GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?  (Read 65664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1820 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:22:01 »
Your insinuation that Alan is not standing  "by faith upon God's word as your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did when He paid the heavy price of making all of fallen humanity infinitely relevant", is truly disgusting.  But such distasteful, self-righteous expressions against any who disagree with you on this topic is becoming all to commonplace.

The point was not a personal attack upon Alan, only a statement concerning his, mine, and everyone else's relevance. Our relevance is not determined by agreement or not with the supposed experts in and of this world. The relevance of each and everyone of us has been infinitely magnified by the faith and actions of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Those who believe God's word over the testimony of the supposed experts in this world are certainly not irrelevant for doing so. You may of course be as disgusted as you wish. Personally I am somewhat disgusted by the idea that those who disagree with evolutionists because they believe the bible, or for other reasons, are irrelevant. Of course in my case, that is just distasteful self righteousness.

By the way, I do not believe my faith approaches anywhere near the faith of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To the contrary, I do and must constantly pray for greater faith in practice, understanding my own deficiencies regarding the same. Jesus was and is our example. Imitating His example is a perfect goal to seek to reach, none but the self righteous though, would ever actually claim to have already reached it.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1820 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:22:01 »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7151
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1821 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:27:04 »
The point was not a personal attack upon Alan.........
But it was.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1821 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:27:04 »

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1822 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:44:43 »
A classic mess of dishonesties.   

Among the lies:
"Darwin doubted common descent"
"Mutation can't produce new information"
"Carbon 14 is used to date fossils"
"Unfossilized dinosaur bone has been found"
"T-rex red blood cells have been found."
"There are no transitional forms between humans and other primates."

If anyone would like to defend one or more of these or other lies in the video, let's talk about them.

Evolution is a classic mess of dishonesties.

Among the lies:
common descent
mutations can produce new information unto evolution of new species
carbon 14 can't be used to date certain fossils because they are to old
no unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found
No dinosaur blood cells or soft tissue has been found
there are sufficient transitional forms between human and primates discovered to prove evolution of the same

If anyone would like to defend one or more of these evolutionary lies, lets talk about them.

See, we can do that to.

Offline tooldtocare

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
  • Manna: 2
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1823 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:45:41 »
Barbarian, you need to reconsider your use of the term “theory”. A theory is not a fact.

Definition of theory for English Language Learners. : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1823 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:45:41 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1824 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:47:29 »
It's directly observed to happen.   Can't get more sure than that.   Just so we know, what do you think the scientific definition of "evolution" is?

Evolution from one species to another has never been observed, that is a fact.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1824 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:47:29 »



Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1825 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:50:26 »
The bandwagon argument is a very bad one for creationists to make.    One way to see how bad it is, is to compare the numbers.   Project Steve is a investigation that counts the number of scientists with a doctorate in biology or a related field who accept evolution, and are named "Steve" or some variant of the name.

Presently, there are (Barbarian checks) um, 1422 Steves on the list.   
https://ncse.com/list-of-steves

How many Steves do you have? (Barbarian checks)   You have 4.

About 0.2% of the Steves who accept evolution.   But one of your Steves is an electrical engineer and one is a PhD in education.   So actually about 0.1%

See why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationism?

The bandwagon argument is a loser for all who employ it. It was put forth on this board in favor of evolution, thus the dialogue concerning it.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1826 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 10:57:56 »
Evolution is not one species turning into another.

So you admit that God created all the main species that exist, and what you call evolution is really just mainly about change and adaption within species, is that correct? Which is why we find continuous evidence of extinction of species rather than constant evolution of new and more highly evolved species, correct? Of course also, even if evolution of species does occur on occasion it most obviously does not happen near often enough to keep up with the observable rates of extinction which have occurred so as to be a plausible explanation of our origins, correct?

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7151
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1827 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 11:24:46 »
So you admit that God created all the main species that exist, and what you call evolution is really just mainly about change and adaption within species, is that correct?
no

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Intensity, Integrity and Intelligence!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7582
  • Manna: 305
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
    • View Profile

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1829 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 13:48:02 »
no

So where have all the different species come from?

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1830 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 16:18:05 »
Barbarian observes:
 A classic mess of dishonesties.   

