I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Alate_One]

I don't, for example, dismiss Ask.com sight unseen.

I didn't either, but virtually all of the questions I saw in your linked list had one word answers. "Do all trees have rings?" "No."
Then you said some oak trees don't have rings, and those questions and answers were your citation.

Firstly, "oak" is a common name that's usually applied to an extremely large number of tree species that mostly live in temperate zones (Genus Quercus) all of which would presumably produce rings. Maybe there is some tropical tree out there with the common name "oak" that I'm not aware of that would fit your description? In any case you weren't precise enough for me to make that determination.

Several points: "If" you've a love for the Word of God, then God created full-grown trees Genesis 1:2-4 If the days are literal, then these were all made 'already mature.'

Then you're positing that God is creating false history in those trees, since that's what tree rings are.

Personally I do not believe those days are literal. Instead they fit a poetic pattern. If you look at the first three days, You see separation happening. Light separated from darkness, water from land etc. Then in the next three days those separated parts of creation are filled, given purpose etc. This is why the light and dark precede sun and moon on the fourth day. It makes the story easier to remember and effectively demotes the sun and moon to just lights in the sky. That idea was quite revolutionary for the ancient world since so many cultures worshiped the sun and the moon.

I've no idea at this point whether God is where you get your truth or not so have to hope this means something to you. If not, then go ahead and stay committed to science, but it does cast doubt, as I said, on one's commitment to Loving Christ.

I disagree on that point, that science is merely studying and interpreting the world God has given us. The Bible's function isn't to tell us how the natural world works. It is to teach us how to treat other human beings, something science cannot do.

I'm not trying to do much, but give you the cards on the table at this point, because unless I can discuss actual scripture with you, the premise of your thread is simply "I love science and kind of love Jesus." "I love Jesus" means something or it doesn't. We have to be able to explain what we mean as well as discuss what we are doing because of that love. Love motivates. 1 John 4:20

Sorry, it's easy to pick up a no holds barred habit when arguing with half a dozen people at once.

I just said that. It is derivative AND interpretive knowledge. Most of science is, but things that you can see, feel, hear, smell, or taste, or at least perceive (like mathematics), then the verifiable nature of the science truth is always going to be in question. Further? That's a 'good' thing for science. It makes it have to be more and more sure by testing theory that isn't as solid.

Scientific knowledge is always subject to more testing and improvement.

My mother has cancer.

I'm sorry to hear that. I've had plenty of family members with cancer.

Chemo and radiation would kill her. A highly recognized doctor from UW agreed.

There are times when cancer treatment will actually make someone sicker with little chance of benefit. When I first read your statement I thought you were rejecting chemotherapy in general. I had a relative do this and take vitamin C injections for a cancer that should have been treatable, she unfortunately died far too early. I think chemotherapy of some time will always be the workhorse of cancer treatment, although some GE immune cells are starting to be used in some cases.

My grandmother went through radiation and chemo only to have the cancer reappear. The second round we chose not to treat and she had a healthy happy life for many years before the cancer finally took her.

In any case my apologies for that assumption and I wish you and your mother well.

 

[Alate_One]

Presumably, there is a number of studies at which point you will accept something. Do you know what that number is? Why don't you stick with critical thinking instead?

Any time a new ideas is published, I hesitate to accept the science until it has been repeated by another group. That's called scientific skepticism. It should be default posture in science. What is in scientific textbooks always comes from multiple papers. Humans can make mistakes so we wait for lots of independent confirmation before something is considered "settled".

You have no reason to assert that this structure is of any significance without the assumption that people and monkeys share a common ancestor.

Really the whole external ear is evidence of common ancestry. Our ears are monkey ears. Your argument boils down to a denial of mountains of evidence. Humans share countless features with the great apes, from grasping hands to forward facing eyes to dental formulae to genes etc. In any other group of organisms you'd posit hyperevolution and say we shared a common ancestor. (You believe housecats and lions share a common ancestor no?) But with humans it has to be ANYTHING other than common ancestry, it can't be that . . . :nono:

Because the gene sequence has a common function in the developmental stage of birds and marsupials. It's like how airplanes and cars both have wheels.

Marsupials don't lay eggs so . . . I'm not seeing how your analogies make sense. :idunno:

Darwinists used the term to mean "useless" and when their assertions are shown false, they redefine it.

Darwin himself may have asserted it meant "useless" but scientific ideas do change as we gain more information.

Just as a thought though . . . are nipples on male mammals useful?

