Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Yesterday at 19:37:53

It will never be fact.  Scientifically, the theory of evolution will never be proven or considered fact. Perhaps the theories will get stronger, but that is another matter.

Yes, it is considered fact, in pretty much every learning institution. The data and evidence is so overwhelming that it will NEVER be de-categorized as a "one time popular belief".

When you say it is a fact, do you say it is a truth? 

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 22:06:41

I agree. As admitted by scientists, science cannot deal with God, from whom ALL things came to be. And since these theories will never be proven, evolution remains to be a make believe.

By that argument, since the existence of God can never be proven, then God remains to be a make believe.  That is all rather silly.

Don't you believe that creation proves the existence of God? Does not the life of the true Christians prove the existence of God?

Of course, science obviously can't prove the existence of God, since according to scientists, science cannot deal with God.   

[4WD]

Don't you believe that creation proves the existence of God? Does not the life of the true Christians prove the existence of God?

Of course, science obviously can't prove the existence of God, since according to scientists, science cannot deal with God.

Nothing we know about proves the existence of God.   The existence of God can't be proven.  It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith.  Don't you even remember your own tirade about Hebrews 11:1?

[Alan]

Yes, it is considered fact, in pretty much every learning institution. The data and evidence is so overwhelming that it will NEVER be de-categorized as a "one time popular belief".


When you say it is a fact, do you say it is a truth?

Yes it's truth, unless of course you are inferring Aristotle 

Kidding aside, the truth here is relative to the present day data, but this subject isn't a "you say-I say" debate, there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation, and since no other reasonable explanations regarding the progression of life exist, the percentage will continue to increase.

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 14:53:25

Don't you believe that creation proves the existence of God? Does not the life of the true Christians prove the existence of God?

Of course, science obviously can't prove the existence of God, since according to scientists, science cannot deal with God.

Nothing we know about proves the existence of God.   The existence of God can't be proven.  It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith.  Don't you even remember your own tirade about Hebrews 11:1?

Well, we certainly differ in our experience and understanding of God then, and of His words in scriptures.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

How could you say now that the existence of God can't be proven? The scriptures above cited clearly is evidence that proves that God exist, unless you don't believe these scriptures are true. Do you you not see the ungodliness and unrighteousness of man? Do you not clearly see the invisible attributes of God in the things that are made ~ sun, moon, stars, mountains, seas, people, animals, plants, water, earth, wind, fire, rain, etc.? No man is with excuse on this matter.

You said "It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith."

Of course I disagree. Faith is ever needed by fallen man. Perhaps not so much as to the matter of the existence of God, but in the matter of understanding and knowing God, and pleasing God.

I'm amazed that you go this far to argue to defend science, something that evidently had missed the mark over and over, showing itself for what it is, an imperfect tool and a fallible man-made method of acquiring knowledge, earthly wisdom even.       

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 14:34:20

When you say it is a fact, do you say it is a truth?

Yes it's truth, unless of course you are inferring Aristotle 

Kidding aside, the truth here is relative to the present day data, but this subject isn't a "you say-I say" debate, there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation, and since no other reasonable explanations regarding the progression of life exist, the percentage will continue to increase.

So, you are saying that facts are truths. In that case then, you take scientific facts as truths and so will never be proven false. You take science then to be a method of acquiring knowledge of truths, at least with regards the physical things ~ nature.

On the matter of evolution then, you say it is considered a fact, do you take evolution as a fact, and therefore truth?

Another thing, you said " in pretty much every learning institution.", and "there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation". It seems to me that somehow, you take numbers as a basis for determining something to be true. On that basis then, where those in favor are of much greater than those who are not, of the view that the Bible is not true or that Jesus is not the Son of God, what would that make of the Bible and Jesus Christ? And would that then not make the former view to be the truth?   

How about scientific theories, do you say they are truth? 
   

[Alan]

Nothing we know about proves the existence of God.   The existence of God can't be proven.  It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith.  Don't you even remember your own tirade about Hebrews 11:1?


Well, we certainly differ in our experience and understanding of God then, and of His words in scriptures.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

How could you say now that the existence of God can't be proven? The scriptures above cited clearly is evidence that proves that God exist, unless you don't believe these scriptures are true. Do you you not see the ungodliness and unrighteousness of man? Do you not clearly see the invisible attributes of God in the things that are made ~ sun, moon, stars, mountains, seas, people, animals, plants, water, earth, wind, fire, rain, etc.? No man is with excuse on this matter.