    Among the lies:
    "Darwin doubted common descent"
    "Mutation can't produce new information"
    "Carbon 14 is used to date fossils"
    "Unfossilized dinosaur bone has been found"
    "T-rex red blood cells have been found."
    "There are no transitional forms between humans and other primates."

    If anyone would like to defend one or more of these or other lies in the video, let's talk about them.

Quote
Evolution is a classic mess of dishonesties.

Well, let's take a look and deal with that before you answer my challenge:

Quote
Among the lies:
common descent

That has been verified repeatedly.   When Linnaeus (who knew nothing about evolution) drew up his system of classifying living things, he produced  family tree of nested hierarchies that only occur in cases of common descent.   Then Darwin explained why it happened so.   And the predictions of Darwin and Linnaeus were confirmed by genetic data showing common descent as predicted.   And then numerous predicted transitional forms were found in the fossil record as predicted, but never where they were not predicted.

Quote
mutations can produce new information unto evolution of new species

Actually, all new mutations produce an increase in information.   Here's an example:
Suppose a population of organisms has two alleles for a given gene locus.   For ease in computation, let's say that they each have a frequency of 0.5. (50%)   The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30

Now suppose a mutation produces a new allele, and eventually it increases until each of them has a frequency of 0.333.   Then the information for that gene is about 0.48.   An increase information.   The formula for information (a measure of entropy) in a population is the Shannon equation:
 

Where p(n) is the frequency of the allele n.

Quote
carbon 14 can't be used to date certain fossils because they are to old

Quite true.  C-14 only works out to about 50,000 years or so.

Quote
no unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found

So far, none.  But some with remains of molecules like heme and collagen have been found.

Quote
No dinosaur blood cells or soft tissue has been found

So far, none.  All the biological material has been some molecules of compounds like those above.

Quote
there are sufficient transitional forms between human and primates discovered to prove evolution of the same

Science doesn't deal in "proof."  However, the abundant number of transitional forms between early primates and humans is a documented fact.   Would you like to learn the many ways in which they have been shown to be transitional?

Your turn.

 

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1831 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 16:22:23 »
Quote
Barbarian, you need to reconsider your use of the term “theory”. A theory is not a fact.

A theory explains facts.   For example, we observe new species evolving.   Darwin's theory of natural selection explains why this happens.   A theory is an idea or group of ideas that have been tested and verified by evidence.

If you want to discuss science, you must use the definitions that science uses.   

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1832 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 16:26:56 »
Quote
No, we do not observe one species turned into another. 

Even many creationists now admit speciation is a fact.   They just say that it isn't "real evolution."

Here is "Answers in Genesis", conceding that speciation is a fact:

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. The biodiversity represented in the 8.7 million or so species in the world is a testament, not to random chance processes, but to the genetic variability and potential for diversification within the created kinds.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

Of course, they don't admit that Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't by random processes.


Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1833 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 16:30:21 »
Quote from: 4WD on Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 11:25:25
Quote
Evolution is not one species turning into another.


Quote
Then please give us your definition of the word "evolution".

Scientifically, it's "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Speciation is a consequence of evolution. It's not evolution and more than a planet going around the sun is gravity.  It's a consequence of gravity.



Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1834 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 18:20:45 »
Barbarian observes:
 A classic mess of dishonesties.   

    Among the lies:
    "Darwin doubted common descent"
    "Mutation can't produce new information"
    "Carbon 14 is used to date fossils"
    "Unfossilized dinosaur bone has been found"
    "T-rex red blood cells have been found."
    "There are no transitional forms between humans and other primates."

    If anyone would like to defend one or more of these or other lies in the video, let's talk about them.

Well, let's take a look and deal with that before you answer my challenge:

That has been verified repeatedly.   When Linnaeus (who knew nothing about evolution) drew up his system of classifying living things, he produced  family tree of nested hierarchies that only occur in cases of common descent.   Then Darwin explained why it happened so.   And the predictions of Darwin and Linnaeus were confirmed by genetic data showing common descent as predicted.   And then numerous predicted transitional forms were found in the fossil record as predicted, but never where they were not predicted.

Actually, all new mutations produce an increase in information.   Here's an example:
Suppose a population of organisms has two alleles for a given gene locus.   For ease in computation, let's say that they each have a frequency of 0.5. (50%)   The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30

Now suppose a mutation produces a new allele, and eventually it increases until each of them has a frequency of 0.333.   Then the information for that gene is about 0.48.   An increase information.   The formula for information (a measure of entropy) in a population is the Shannon equation:
 

Where p(n) is the frequency of the allele n.

