.

Now - you have stated twice that there is more to the theory of evolution than the definitions I have posted - please outline what they are.

Do you think life doesn't exist? Some premise.

Your logic here is incoherent.
Cars exist, therefore one cannot explain where they came from. ????

You misunderstand me. I will try to explain it again.

They theory of evolution (TOE) makes no sense if you do not assume that life exists. That is, if you have a universe where life does not exist, the notion that life shares common anscestors is nonsensical! Hence, a premise of the TOE is that life exists.

Now, begging the question is a logcal fallacy in which the propostion to be proved Q is included in the premises P.

If the TOE has "life exists" as a premise, then it cannot conclude "life exists" without begging the question.

Wow. Great scientific argument!! Russians and Chinese accept communism, so why shouldn't everybody?

It's not a scienftic argument, it is an observation. There exist people that believe that God created life, and then employed evolution to diversify it. These people are generally included under the OEC umbrella. The TOE is compatable with this, because the TOE is silent on the origin of life.

Bob, a big reason why many disagree with the TOE is because they do not completely understand it. You insist on definining evolution as something that it is not.

When one says the TOE is fact/99% of scientists accept TOE - etc, they refer to the definition i have posted - not to your unorthodox definition.

You claim that your definition is a logical consequence of the TOE (my definition) and I'll express my rebuttal in the form of an example:

In religion R, it is believed that God created life and employed a natural mechanism described by the TOE to diversify it.

If you are correct that abiogenesis is a logical consequence of the TOE, then the above statement must be self-contradictory. Please show how that is the case.

 

[Johnny]

Bob, is it possible that abiogenesis could be FALSE and evolution by natural seleciton be TRUE? If not, why not?

 

[avatar382]

Bob, is it possible that abiogenesis could be FALSE and evolution by natural seleciton be TRUE? If not, why not?

What's funny is that YEC's often admit the answer is "yes" by distinguishing "microevolution" from "macroevolution" :chuckle:

 

[bob b]

What's funny is that YEC's often admit the answer is "yes" by distinguishing "microevolution" from "macroevolution" :chuckle:

Yes, microevolution is true, but it really would be better described as either horizontal or downhill (devolution).

You see, mutations are deleterious: they remove functions, as in sicklecell anemia.

 

[noguru]

Yes, microevolution is true, but it really would be better described as either horizontal or downhill (devolution).

You see, mutations are deleterious: they remove functions, as in sicklecell anemia.

Actually sickle cell anemia adds the function of resistance to malaria.

 

[avatar382]

Hey Bob - still waiting on answers to these, just so you know

You claim that your definition is a logical consequence of the TOE (my definition) and I'll express my rebuttal in the form of an example:

In religion R, it is believed that God created life and employed a natural mechanism described by the TOE to diversify it.

If you are correct that abiogenesis is a logical consequence of the TOE, then the above statement must be self-contradictory. Please show how that is the case.

Bob, is it possible that abiogenesis could be FALSE and evolution by natural seleciton be TRUE? If not, why not?

 

[bob b]

Hey Bob - still waiting on answers to these, just so you know

1) In religion R, it is believed that God created life and employed a natural mechanism described by the TOE to diversify it.

Many Christians believe this. Leading evolutionists do not. A poll published in Nature magazine showed that those biologists who belong to the most prestigous US scientific society, namely The National Academy of Sciences, overwhelmingly reject God (something like 90+% as I recall)

Incidentally, the ToE specifies "random mutation plus natural selection" as the mechanism and a "replicating molecule" as the starting point.

In contrast, the Christian creationist paradigm specifies the starting point as "multiple types" and the primary diversification mechanism to be sexual recombination, or in asexual creatures, probably horizontal gene transfer.

Note that both paradigms assume diversification (some more, some less), a point which escapes many Christians trying to reconcile evolutionary theory with the Bible.

If you are correct that abiogenesis is a logical consequence of the TOE, then the above statement must be self-contradictory. Please show how that is the case.

I have already stated my case. You still disagree. However, the argument against evolution does not hinge solely on this issue as you should know by now..

Bob, is it possible that abiogenesis could be FALSE and evolution by natural seleciton be TRUE? If not, why not?

My belief is that it is not possible for the simple reason that "random mutations plus natural selection" leads only to degradation, not the creation of new systems and subsystems.

Solid evidence against macroevolution of this type was presented in the WEASEL thread, with the final capstone of that thread being the "Protein Folding Problem".

Incidentally this is the type of evidence underlying the inference of Intelligent Design, a scientific and non-religious argument..