You said "It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith."

Of course I disagree. Faith is ever needed by fallen man. Perhaps not so much as to the matter of the existence of God, but in the matter of understanding and knowing God, and pleasing God.

I'm amazed that you go this far to argue to defend science, something that evidently had missed the mark over and over, showing itself for what it is, an imperfect tool and a fallible man-made method of acquiring knowledge, earthly wisdom even.     

I agree with 4WD here, if I was to prepare a thesis attempting to show proof of God's existence outside of my biblical faith, I'd likely fall flat on my face. There is little evidence that can be substantiated in terms of tangible evidence. My faith alone allows me to look at nature in awe of God's creation.

[Alan]

Yes it's truth, unless of course you are inferring Aristotle 

Kidding aside, the truth here is relative to the present day data, but this subject isn't a "you say-I say" debate, there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation, and since no other reasonable explanations regarding the progression of life exist, the percentage will continue to increase.


So, you are saying that facts are truths. In that case then, you take scientific facts as truths and so will never be proven false. You take science then to be a method of acquiring knowledge of truths, at least with regards the physical things ~ nature.

On the matter of evolution then, you say it is considered a fact, do you take evolution as a fact, and therefore truth?

Another thing, you said " in pretty much every learning institution.", and "there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation". It seems to me that somehow, you take numbers as a basis for determining something to be true. On that basis then, where those in favor are of much greater than those who are not, of the view that the Bible is not true or that Jesus is not the Son of God, what would that make of the Bible and Jesus Christ? And would that then not make the former view to be the truth?   

How about scientific theories, do you say they are truth? 

Facts, scientific or otherwise are truth until proven otherwise. The onus is not upon the relayer of facts, but to those that oppose the facts.


Yes I equivalate evolutionary facts as truth.


In regards to the lopsided views supporting evolution vs the low percentage of Christian believers, it is all about faith. I know some will insist that it requires the same degree of faith to adopt scientific theory, but that just isn't true. The data is there for anyone to study, it may require some amount of faith to fully accept that which is beyond our comprehension but the data is there nonetheless, verified, validated, and presented as scientific theory.  The Bible however, I have complete faith in God as creator and Jesus, Son of God. It requires my faith, and all my faith to continue onward. Two completely different truths, and two completely different paths to those truths.


Yes scientific theories are truths, see reply 1257 for the definition of scientific theory.

 

[Amo]

Another supposed fact of evolution proved wrong.

https://crev.info/2014/04/malthus-misled-darwin-who-misled-the-world/

April 30, 2014 | David F. Coppedge

Malthus Misled Darwin Who Misled the World

There's no evidence for a key presumption of Darwinian theory – the very presumption that gave birth to Social Darwinism.

It's rare to see a science article say "Darwin was wrong," but Live Science reluctantly admitted that a key idea Darwin proposed in The Origin in 1859 is the opposite of the way nature actually works.

One of Charles Darwin's hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.

Results on algae at the University of Michigan were "unsetting" and "completely unexpected," the article says.  The researchers got self-inflicted headaches over their findings:

"It was completely unexpected," says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan's school of natural resources & environment. "When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?"

The researchers did not set out to disprove Darwin, but were "completely baffled" to find that closely related algae did not compete more strongly.  "The hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up, but we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn't right about the organisms we've been studying."

Darwin's flawed notion has had far-reaching effects on politics, the article points out.  Decisions about what endangered species to save have been made on the basis that closely-related species are less valuable then distant ones.

But if scientists ultimately prove Darwin wrong on a larger scale, "then we need to stop using his hypothesis as a basis for conservation decisions," Cardinale says. "We risk conserving things that are the least important, and losing things that are the most important."

Regarding Darwin's hypothesis that distant species complete less, the team "didn't see any evidence of that at all" in "field experiments, lab experiments and surveys in 1,200 lakes in North America."  In hindsight, they believe Darwin misled himself by his own preferred view of nature.  They could only offer "maybe" stories in the wake of the damage.

Darwin "was obsessed with competition," Cardinale says. "He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don't grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.