Quite true.  C-14 only works out to about 50,000 years or so.

So far, none.  But some with remains of molecules like heme and collagen have been found.

So far, none.  All the biological material has been some molecules of compounds like those above.

Science doesn't deal in "proof."  However, the abundant number of transitional forms between early primates and humans is a documented fact.   Would you like to learn the many ways in which they have been shown to be transitional?

Your turn.





Quote
That has been verified repeatedly.   When Linnaeus (who knew nothing about evolution) drew up his system of classifying living things, he produced  family tree of nested hierarchies that only occur in cases of common descent.   Then Darwin explained why it happened so.   And the predictions of Darwin and Linnaeus were confirmed by genetic data showing common descent as predicted.   And then numerous predicted transitional forms were found in the fossil record as predicted, but never where they were not predicted.


Negative. Could just as well be proof of commonality of design by a common designer, not common descent. You simply place your faith in the former rather than the latter.

No transitional forms have been found and proved to be such, just many speculated upon by those who wish it to be so. They are looking to back up the faith which they have chosen. Not that it matters, even if God did allow for the ability to evolve form one species to another in His creation, this would not disprove creation. It would only do so for those who choose another faith. To the contrary, even evolution itself is far more likely the result of design than random chance, which even most “Christian” evolutionists propagate. Unfortunately they scrap the biblical account of creation while doing so.

Darwin correctly observed that there would be innumerable transitional forms with slight variations. Such would have left far more transitional forms in the fossil record than the scanty and very uncertain evidence offered thus far. Still, the slight changes he predicted would not be considered unusual to creationists or evidence of change from one species to another.


Quote
Actually, all new mutations produce an increase in information.   Here's an example:
Suppose a population of organisms has two alleles for a given gene locus.   For ease in computation, let's say that they each have a frequency of 0.5. (50%)   The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30

Now suppose a mutation produces a new allele, and eventually it increases until each of them has a frequency of 0.333.   Then the information for that gene is about 0.48.   An increase information.   The formula for information (a measure of entropy) in a population is the Shannon equation:
 

Where p(n) is the frequency of the allele n.


https://creation.com/mutations-new-information

Quote
In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes ‘mutations’. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory. Many creationists claim that mutations are not able to produce new information. Confusion about definitions abounds, including arguments about what constitutes a mutation and the definition of ‘biological information’. Evolution requires the existence of a process for the invention of new information from scratch. Yet, in a genome operating in at least four dimensions and packed with meta-information, potential changes are strongly proscribed. Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’. Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!


All mutations do not produce an increase of information. Just more word games.

http://www.icr.org/article/5783/

Quote
In theory, each mutation could have a negative, neutral, or positive effect on growth rate. What they found was that all the mutations had a negative effect. While a few were dangerous, most had very little negative effect. Could such a small negative effect even be detected, let alone culled, by natural selection? And how could a fish transmutate into a monkey by losing "fitness" each generation?

It can’t, according to biophysicist Lee Spetner. Though a believer in evolution, Spetner criticized the idea that mutations contribute anything positive, and wrote, "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time.”2

The preponderance of mutations with nearly neutral effect, as observed in the Swedish bacteria study, is consistent with prior studies, including a classic model by biologist Motoo Kimura.3 These all point in one direction: downhill. Cornell University geneticist John Sanford summarized the problem: "Therefore, the very strong predominance of deleterious mutations in this box [of near-neutrals] absolutely guarantees net loss of information.”4



Quote
Quite true.  C-14 only works out to about 50,000 years or so.


So, why not just carbon date a bunch of dinosaur bones and prove the point of their age?

Quote
So far, none.  But some with remains of molecules like heme and collagen have been found.


http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Quote
Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed.  Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate.  After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.  Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors.  When the authors inquired, they received this letter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTY3v8n9aBE

Quote
So far, none.  All the biological material has been some molecules of compounds like those above.


The above provided information and video already refute your above statement.

Quote
Science doesn't deal in "proof."  However, the abundant number of transitional forms between early primates and humans is a documented fact.   Would you like to learn the many ways in which they have been shown to be transitional?


