I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[7djengo7]

Do creatures--individual animals--evolve?

Not in the sense of biological evolution no.

If evolution is true, an entire organism evolves.

What (if anything) would you say is the difference between an individual animal and an entire organism?

 

[7djengo7]

Species evolve together and organ systems evolve together.

So, which is "the theory of evolution" about? The evolution of species, OR, the evolution of organ systems?

 

[Right Divider]

So, which is "the theory of evolution" about? The evolution of species, OR, the evolution of organ systems?

They believe that random damage can be selected to create anything and everything. Pretty crazy, right?

 

[7djengo7]

They believe that random damage can be selected to create anything and everything. Pretty crazy, right?

Apparently so, seeing just how much random damage they are inadvertently dealing to their own, idiotic, irrational, anti-Christ worldview--by their attempts to prop it up and save face for it.

 

[Lon]

I think there are some pretty clear contextual clues in the garden of eden story that tell you that Adam and Eve and their children weren't the only people on earth at the time. Lot's wife, statements about "everyone who finds Cain" will kill him etc.

Some more bible context before 'theorizing:'
1) Genesis 5:5
2) Genesis 1:28
3) Though you've a hard time with Christian websites, this one is important.
A lot of people are bothered by 'incest' but every race starts this way, even in Evolution else there would be no speciation. It requires a viable reproduction. Incest later in the Bible is about sin (perhaps mostly related to health problems due to the curse of sin on the planet).
4) Your answer needs to be scripturally astute or it is nothing for no consideration whatsoever. As before, one who starts a thread like this must not simply say 'love Jesus' without that being demonstrable with biblical awareness else one must ask "what kind of love, does this one love Jesus with?"

 

[Lon]

Not speculation. If evolution is true, an entire organism evolves. Each entire organism must be functional so you don't have a generation with a heart and one without. You have simple hearts, then more complex hearts with small but functional steps in between.

Worms for example, are said to have 10 hearts. Which might make you think they are ten complex four chambered structures like those found in humans, but no. They are ten pulsating blood vessels, each being the simplest form of a heart.

This all isn't rocket science to figure out.

It is harder than rocket science. Biology 'theorizes' how one system can/may/perhaps does 'morph' through no external force into another different thing. There is no ▲worm▲ with a complex heart. It has, by design, a series of vessels that allow it to live in a horizontal position in the earth. To think 'snakes' are related to worms in some evolutionary form (specifically) is far reaching.

Let's visit something for a moment: The age of the earth is NOT scientifically verifiable (wait objection for a moment). Necessarily, for anyone to actually 'verify' the age of the earth, that one necessarily must have been able to observe it, not just count rings. Example: trees are generally aged by rings but not all trees can be aged the same way. When a tree is very old, they no longer produce rings and so getting an exact age is nearly if not impossible. The ONLY way to know how old that particular tree is, is if there were records of it planted and kept from family member to family member. IOW, the only way to absolutely know the age of a very old tree is personal observation and trust in family recording ability.

Evolution: The ONLY way to verify a horse losing its digits and relying upon one, would be personal observation as well, including trust in someone keeping track before you got there.

Importance? Only that MANY scientists, including many on TOL, get VERY bent out of shape when anybody (YEC or others) questions veracity. It 'becomes' hearsay and unscientific when you cannot show or prove. A ton of banter on TOL has only served to confirm that one group, scientists, believe in one thing specifically 'without ability to prove' while another group "creationists" believe another with only the Word of God to stand or fall upon. At that point, it is a question about higher authority because each must adhere to respective authority. I cannot possibly tell you, from firsthand experience, how old the earth is. How about you? What first-hand experience, all of your own observation, do you have for the age of the earth (firsthand, its important)?

 

[Alate_One]

No. The point of my argument is to say that DNA isn't magic. We can emulate enough of it to show that random mutations plus natural selection will not result in common descent.

If you emulate it properly (by modeling the chemical structure) you will show that it DOES in fact result in common descent.

This is a weak argument on the YEC's part. Try to emulate something badly and then pretend that disproves the original thing. If you emulate it properly, it will show you that evolution does in fact work.

So the question remains: Can you name a breakthrough that was made because they didn't view DNA as code?

Uhh studying the function of body plan and HOX genes?

 

[Stripe]

If you emulate it properly (by modeling the chemical structure) you will show that it DOES in fact result in common descent.

This is a wild claim.

This is a weak argument on the YEC's part. Try to emulate something badly and then pretend that disproves the original thing.

No, that would be a dishonest argument. As it stands, the challenge you face has been utterly ignored.

The function of body plan and HOX genes.

:darwinsm:

Only a Darwinist could use the words "function" and "plan" to deny the existence of intent.

 

[Yorzhik]

There are a lot of distinguished historians that reject the holocaust. Do you really want this as your argument?