"Maybe species are co-evolving," he adds. "Maybe they are evolving together so they are more productive as a team than they are individually. We found that more than one-third of the time, that they like to be together. Maybe Darwin's presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong."

This statement suggests that it's not just a subtopic within Darwinian theory that is wrong, but the most important underlying presumption.  It also implies that Thomas Malthus's ideas on competition were wrong.*  Competition for limited resources, he said, led to death of the unfit.  Evolutionary theorists like Herbert Spencer, therefore, misled whole nations who launched "social Darwinist" economic policies based on this idea that profoundly affected the lives of millions of people.  Historians can only imagine what would have happened if they had promoted the newer view that nature becomes productive by cooperation, not competition.

[Amo]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).  That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures.  It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part.  But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.  Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.  Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.  That is physically impossible.  To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.).  We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years.  The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on.  Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter.  Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants.  All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.  But evolutionists are eternally optimistic.  They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance.  To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed").  To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population."

Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science.  "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations".  "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years."  Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps."  So what did they find?  "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it.  They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings".  Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity."  "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work.  Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies.  They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal.  But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side.  In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation.  There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation.  They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations".  "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles."  "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

[Amo]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

You may have heard of the famous Lenski experiment.  Dr. Richard E. Lenski is an evolutionary biologist who began a long-term experiment on February 24, 1988 that continues today.  It looks for genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of Escherichia coli bacteria that have been adapting to conditions in their flasks for over 60,000 generations.  I have simplified a report by Scott Whynot, who studied 26 peer-reviewed scientific articles authored by Dr. Lenski (with others) published between 1991 and 2012.  These papers represent the major genetic findings from 21 years of the experiment.

1. There was an insertion mutation that inhibited transcription of DNA involved in cell wall synthesis.

2. There was an insertion mutation in a regulatory region that encodes two proteins involved with cell wall synthesis.  This may have led to larger cells.

3. A mutation in a gene led to a defect in DNA repair.

4. An insertion mutation may have knocked out a gene involved in programmed cell death and response to stress.

5. There was another mutation in a gene involved in response to stress, disrupting its function.

6. There was a mutation in the gene that encodes an enzyme that loosens DNA coils, leading to an increase in DNA supercoiling.

7. There was an insertion mutation in a gene that represses the production of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), a molecule that participates in many metabolic reactions, some affecting longevity.  This might allow more NAD production.

8. The researchers noted an insertion mutation that they think inactivated a gene, resulting in greater glucose uptake.  Glucose is a limited energy source in the experiment.

9. Deletion mutations caused the loss of the ability to catabolize D-ribose, an energy source that is not available in the experiment.

10. There was a mutation in a gene regulating transport of the sugar maltose, an energy source that is not present in the experiment.

11. After about 30,000 generations, the E. coli in one of the twelve isolated populations began to utilize an energy source, citrate, that they normally could not use in the presence of oxygen.  E. coli already have the ability to transport and metabolize citrate where there is no oxygen, but they do not produce an appropriate transport protein for an environment with oxygen.  In E. coli DNA, the gene for the citrate transporter that works without oxygen is directly upstream from genes for proteins with promoters that are active in the presence of oxygen.  A replication of the region happened to put the transporter gene next to one of these promoters, so it could now be expressed in the presence of oxygen.

Except for number 11, the changes found in over 60,000 generations of bacteria were due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of genetic information.  The ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen, trumpeted by evolutionists as a big deal, was the result of previously existing information being rearranged, not the origin of new information.  Mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed.

[Open Heart]

Yes, it is considered fact, in pretty much every learning institution. The data and evidence is so overwhelming that it will NEVER be de-categorized as a "one time popular belief".


When you say it is a fact, do you say it is a truth?

A fact is something that is (or was) seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted, or measured.  A truth is something that is known such as "Love is a virtue."

[Open Heart]

How could you say now that the existence of God can't be proven? The scriptures above cited clearly is evidence that proves that God exist, unless you don't believe these scriptures are true.

When we say that something is proven, we mean objectively so. Using the Bible as evidence is not objective proof.  I believe in the Bible, but that is an act of faith.  Thus the things I believe in using the Bible as my source are not true due to objective proofs.  Objectively, God can neither be proven nor disproven.  However, there are still good arguments that suggest there may be a God, arguments well worth thinking about.