Negative, it is the documented speculation of the religious affiliation of evolutionists.
« Last Edit: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 18:24:54 by Amo »

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1835 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 18:32:02 »
A theory explains facts.   For example, we observe new species evolving.   Darwin's theory of natural selection explains why this happens.   A theory is an idea or group of ideas that have been tested and verified by evidence.

If you want to discuss science, you must use the definitions that science uses.   

We do not observe new species evolving, we observe changes and variations in species, and members of the religious affiliation of evolutionists speculating that new species are evolving. Darwin's theory of natural selection is flawed in that it assumes long ages as necessary to that which could exist as part of design and recent creation. If the theory is ever proved, it will not in any way shape or form disprove creation.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1836 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 18:33:21 »
Quote from: 4WD on Mon Jan 08, 2018 - 11:25:25

Scientifically, it's "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Speciation is a consequence of evolution. It's not evolution and more than a planet going around the sun is gravity.  It's a consequence of gravity.

More word games.

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1837 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 18:50:20 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMqQmkoJXMY

Another interesting video regarding iron preservation of dinosaur soft tissues.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1838 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 22:23:24 »
Barbarian observes:
 That has been verified repeatedly.   When Linnaeus (who knew nothing about evolution) drew up his system of classifying living things, he produced  family tree of nested hierarchies that only occur in cases of common descent.   Then Darwin explained why it happened so.   And the predictions of Darwin and Linnaeus were confirmed by genetic data showing common descent as predicted.   And then numerous predicted transitional forms were found in the fossil record as predicted, but never where they were not predicted.



Quote
. Could just as well be proof of commonality of design by a common designer, not common descent.



Nope.  That would mean that sharks and whales would have similar DNA.   Creationism can't explain that, but evolutionary theory does.   You simply place your faith in the former rather than the latter.

Quote
No transitional forms have been found and proved to be such


Let's test your faith in your new doctrine.   Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional form.   

Quote
Not that it matters, even if God did allow for the ability to evolve form one species to another in His creation, this would not disprove creation.


Right.  It would just falsify creationism.   Which it does.

Quote
To the contrary, even evolution itself is far more likely the result of design than random chance, which even most “Christian” evolutionists propagate.


Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance.   And of course evolution is God's creation.


The "life ex nihilo faith of YE creationists is directly contradicted by God's word in Genesis.   Creationists ignore that, and unfortunately they scrap the biblical account of creation while doing so.

Quote
Darwin correctly observed that there would be innumerable transitional forms with slight variations.


Which is what we see whenever the fossil record is good.  As you probably remember, YE creationist Kurt Wise mentions a large number of them in his paper Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms.    Would you like me to show you again?

Barbarian observes:
Actually, all new mutations produce an increase in information.   Here's an example:
    Suppose a population of organisms has two alleles for a given gene locus.   For ease in computation, let's say that they each have a frequency of 0.5. (50%)   The information for that gene in the population is about 0.30

    Now suppose a mutation produces a new allele, and eventually it increases until each of them has a frequency of 0.333.   Then the information for that gene is about 0.48.   An increase information.   The formula for information (a measure of entropy) in a population is the Shannon equation:
     

    Where p(n) is the frequency of the allele n.

Quote
https://creation.com/mutations-new-information


Sorry, they were unable to even come up with an estimate.   They just cited Shannon's name, but fail to understand how information is actually calculated.   Creationists often talk about "information", but as in this case, they really don't know what it is, or even how it's determined.

Quote
In theory, each mutation could have a negative, neutral, or positive effect on growth rate. What they found was that all the mutations had a negative effect.


You've been misled on that.  There are many, many favorable mutations, while most of them have no discernable positive or negative effect.   You have several dozen yourself that were not present in either of your parents.


Quote
It can’t, according to biophysicist Lee Spetner. Though a believer in evolution, Spetner criticized the idea that mutations contribute anything positive, and wrote, "Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it.


As you see by the example above, Spetner doesn't understand what "information" means.   Population geneticists calculate information using Shannon's equation.

Quote
A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time.”


Gaining a new allele is not in any sense losing something.   It's essential to the health and survival of the population.  Once a population drops below a certain level of variability, it usually goes extinct.