You keep missing this item you brought up. Please enlighten us. Beyond Harry Elmer Barnes, what other distinguished historians deny the holocaust?

If you can't name any, do you see the power of realizing that if one goes against common descent, they will become a pariah? Yet, smart, reasonable, scientists will still follow evidence and deny Darwin by the thousands.

If you emulate it properly (by modeling the chemical structure) you will show that it DOES in fact result in common descent.

The program Ev has tried to do this. It failed. It's been many years an there hasn't even been a serious attempt to improve on Ev. I say it's because as scientific knowledge increases, scientists can't even speculate on how to make a program that has common descent work in the end. There are plenty of emulations, models, simulations, that try but fail.

This is a weak argument on the YEC's part. Try to emulate something badly and then pretend that disproves the original thing. If you emulate it properly, it will show you that evolution does in fact work.

Then stop "emulating poorly". You've dabbled in code - Show those ignorant (of biology) computer scientists how it's done.

Uhh studying the function of body plan and HOX genes?

:darwinsm: Here's what PZ Meyers says in the title of this article: "Unlike most genes, however, the order of Hox genes in the genome actually holds meaning."

Looks like they have something figured out. I wonder if they can emulate any of it? Seems like the paper infers they can.

Are you sure you want to hang your hat on HOX genes? Remember, the hallmark of the common descentist is not to be pinned down on ANYTHING except "common descent is true because it is popular".

 

[Alate_One]

You keep missing this item you brought up. Please enlighten us. Beyond Harry Elmer Barnes, what other distinguished historians deny the holocaust?

Distinguished, no I must have misheard that particular quote, or it was wrong to begin with.

If you can't name any, do you see the power of realizing that if one goes against common descent, they will become a pariah? Yet, smart, reasonable, scientists will still follow evidence and deny Darwin by the thousands.

Who are these smart reasonable scientists? The one you promoted is a computer programmer, which is questionable at best as far as an actual scientist.

The program Ev has tried to do this. It failed. It's been many years an there hasn't even been a serious attempt to improve on Ev. I say it's because as scientific knowledge increases, scientists can't even speculate on how to make a program that has common descent work in the end. There are plenty of emulations, models, simulations, that try but fail.

This ev "model" was made by people promoting intelligent design. So it's of questionable purpose and origin to begin with. The big problem with any computer evolution idea is it's only as good as human understanding of evolution which is far from perfect.

So essentially they can be digital straw men for YECs to swipe at. Really they're just a distraction.

Then stop "emulating poorly". You've dabbled in code - Show those ignorant (of biology) computer scientists how it's done.

We (humanity in general) don't know enough biology to emulate it properly. So we are always better off looking at actual biological data.

So lets see which idea explains the data better. If YEC were the better explanation scientists would happily switch to it.

Through any decades since the advent of fast travel and the movement of plants to different continents, we have seen over and over, tree species dying from introduced insects and disease.

How does YEC explain this? If all of the continents were together a mere 4000 years ago, why should an insect from one continent be completely deadly to plants on anotheri? See the Emerald Ash Borer.

 

[Stripe]

Who are these smart reasonable scientists?

A rational discussion focuses on the ideas, not who holds them.

This ev "model" was made by people promoting intelligent design. So it's of questionable purpose and origin to begin with.

Bigot.

The big problem with any computer evolution idea is it's only as good as human understanding of evolution which is far from perfect.

:AMR:

Random changes, best changes survive.

Sounds easy to me. :idunno:

We (humanity in general) don't know enough biology.

Oh, I get it. You think evolution and biology are interchangeable terms.

Nope. Evolution is just a theory.

So lets see which idea explains the data better.

:shocked:

You mean science? :noway:

Through any decades since the advent of fast travel and the movement of plants to different continents, we have seen over and over, tree species dying from introduced insects and disease.

How does YEC explain this? If all of the continents were together a mere 4000 years ago, why should an insect from one continent be completely deadly to plants on anotheri? See the Emerald Ash Borer.

Why shouldn't it be? It's been 4,000 years.

Haven't you heard of things adapting and becoming incompatible to their previous habitats in far shorter time?

 

[Yorzhik]

Distinguished, no I must have misheard that particular quote, or it was wrong to begin with.

Therefore, you should pay attention to people that leave such a popular movement in droves, knowing they will lose their livelyhoods. If they didn't have truth on their side, what other motivation would they have? Especially when they don't have any commitment to 6 day creation.

Who are these smart reasonable scientists? The one you promoted is a computer programmer, which is questionable at best as far as an actual scientist.

You haven't looked into it at all? What's the matter with you? Do you work this hard to stay within your bubble of confirmation bias? Aren't you interested in being somewhat sure that you are believing what is true?

It's something I worry about. I look for the best argument against what I believe. So I don't talk with people like Stuu because his arguments are terrible. But you have good credentials and I think you put forth the best argument you can for your side.