[Open Heart]

On the matter of evolution then, you say it is considered a fact, do you take evolution as a fact, and therefore truth?

When it comes to evolution:
1. It is considered fact that life evolved from a single life form to the variety of life that we have today -- this is beyond debate, and will not change.
2. What is considered theoretical is the process which drives that evolution, whether it is natural selection, random mutation, genetic drift, God, or some combination...

As to truth, as I stated earlier, truth is those things which are knowledge beyond what can be sensed -- more like what can be intuited.  What is taught in the creation myth of Genesis 1 is truth: God created everything in the world and it is good.  This is what is important about myth: although it is not factual, it is the most powerful form of teaching TRUTH.

[KiwiChristian]

Michael:
Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.

1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?

Alan:
To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.

Why would any animal want to reproduce? It means more mouths to feed and is a drain on the natural resources.

comment :
Then why then does scientists say that there were species whose survival was not ensured, as they have been said to have become extinct? Further, does science not say that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.

Can anyone say that any species is extinct? Just cause no one sees them, does mean they no longer exist? Do we know every inch of this planet?


Michael:
]2. At what point will man stop to evolve?

Alan:
Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.

But the environment is changing, why aren't humans?

Also, how far back in your family tree do you need to go before one of your ancestors is non-human?




Michael:
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?

Has there been any EVIDENCE that life came from non-life?

Alan:
All life has a creator, that creator is God.

[4WD]

You said "It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith."

Of course I disagree. Faith is ever needed by fallen man. Perhaps not so much as to the matter of the existence of God, but in the matter of understanding and knowing God, and pleasing God.

I'm amazed that you go this far to argue to defend science, something that evidently had missed the mark over and over, showing itself for what it is, an imperfect tool and a fallible man-made method of acquiring knowledge, earthly wisdom even.

No, it is God that is needed by fallen man.  Faith is needed specifically because God has not given us proof of His existence.  He has given us all the evidence we need in order to believe in Him, trust Him, and believe what He has said, but He has not given proof of His existence.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with defending science.  Science doesn't need defending, except to note that you haven't the foggiest idea even what science is, so that whatever you think about science or say about science is likely to be wrong.

[Alan]

Michael: Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.

1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?


Alan: To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.

Why would any animal want to reproduce? It means more mouths to feed and is a drain on the natural resources.

Instinct, it's the natural course of life to populate a given species, not a conscious effort.comment :

Then why then does scientists say that there were species whose survival was not ensured, as they have been said to have become extinct? Further, does science not say that more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.


Can anyone say that any species is extinct? Just cause no one sees them, does mean they no longer exist? Do we know every inch of this planet?

To date, 700 species of dinosaurs are known. They are all extinct and that is just a very small example.


Michael:
]2. At what point will man stop to evolve?


Alan:Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.


But the environment is changing, why aren't humans?

Also, how far back in your family tree do you need to go before one of your ancestors is non-human?

The process of evolution requires much more time than can be seen as dramatic changes within a species, but there is evidence that humans have continued to evolve over the past 10,000 years.  http://mentalfloss.com/article/30795/5-signs-humans-are-still-evolving

Michael:
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?

Has there been any EVIDENCE that life came from non-life?

Nope, none whatsoever, but it seems that some, even a few on this forum have subscribed to the possibility that earth was given life from another planet. That is not my belief, just throwing it out there. Alan:All life has a creator, that creator is God.

[Amo]

No, it is God that is needed by fallen man.  Faith is needed specifically because God has not given us proof of His existence.  He has given us all the evidence we need in order to believe in Him, trust Him, and believe what He has said, but He has not given proof of His existence.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with defending science.  Science doesn't need defending, except to note that you haven't the foggiest idea even what science is, so that whatever you think about science or say about science is likely to be wrong.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

The proof is there according to the apostle Paul, enough proof to leave those who deny it, without excuse. You simply deny this, as you deny other scripture that does not fit the faith you have chosen. Evolutionists are just the modern version of those who considering themselves wise, have become fools. Some still bow down to images of man, birds, four footed beasts, and creeping things because of such. Others now claim we came from all these various critters through the process of evolution, instead of a direct creation from God as plainly described in other scriptures denied by those thinking themselves to wise to believe the word of God. Both deny the word of God, and both will be without excuse before God.