Quote
The preponderance of mutations with nearly neutral effect, as observed in the Swedish bacteria study, is consistent with prior studies, including a classic model by biologist Motoo Kimura.3 These all point in one direction: downhill.


That's not what Kimura found.   He found that neutral mutations tend to enhance survival. 

The theory was introduced by the Japanese biologist Motoo Kimura in 1968, and independently by two American biologists Jack Lester King and Thomas Hughes Jukes in 1969, and described in detail by Kimura in his 1983 monograph The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. According to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, and phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, as postulated by Charles Darwin. The proposal of the neutral theory was followed by an extensive "neutralist-selectionist" controversy over the interpretation of patterns of molecular divergence and polymorphism, peaking in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, much evidence has been found for selection at molecular level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

Quote
Cornell University geneticist John Sanford summarized the problem: "Therefore, the very strong predominance of deleterious mutations in this box [of near-neutrals] absolutely guarantees net loss of information.”


Sanford thinks "information" means "good."   That's not what it means.   And he seems to have purposely misrepresented Kimura:
The “unrealistic results” that Kimura notes of plugging beneficial mutations into his model are that “the rate of evolution can become enormously high in a very large population” (i.e. beneficial mutations would become fixed at high rates), which is not an effect that is normally observed in reality. So the reason Kimura omitted beneficial mutations is not that they have too little effect (as Sanford implies), but that in his model they would have too much effect. This is just an artifact of his model (which, like all models, is a simplification of the real situation), not a statement about whether beneficial mutations have an effect in the real world.

Kimura [27] acknowledges that with his model, slightly deleterious mutations can build up, but (using parameter values he considers realistic), he does not see this as a threat to most species:

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.

 In other words, within his theoretical framework, the mutational load can be readily compensated by the occasional beneficial mutation.

All this is clearly spelled out by Kimura in The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, which Sanford cites in his Genetic Entropy. Thus, Sanford misled his readers on Kimura’s treatment of beneficial mutations, and few readers would dig into Kimura’s writings to discover what he really thought.

https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/

Barbarian, regarding why  C-14 isn't used by paleontologists:
    Quite true.  C-14 only works out to about 50,000 years or so.

Quote
So, why not just carbon date a bunch of dinosaur bones and prove the point of their age?


So, why not just use a candy thermometer to measure the temperature of a blast furnace?   If you thought about it for a bit, I bet you could figure out why not.

Barbarian, regarding why cells and tissue have not been found in fossils
 So far, none.  But some with remains of molecules like heme and collagen have been found.

Quote
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html


Your site merely makes the claim, but does not support it.  Notice, BTW, that when they did try to carbon date dinosaur bones, they just got numbers close to the maximum possible with that method.   Just as a candy thermometer would give you a reading of perhaps 250 degrees for the melted steel in a blast furnace.   

Barbarian observes:
So far, none.  All the biological material has been some molecules of compounds like those above.

Quote
The above provided information and video already refute your above statement.


Nope.  Just unsupported claims. No intact cells, much intact tissue has ever been found.  In biology, "tissue" means "group of cells organized for a function"; the use of "tissue" to mean "thin bit of material" is the source of the confusion.  However there is something pretty cool about finding some collagen.

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

One more prediction of evolutionary theory confirmed.
Quote

Barbarian offers:
Science doesn't deal in "proof."  However, the abundant number of transitional forms between early primates and humans is a documented fact.   Would you like to learn the many ways in which they have been shown to be transitional?

Quote
Negative, it is the documented speculation of the religious affiliation of evolutionists.


Nope.  For example, most apes have notably curved digits, useful for climbing.   Humans have strait digits.   The transitional forms between arboreal apes and humans have slightly curved digits.

Apes usually have long, narrow hips.  Humans have wide, short hips to aid in efficient walking.   Transitional forms have hips somewhere between.

Apes have large faces and relatively small braincases.   Humans have large brain cases and small faces.   Transitional forms have brains and faces intermediate between humans and other apes.

Would you like to see some details?   I'll include some in a later post.


Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1839 on: Sat Jan 13, 2018 - 22:26:21 »
Quote
We do not observe new species evolving

You've already been given some examples of directly observed speciations.  Would you like me to show you again?

Offline Michael2012

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
  • Manna: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1840 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 05:36:42 »
So, what do Barbarian and others who stand with him say in all of these?