You should do the same thing. Find out if there are a lot of scientists that are rational and not driven by YEC. Dr. Gelernter is just an example of many scientists that doubt Darwin.

I realize what the problem is. If you don't have popularity on your side, you have such weak arguments supporting common descent it embarrasses you.

This ev "model" was made by people promoting intelligent design. So it's of questionable purpose and origin to begin with. The big problem with any computer evolution idea is it's only as good as human understanding of evolution which is far from perfect.

So essentially they can be digital straw men for YECs to swipe at. Really they're just a distraction.

This is what I mean by you living in a world of confirmation bias. Ev was made by a common descentist and you can find some initial information about it here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10908337

We (humanity in general) don't know enough biology to emulate it properly. So we are always better off looking at actual biological data.

This is so wrong it's almost anti-scientific. We know enough about biology to emulate parts of it, and we know enough about what we are trying to understand that it's information that matters. So it isn't "better" to look at the biological data, looking at the actual biological data is the point of emulating it!

So lets see which idea explains the data better. If YEC were the better explanation scientists would happily switch to it.

No they wouldn't be happy. Scientists like to eat. You need to add that to your equation at the risk of breaking the bubble of the confirmation bias world you live in.

Through any decades since the advent of fast travel and the movement of plants to different continents, we have seen over and over, tree species dying from introduced insects and disease.

How does YEC explain this? If all of the continents were together a mere 4000 years ago, why should an insect from one continent be completely deadly to plants on anotheri? See the Emerald Ash Borer.

You need to understand what the opposing side claims before you make ignorant comments like this. If this was a good question, I'd answer it, but it's a question answered by the simplest explanation on the topic.

 

[6days]

If you emulate it properly (by modeling the chemical structure) you will show that it DOES in fact result in common descent.

Science shows your statement is nonsense. Modern genetics shows our genome is irreversibly deteriorating. Research shows it is impossible for natural selection to detect and remove 60+ VSDM's in any population with a low birth rate. Common descent is a belief that is not consistent with the evidence, and that is why some geneticists have referred to it has a paradox. Secular geneticists have proposed various hypothetical, unrealistic and often contradictory models attempting to justify their beliefs in common descent, against the actual evidence. (Model such as quasi truncation, and antagonistic epistasis, synergistic epistasis, the multiplicative model and more)

Our deteriorating genome (along with the 10,000 known genetic diseases/ problems) is totally consistent with a perfectly created genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of genetic load.

 

[Alate_One]

Why shouldn't it be? It's been 4,000 years.

Haven't you heard of things adapting and becoming incompatible to their previous habitats in far shorter time?

Oh we're back to hyperevolution again. You love evolution when it gets you out of trouble, but then reject it when it conflicts with your beliefs.

 

[Alate_One]

You haven't looked into it at all? What's the matter with you? Do you work this hard to stay within your bubble of confirmation bias? Aren't you interested in being somewhat sure that you are believing what is true?

Did you miss the entire bit about how I spent most of my life as a YEC? I've been in it and read quite a few books and tracts. I'm aware of Michael Behe who is about the best out there. But unfortunately even his arguments fall short.

Have you ever read any of the writings of people who believe as I do?

I realize what the problem is. If you don't have popularity on your side, you have such weak arguments supporting common descent it embarrasses you.

Is that why Intelligent design lost so badly in court? I think you need to take your own advice and actually examine the evidence.

This is what I mean by you living in a world of confirmation bias. Ev was made by a common descentist and you can find some initial information about it here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10908337

I read the "about" section from their site. They claimed to be intelligent design believers.

This is so wrong it's almost anti-scientific. We know enough about biology to emulate parts of it, and we know enough about what we are trying to understand that it's information that matters. So it isn't "better" to look at the biological data, looking at the actual biological data is the point of emulating it!

It seems to me you're avoiding the very evidence you claim is weak or doesn't exist. Emulating things can be useful, but it strongly depends on how well you emulate the system.

No they wouldn't be happy. Scientists like to eat. You need to add that to your equation at the risk of breaking the bubble of the confirmation bias world you live in.

You don't understand how science works. If you had another idea that was actually BETTER than evolution at explaining the world around us, you'd win the Nobel prize and get money raining from the sky. But creationism doesn't make any useful predictions. It doesn't explain anything, so it's kind of useless.

See the Big Bang. Scientists didn't like it because it sounded like creationism. The universe has a beginning?! We can't have that. But it became accepted because the idea makes accurate predictions and is useful.

You need to understand what the opposing side claims before you make ignorant comments like this. If this was a good question, I'd answer it, but it's a question answered by the simplest explanation on the topic.

Humor me and answer it then. Why does the Emerald Ash borer kill virtually every species of North American ash tree but Asian ash species are immune? Same with Chestnut blight and American and Asian Chestnuts.