 

[Stripe]

Any time a new ideas is published, I hesitate to accept the science until it has been repeated by another group. That's called scientific skepticism. It should be default posture in science. What is in scientific textbooks always comes from multiple papers. Humans can make mistakes so we wait for lots of independent confirmation before something is considered "settled".

Science is never settled.

Your argument boils down to a denial of mountains of evidence.

What argument? :idunno:

You assert common descent because of a bump on the ear on people and monkeys that you've decided is the same thing, sans any actual evidence.

Marsupials don't lay eggs.

Great. When you find someone who says that they do, you'll have a "gotcha."

Darwin himself may have asserted it meant "useless" but scientific ideas do change as we gain more information.

Do you intentionally miss the point every time?

 

[Yorzhik]

I thought this was the site connected with the paper? Perhaps I was wrong about that?

https://evoinfo.org/

Is that a question? That's embarrassing.

The reason you wouldn't know about a computer model for common descent, even if you were an evolutionary computer scientist, is because Ev failed so miserably and as far as I know no one can even speculate how to make a model work.

That's the reason you have to insist that biology is magic and it cannot be modeled. A logic step in understanding common descent would be to model it but since early models have failed so spectacularly the best argument to make now is the one you are making. Of course your rhetoric isn't going to use the word "magic", but that is what you are describing as to why computer models don't exist for common descent. Ev was made in the 00's, so perhaps you know of something more recent. Please let me know.

Homology now isn't just "looks" it is based on the developmental pathways that create it.

That would be great if common descentists would ignore looks these days and focus on the information that makes the looks. But they don't. It's not even what you lead with in your OP.

And that's for good reason. Developmental pathways are a big loser for common descent the more we understand it. It's precisely the reason "the third way" is becoming a thing. You can read one group's site here, and they have lots of credentials without any interest in religious or political views to support their assertion that "The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules."

But there's more. A view of nested hierarchy fits the structure of DNA information much better than mutation plus natural selection.

Have you ever read Endless forms most beautiful by Sean Caroll?

No, but I'll look it up. So far, books like "your inner fish" and Dawkin's books are weak.

Guess I don't know what an SJW is in this context.

It's just a parallel between you and another misguided group. Perhaps your support for failed ideas comes from the same pattern of thinking.

Just for clarity:

Common descent explains why mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA and ribosomes.
It explains the recurrent laryngeal nerve and why testicles in mammals have to descend.
It explains why the mammalian and bird heart has four chambers instead of just two.
It explains why animals and plants on islands are often unique and why invasive species from very distant places are so damaging.
It explains why hippos and cows have the highest similarity of DNA with whales over any other living mammal and why rats and mice have about the same amount of DNA differences.

What it doesn't explain is what ethical standards we should live by or the ultimate purpose of creation.

It doesn't explain any of those things, unless you call "just so" stories explanations. So many of the things you mention have glaring exceptions that are just explained away with the wave of a hand sans science.

I note you ignored my statement about the Big Bang theory. Is that because it doesn't fit with your paradigm?

Because the Big Bang has it's own problems and I wanted to keep the discussion on track.

Can't say I did.

It's much more well argued than anything I've read from Sean Carroll. But it would be outside your confirmation bias bubble so you better not read it.

So in that case it appears you do accept some evolution, just not common descent.

Of course. Since evolution just means "change", I don't think you'll find anyone that doesn't accept some evolution. I'm glad to see you might be joining the conversation - it's never been about evolution and only been about common descent.

If you cite Walt Brown's book, just understand I view his ideas as silly at best.

I think you view anyone's work on the flood as silly at best. That's why people can correctly say you live in a confirmation bias bubble.

 

[7djengo7]

Those listed features are the apomorphies (new features) of the listed group. But each group that follows from another group inherits those characteristics.

Again, one of your problems, here, is that the Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species taxonomy graphic you posted has not the slightest thing to do with the idea of something inheriting something from something, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of any group chronologically following/preceding any other group.

Humans inherited our hair and milk glands from our mammalian ancestors for example, and our grasping hands from primate ancestors.

Since you would say that humans are mammals, and that humans are primates, what you're telling me, here, is that mammals inherited something from mammals, and that primates inherited something from primates. But, what does that have to do with the Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species taxonomy graphic you posted, which has nothing to do with a progression of time--and thus, nothing to do with inheritance??

I mean he was a Young Earth creationist. He also lived long before Darwin.

And so, what was your purpose for mentioning Linnaeus where you mentioned him, and for pointing out that he was a YEC, and for pointing out that he lived long before Darwin?

From what would you say the kingdom, "animals", inherited its organisms' ability to move on their own?