That the Genesis creation must be interpreted by the use of science? That the Genesis creation is creation of God by evolution, the process according to the scientific theory of evolution? And that whoever denies this is under deception and is believing a lie,  and so does not have the truth about the matter of the creation of God? That it is a lie,
that Genesis creation was not by evolution but was a literal 6 day creation event?

Where is this all going to?

Or have they just been all along showing that science is inevitably necessary in knowing the truth about the creation of God, how by science, they come to know the truth, if at all by science can know the truth about the creation of God 

Pardon me, but as this thread is going, rather than seeing clearly the point of it, it brings me to even further down to darkness than light.

     

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7151
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1841 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 06:15:09 »
Michael, please interpret the following, appealing only to Scripture:

Ecc 1:5  The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

Do not infuse any scientific knowledge of the solar system that can not be firmly established by Scriptural reference.

Offline Michael2012

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
  • Manna: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1842 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 06:21:54 »
Michael, please interpret the following, appealing only to Scripture:

Ecc 1:5  The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

Do not infuse any scientific knowledge o
f the solar system that can not be firmly established by Scriptural reference.

The writer speaks of the sun as he sees and experience it, rising and then going down.   And I ought to take it that way too.

How about you?

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7151
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1843 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 06:32:55 »
The writer speaks of the sun as he sees and experience it, rising and then going down.   And I ought to take it that way too.

How about you?
I ought to understand that the sun does not revolve around the earth as the writer expresses. To try to insist that the Bible says the sun actually moves around the earth would be foolish indeed and make a mockery of God's word.

Offline Michael2012

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
  • Manna: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1844 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 07:32:11 »
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 06:21:54
Quote
The writer speaks of the sun as he sees and experience it, rising and then going down.   And I ought to take it that way too.

How about you?
I ought to understand that the sun does not revolve around the earth as the writer expresses. To try to insist that the Bible says the sun actually moves around the earth would be foolish indeed and make a mockery of God's word.

And that is how one reads that scriptures when he infuse scientific knowledge in the reading. And here you say that what the writer expresses is that the sun does not revolve around the earth, when he does not. He simply says that the sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. There is no revolution there even. Only in your mind. What the writer said is plainly understood by the Christian regarding the sun, for every man on earth sees it and experience it exactly as was written by the writer.

And who is insisting that the Bible says the sun actually moves around the earth? The said scriptures nor the Bible as a whole, is not out to teach us about that.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7151
  • Manna: 217
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1845 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 07:47:43 »
And who is insisting that the Bible says the sun actually moves around the earth?
Nearly the whole of the Judaeo-Christian world prior to the time of Copernicus and Galileo.  And they used the Bible to prove it.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1846 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 08:31:25 »
Quote
So, what do Barbarian and others who stand with him say in all of these?

That the Genesis creation must be interpreted by the use of science?

It doesn't matter whether you accept Genesis as it has traditionally been understood, or accept the new doctrine of YE creationism.   It won't affect your salvation, so long as you don't make an idol of your new belief.

Quote
Where is this all going to?

That some interpretations of Genesis do not fit the observed facts.   That is a problem only if it adds a stumbling block for those who might otherwise come to Him.   If you accept that there is disagreement among Christians on the details of creation, you haven't compromised your salvation at all.

Let God be God and don't worry about things that don't matter to your faith.


Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1847 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 09:59:18 »
Nearly the whole of the Judaeo-Christian world prior to the time of Copernicus and Galileo.  And they used the Bible to prove it.

You of course have many quotes to prove this issue was hotly debated many times, and Jews and Christians always insisted that the sun revolves around the earth because of the scripture you shared, correct. Most now that the Roman Catholic church argued against and condemned this belief, I'd like to see some of the others you are speaking of if you don't mind. By the way, Copernicus and Galileo were Christians. Obviously then, not all Christians argued that the sun revolved around the earth. To the contrary, Christian scientists arrived at this truth, if indeed they were the first to arrive at this conclusion. According to scripture, the context of which the scripture you are referring to, that is unlikely. 