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,................................
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.

[4WD]

You obviously have no idea about what it means to "prove" anything.  You present evidence, not proof.  Evidence is not proof.  Evidence can tend to indicate proof, but they are not the same.

[Amo]

https://www.rae.org/essay-links/cormicroev/

A Mistaken Case of Macroevolution

Author: Stephen Caesar
Subject: Biology
Date: 2/26/2004   


When evolutionists see two related species in the fossil record, one in an earlier geological layer and one in a later (i.e., higher) layer, they assume that the creature in the earlier (lower) layer was the evolutionary ancestor of the one in the higher, more recent layer. This they consider to be macroevolution: the lower species improved over time, grew stronger, became more fit to handle its environment, and eventually became the brand-new, more highly developed species that left its remains in the higher layer.

Ordinary corn on the cob has shown this to be false reasoning. Corn (maize) originated in what is now Mexico and spread outward from there. The plant from which modern corn was domesticated is called teosinte, which is native to the region. Archaeologists have found well-preserved teosinte ears at various sites in Mexico from around 4300 BC (Jaenicke-Després et al. 2003: 1206). It is much, much smaller than modern corn, and is very different in appearance. Because of this, evolutionists assumed that teosinte was a species that, over time, macroevolved into a bigger, larger, brand-new species, modern maize.

Genetic studies, however, have proved that teosinte and modern maize are the same species. For one thing, they can interbreed, which shouldn't happen if they're two different species. Moreover, this interbreeding occurs in the wild, not in human-controled conditions. The result of the teosinte-corn hybrid looks so different from both parents that evolutionists originally considered it a separate species, naming it Zea canina. In the 1920's, a scientist named Dr. George A. Beadle examined the chromosomes of this hybrid and discovered that teosinte and corn were the same species after all. They even shared the same chromosomal order of genes (Fedoroff 2003: 1158).

More recent studies have shown that only a few genetic mutations changed teosinte into maize. It turns out that the differences between maize and teosinte exist in only 5 genomic regions. In 2 of these regions, the differences are due to alternative alleles of just one gene. This allele affected kernal structure and plant architecture (Fedoroff 2003: 1158). (Alleles are merely different forms of the same gene.)

Thus, the differences between teosinte and maize are not the result of teosinte evolving into maize over time. They are both different forms of the same species (Fedoroff 2003: 1158). Modern maize is much, much larger than teosinte, so this is an example of changes within the bounds of species that have improved the species. But there is always what is known as a "fitness cost" whenever a species microevolves: as discussed often in this column, fitness cost is when a species microevolves a new trait to increase its ability to deal with new conditions in its environment, but the improvement is counterbalanced by a sudden disadvantage in another area.

For the mighty modern maize, this disadvantage is fatal: modern corn can't breed without human involvement (Fedoroff 2003: 1158). In other words, if the large, hearty maize plants were left on their own, they would soon die out, and humble teosinte would once again rule the day. This isn't what Darwin had envisioned; in his theory, modern maize would triumph without human help, and the weaker teosinte would die out.

Moreover, this microevolution from teosinte to modern maize was rapid (as opposed to the millions of years postulated by Darwinism). Genetic studies showed that the transition from teosinte to maize occurred rapidly and in one spot, and it took only 10 generations. Nina Fedoroff of Pennsylvania State University reported: "The results are unequivocal: All contemporary maize varieties belong to a single family, pointing to a single domestication event" (2003: 1158). Thus falls another "proof" of Darwinism.



References:

Fedoroff, N.V. 2003. "Prehistoric GM Corn." Science 302, no. 5648.

Jaenicke-Després, V., et al. 2003. "Early Allelic Selection in Maize as Revealed by Ancient DNA." Science 302, no. 5648.

[Amo]

You obviously have no idea about what it means to "prove" anything.

Of course not, you said so didn't you.

[4WD]

Of course not, you said so didn't you.

Mostly, you demonstrate it.

[Amo]

https://www.rae.org/essay-links/bits25/

Darwinism and Secular Humanism

The experts in evolutionary theory are all either atheists or agnostics. However, they know they're in the minority and that only about 10% of 'ordinary citizens' really believe that life began by accidental chemical reactions — that it gradually became more and more complex without any supernatural intervention. Almost half of our population say they believe that God somehow created us (although many deviate considerably from the Biblical account). Thus evolutionists are careful to disguise the religious implications of their 'religion.'