And if that's not difficult enough. If all life forms were on a single continent only a few thousand years ago, why are hummingbirds only found in the Americas? Why are Lemurs only found in Madagascar? Why are similar but non-identical species of trees found in North America and Asia in the first place?

 

[6days]

Did you miss the entire bit about how I spent most of my life as a YEC?

Darwin also claimed that. Darwin also had received very poor biblical teaching. Instead of accepting the biblical account, that pain, suffering, and death exist in our world because of "one man's sin", he became resentful of a cruel god who would create through an evolutionary process.

 

[Stripe]

Oh we're back to hyperevolution again. You love evolution when it gets you out of trouble, but then reject it when it conflicts with your beliefs.

Nope.

I reject evolution, remember?

Darwinists want everything to be evolution.

 

[User Name]

I reject evolution, remember?

HOW COULD WE FORGET.

 

[6days]

Humor me and answer it then. Why does the Emerald Ash borer kill virtually every species of North American ash tree but Asian ash species are immune?

Good question Alate. The problem doesn't exist just from one continent to another. We are concerned about invasive species even from one lake to the next. The answer to your question is found with some basic understanding of mutations, adaptation and natural selection.

As a Christian, why not look for answers from scientists who understand how science confirms the truth of God's Word, instead of posing 'gotcha questions' from people who reject the Creator God of the Bible.

 

[Yorzhik]

Did you miss the entire bit about how I spent most of my life as a YEC? I've been in it and read quite a few books and tracts. I'm aware of Michael Behe who is about the best out there. But unfortunately even his arguments fall short.

Have you ever read any of the writings of people who believe as I do?

Did you miss the bit about how I spent my life before I studied anything scientific as a theistic evolutionist? Then I looked into my teachers claims against science and they were mostly wrong...

It doesn't matter where either of us started. We have enough information now that we can read both sides. As I said, I look for the best argument against what I believe. So, yes, I pretty much read only the material on the view contrary to mine.

If you don't have popularity on your side, you have such weak arguments supporting common descent it embarrasses you.

Is that why Intelligent design lost so badly in court? I think you need to take your own advice and actually examine the evidence.

You didn't address the criticism. Like I said, if you don't have popularity on your side you know you've got very little evidence at all.

I read the "about" section from their site. They claimed to be intelligent design believers.

I don't think you read the about section. Here is the abstract:

Abstract How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial 'protein' in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.

Where in that are you getting intelligent design? Can you send a link to the "about" section you read?

And here is the author:

Schneider TD * National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology, PO Box B, Frederick, MD 21702-1201, USA. toms@ncifcrf.gov

It seems to me you're avoiding the very evidence you claim is weak or doesn't exist.

Nope. You seem to be the one that doesn't read the other side's evidence as you don't even know who is disagreeing with Darwin, as if they are a bunch of holocaust deniers, or not knowing your best common descent simulation fails.

Homology ultimately depends on "looks". Which is very subjective and any scientist should realize is weak. Radiometric dating labs are a black box that don't make all their data public. Which any scientist should realize is weak. The other evidence you've brought up, like ash bores, is evidence against common descent and isn't even a criticism of YEC because your argument doesn't try to understand the flood enough to even have an opinion on the topic.

If you've got homology that doesn't depend on looks, or a radiometric dating lab that will test any paying customer's material without explanation and provide the data from every trial, that would strengthen your case. But you don't have the evidence.

Emulating things can be useful, but it strongly depends on how well you emulate the system.

Uh. Duh?

The whole point of emulating a system (or parts thereof) is to understand the system being emulated. You keeping saying things like this as if you want the system to be magic - not emulateable.

You don't understand how science works. If you had another idea that was actually BETTER than evolution at explaining the world around us, you'd win the Nobel prize and get money raining from the sky. But creationism doesn't make any useful predictions. It doesn't explain anything, so it's kind of useless.

You talk like an SJW. An SJW always lies, always doubles down, and always projects. You know I understand how science works, you just where shown why ideology trumps the truth, and common descent explains very little beyond "might makes right" in it's metaphysic. You hit all three.

Humor me and answer it then. Why does the Emerald Ash borer kill virtually every species of North American ash tree but Asian ash species are immune? Same with Chestnut blight and American and Asian Chestnuts.

For the same reason that malaria can predictably and quickly become immune to some treatments and take a predictable longer amount of time to become immune to others. Did you read "Edge of Evolution" by Behe?

And if that's not difficult enough. If all life forms were on a single continent only a few thousand years ago, why are hummingbirds only found in the Americas? Why are Lemurs only found in Madagascar? Why are similar but non-identical species of trees found in North America and Asia in the first place?

Because of the dynamics of the flood. Do you even know how the flood happened?