Ecc 1:3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? 4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. 5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. 6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. 7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. 8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Evolutionists, including "Christian" evolutionists envision themselves as the high end of the process they have placed their faith in, believing today that they are intellectually superior to humanity of the past. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary which they choose to ignore. There was an entire world of no doubt advanced civilization wiped out by the flood which the scriptures record, which of course self aggrandizing evolutionists reject as truth. Beings closer the the perfection of God's original creation of greater physical and mental ability and stature than we now poses who lived much longer than we do. All of this is a fairy tail to those who reject scripture in favor of their superior intellect which cannot allow for such to be true. They profess Christ yet do not believe His testimony or large portions of the scriptures which themselves are the testimony of Jesus Christ. With so much of scripture being untrue, how do you know Jesus Christ is for real. If Jesus confirmed that which you reject as truth, then why do you trust Him?

Do you really think God had to wait for evolutionists to finally explain the truth of our origins to us?

Offline Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3111
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1848 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 10:45:17 »
It doesn't matter whether you accept Genesis as it has traditionally been understood, or accept the new doctrine of YE creationism.   It won't affect your salvation, so long as you don't make an idol of your new belief.

That some interpretations of Genesis do not fit the observed facts.   That is a problem only if it adds a stumbling block for those who might otherwise come to Him.   If you accept that there is disagreement among Christians on the details of creation, you haven't compromised your salvation at all.

Let God be God and don't worry about things that don't matter to your faith.

Yes God is God, and you are not. You cannot and will not determine what matters concerning true faith. Barbarian saying it doesn't matter what one thinks about creation in relation to salvation absolutely does not make it so. All who submit to this testimony raise themselves above the word of God, which says no such thing.

Her 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Her 11:11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Ps 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth............................
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.......................................
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters...................................... ................
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.......................................... ......
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so............
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.......................................... .
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good........................................ ....................
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so...............................
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth........................
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Lk 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Mk 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It does matter who or what you believe about creation. Choosing to believe that which contradicts the scriptures is choosing faith in another.


Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6221
  • Manna: 250
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1849 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 17:45:35 »
Quote from: Michael2012
And that is how one reads that scriptures when he infuse scientific knowledge in the reading. And here you say that what the writer expresses is that the sun does not revolve around the earth, when he does not. He simply says that the sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. There is no revolution there even. Only in your mind. What the writer said is plainly understood by the Christian regarding the sun, for every man on earth sees it and experience it exactly as was written by the writer.

And who is insisting that the Bible says the sun actually moves around the earth? The said scriptures nor the Bible as a whole, is not out to teach us about that.

Just saying that the sun rises and also goes down is technically wrong, since it doesn't do that at all. We continue to say that the sun rises and sets due to language, culture, and convenience.

Offline Michael2012

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
  • Manna: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1850 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 18:36:25 »
Just saying that the sun rises and also goes down is technically wrong, since it doesn't do that at all. We continue to say that the sun rises and sets due to language, culture, and convenience.

Technically wrong to scientists, but not to simple and ordinary people on earth who sees it and experience it exactly as was written in scriptures by the writer. It was written as it was, by divine inspiration.

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6221
  • Manna: 250
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1851 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 21:37:00 »
You don't have to be a scientist to know that the sun isn't going up and down to create day and night, I'm not a scientist and that is pretty obvious to me as well as most people I would assume.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1852 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 22:43:55 »
Quote
Yes God is God, and you are not. You cannot and will not determine what matters concerning true faith.

God says what matters, and He does not say that the way He created life is one of the things that matters.

Quote
Barbarian saying it doesn't matter what one thinks about creation in relation to salvation absolutely does not make it so.

God's word makes it so.   Don't add things to His word that aren't there.   To demand that salvation depends on your new doctrine, is to raise yourself about His word.



 

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1853 on: Sun Jan 14, 2018 - 22:46:47 »
Quote
Do you really think God had to wait for evolutionists to finally explain the truth of our origins to us?

Do you really think God had to wait for Newton to finally explain the truth of gravity to us? 

Maybe He left some things for us to find out for ourselves.   Since neither of these has anything to do with salvation, it's understandable why He didn't tell us about them.


Offline Michael2012

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
  • Manna: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #1854 on: Mon Jan 15, 2018 - 00:54:44 »
You don't have to be a scientist to know that the sun isn't going up and down to create day and night, I'm not a scientist and that is pretty obvious to me as well as most people I would assume.

I wouldn't know if I were not taught in school. The ancients did not know that either. What they and I know is what I see and experience the sun to be. I see it rises and go down.