Thomas Dewey was the long-time head of the department of education at Columbia University. Since Columbia was very influential among teachers' colleges, Dewey's beliefs and philosophies were adopted by most of those colleges, and in turn by the students who later became teachers. Thus he became known as one of the "fathers of American education."

Dewey was a philosopher, and a popular speaker at forums across the U.S. His fundamental premise was the absence of moral and philosophical absolutes — that we are each the authors of our own standards. We have him to thank for the concept of "moral relativism," so popular in society today. Of course this means that there's no such thing as Godly principles that hold absolute truth. He considered Christianity to be simply a human philosophy, which he rejected.

In 1933 Dewey led a group of prominent intellectuals in publishing the Humanist Manifesto, which the Encyclopedia Brittanica describes as "substantially a profession of anthropological atheism, based on the theory of evolution." Its supporters thereafter became known, quite reasonably, as "secular humanists," and later began a magazine known as "The Humanist." Many leaders in the ACLU (or American Civil Liberties Union), a legal group active in filing lawsuits to "cleanse" our nation of all vestiges of religion in the public domain, belong to the Humanist Society.

The public school system is being used as the ideal vehicle for spreading this atheistic belief system. John Dunphy wrote (in The Humanist, Jan/Feb 1983):

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith, a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level — preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." (emphasis added)

But most public school teachers are dedicated and earnest people — they don't "perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith," as Dunphy wrote above. Many of them are faithful Christians, who have been indoctrinated in college by those who insist that "science has proved that ..." or "... the fact of evolution ...". Their curriculum is often set by others, such as State Board of Education Guidelines, that require certain subjects to be taught.

However, many of these perceptive teachers are bothered by the obvious conflicts between what they're expected to teach and the clear statements in the Bible. Each of these must rationalize the conflicts in their own way. This writer faced these conflicts in the past, and was never able to find a compromise position that made good sense. That was what made me begin a long study of the foundations of the scientific process. I was led to reject evolutionism and to become a dedicated creationist.

[Amo]

Mostly, you demonstrate it.

Of course I do, just as you claim God demonstrated extremely long ages of evolution in His account of creation in Genesis. Your such a good judge of these sort of things.

[4WD]

Of course I do, just as you claim God demonstrated extremely long ages of evolution in His account of creation in Genesis. Your such a good judge of these sort of things.

I made no such claim about God demonstrating long ages of evolution in His account of creation in Genesis.

[AVZ]

Yes it's truth, unless of course you are inferring Aristotle 

Kidding aside, the truth here is relative to the present day data, but this subject isn't a "you say-I say" debate, there is a staggering percentage of the population in favour of the scientific explanation, and since no other reasonable explanations regarding the progression of life exist, the percentage will continue to increase.

I find the Bible pretty reasonable...but then again man does not want God, so he invents evolution.

[4WD]

I find the Bible pretty reasonable...but then again man does not want God, so he invents evolution.

You are accusing Alan of not wanting God?  Perhaps you should reconsider the implication of what you just said there.

[Michael2012]

-
Quote from: Michael2012 on Yesterday at 19:25:18

You said "It that were really possible, there would be no need for faith."

Of course I disagree. Faith is ever needed by fallen man. Perhaps not so much as to the matter of the existence of God, but in the matter of understanding and knowing God, and pleasing God.

I'm amazed that you go this far to argue to defend science, something that evidently had missed the mark over and over, showing itself for what it is, an imperfect tool and a fallible man-made method of acquiring knowledge, earthly wisdom even.

No, it is God that is needed by fallen man.  Faith is needed specifically because God has not given us proof of His existence.  He has given us all the evidence we need in order to believe in Him, trust Him, and believe what He has said, but He has not given proof of His existence.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with defending science.  Science doesn't need defending, except to note that you haven't the foggiest idea even what science is, so that whatever you think about science or say about science is likely to be wrong.

4WD:
He has given us all the evidence we need in order to believe in Him, trust Him, and believe what He has said, but He has not given proof of His existence.

Clearly you don't believe what Paul was inspired by God to write in Romans 1:18-20. No wonder why you evade discussing anything about the passage.   

If God has given ALL evidence needed in order to believe in Him, trust Him, and believe what He has said, it follows clearly that He exist. For these evidences you say, are given by God. And for these evidences to be given, God must exist. These evidences establishes the truth of His existence. But with regards science, you speak of evidences, and have no problem taking such evidences as proofs of this and that.   

Of course, there is nothing more to say in defense of your position but to say "you haven't the foggiest idea even what science is".

Science evidently had missed the mark over and over, time and time again, throughout its history, showing itself for what it is, an imperfect tool and a fallible man-made method of acquiring knowledge. That is the sad truth for the scientist atheist, being of this world, the worldly man. On the other hand, the Christian is not of this world.

Science engages the sight.

Now, the Christian walk by faith, not by sight.

[Alan]

You are accusing Alan of not wanting God?  Perhaps you should reconsider the implication of what you just said there.

It's okay, just the typical ignorance that can be expected from those that lack understanding and rather than learn, inject ad nauseum.

[Michael2012]

Alan:
Facts, scientific or otherwise are truth until proven otherwise. The onus is not upon the relayer of facts, but to those that oppose the facts.

Comment:

And if facts or truth are later proven otherwise, the earlier ones becomes not facts and false. And that means, until they were proven false, they were lies taken to be truths.

Alan:
Yes I equivalate evolutionary facts as truth.

In regards to the lopsided views supporting evolution vs the low percentage of Christian believers, it is all about faith. I know some will insist that it requires the same degree of faith to adopt scientific theory, but that just isn't true. The data is there for anyone to study, it may require some amount of faith to fully accept that which is beyond our comprehension but the data is there nonetheless, verified, validated, and presented as scientific theory.  The Bible however, I have complete faith in God as creator and Jesus, Son of God. It requires my faith, and all my faith to continue onward. Two completely different truths, and two completely different paths to those truths.

Comment;

The point being is that, numbers cannot be a basis for determining something to be true or false.

Alan:
Yes scientific theories are truths, see reply 1257 for the definition of scientific theory.

Comment:

And there are several theories scientists make with regards one subject matter. This would mean that there are several truths about one thing. And only one must be the correct theory. The rest of the theories then are false truths, if there be such things as false truths. Further, there were theories in times past that were later proven false and replaced by other newer theories. That being, tells us that those theories that have been replaced aren't all along truths, but are lies taken to be truths at the time. IOW, man have been deceived in believing those theories as truths when they really are lies.

[Alan]

Really getting tired of this merry-go-round, you refuse to look at the conversation objectively and continue to revert back to the position of the claims by science could possibly be dead wrong. If you took a moment to try and understand what scientific theory is, you would know that it isn't infallible, but on the other hand, it also isn't something that will be turned 180 degrees. New data results in a progression of the theories, it never completely annihilates the theory. 

[Michael2012]

Really getting tired of this merry-go-round, you refuse to look at the conversation objectively and continue to revert back to the position of the claims by science could possibly be dead wrong. If you took a moment to try and understand what scientific theory is, you would know that it isn't infallible, but on the other hand, it also isn't something that will be turned 180 degrees. New data results in a progression of the theories, it never completely annihilates the theory.

I get what you are saying. But I hope you also get my point that truth is infallible and what is not infallible is not truth. Like sin, small or big, is still sin. So, whether how small or great a falseness is in a scientific theory, the theory still is false. And what is false can never be taken to be truth. Moreover, what is partly false and partly truth, is as a whole, is false.

[4WD]

I get what you are saying. But I hope you also get my point that truth is infallible and what is not infallible is not truth.

The irony here is that statement is simply not true.

[Alan]

I get what you are saying. But I hope you also get my point that truth is infallible and what is not infallible is not truth. Like sin, small or big, is still sin. So, whether how small or great a falseness is in a scientific theory, the theory still is false. And what is false can never be taken to be truth. Moreover, what is partly false and partly truth, is as a whole, is false.

Yeah, I get your point. If current scientific theory is fallible, you are free to insert the 10,000 year old YE universe concept. 

[AVZ]

New data results in a progression of the theories, it never completely annihilates the theory.

Is that statement yet another theory? Its dumb.
If you hold to a theory and new data shows your theory is wrong, then your old theory is annihilated and replaced by a new one.
Your old theory no longer exists.