From simple eukaryotic organisms that also move through the use of their cytoskeletal structures.

1. I suppose I should have been a little more specific in the wording of my question: From what taxon would you say the kingdom, "animals", inherited its organisms' ability to move on their own?
2. Do "simple eukaryotic organisms that also move through the use of their cytoskeletal structures" have the ability to move on their own, or do they not? If they don't, then how could animals have inherited the ability to move on their own from things that have no ability to move on their own? If they do, then why would you exclude them from the kingdom, "animals", and why would you say that the ability to move on their own is a (to use your phrase) "new feature" in the kingdom, "animals"?

 

[Alate_One]

Since you would say that humans are mammals,

Everyone says that humans are mammals.

and that humans are primates, what you're telling me, here, is that mammals inherited something from mammals, and that primates inherited something from primates.

A shared feature continues to be shared by the group it came from. Modern mammals inherited the trait from primitive mammals. Mammals share the feature of mammary glands, hair and a specialized inner ear and jaw structure.

But, what does that have to do with the Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species taxonomy graphic you posted, which has nothing to do with a progression of time--and thus, nothing to do with inheritance??

It doesn't directly touch on time but the pattern of nested features is one that is expected from inheritance, not from common design.

If you try to make a similar nested diagram with human made objects, it simply doesn't work because they don't follow the rules of inheritance.

And so, what was your purpose for mentioning Linnaeus where you mentioned him, and for pointing out that he was a YEC, and for pointing out that he lived long before Darwin?

He created the nested hierarchy of classification without any "bias" in the his work.

1. I suppose I should have been a little more specific in the wording of my question: From what taxon would you say the kingdom, "animals", inherited its organisms' ability to move on their own?
2. Do "simple eukaryotic organisms that also move through the use of their cytoskeletal structures" have the ability to move on their own, or do they not? If they don't, then how could animals have inherited the ability to move on their own from things that have no ability to move on their own? If they do, then why would you exclude them from the kingdom, "animals", and why would you say that the ability to move on their own is a (to use your phrase) "new feature" in the kingdom, "animals"?

Technically the simplest animals, sponges, don't move on their own except at the single celled stage. The next most complex animal, cniderians (ex Jellyfish), move relatively simply. So the figure glossed over this issue a little bit. And yes most single celled eukaryotic cells can move on their own.

 

[Stripe]

If you try to make a similar nested diagram with human made objects, it simply doesn't work because they don't follow the rules of inheritance.

Yes. That's why the periodic table was never created. lain:

DSTDT.

 

[Alate_One]

That's the reason you have to insist that biology is magic and it cannot be modeled.

I didn't say that biology is magic or can't be modeled. I said if you want to model it, you need to model the chemical basis, otherwise you will have to know everything about how it works in order to model it effectively. This is probably the reason previous models have failed. Partly because if you simplify it enough to make it into a model based on current computing capabilities, it probably won't work too well. That said, really simple models of natural selection work quite well.

Ev was made in the 00's, so perhaps you know of something more recent. Please let me know.

The Lenski lab at Michigan state had a digital evolution program but it appears that they dropped it since their long term evolution experiment (actual evolution) finally started yielding results.

That would be great if common descentists would ignore looks these days and focus on the information that makes the looks. But they don't. It's not even what you lead with in your OP.

It's hard to get people to wrap their minds around developmental pathways. "Looks" are easier.

And that's for good reason. Developmental pathways are a big loser for common descent the more we understand it.

Uhh not at all. Evo Devo it what explains how you can have animals with extremely similar DNA and yet have very different forms, because tiny changes in developmental pathways can make big differences in forms.

It's precisely the reason "the third way" is becoming a thing. You can read one group's site here, and they have lots of credentials without any interest in religious or political views to support their assertion that "The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules."

I dunno about it "becoming a thing", the most recent paper I found from the site doesn't seem to have generated a big splash.

But there's more. A view of nested hierarchy fits the structure of DNA information much better than mutation plus natural selection.

It still seems like an attempt to reframe existing data as meaning something else rather than a new theory that can make bold and useful predictions about the natural world.

No, but I'll look it up. So far, books like "your inner fish" and Dawkin's books are weak.

Dawkins is terrible IMO, though he had a decent model for eye evolution. He seems to have far too much insistence on his philosophy being right than just sticking to science. Your Inner Fish is mostly written for the layperson and doesn't really go into that much detail, plus it's a bit older and doesn't even cover Shubin's newer discoveries. To be fair Evo Devo is still quite a new science, I think it's quite unfair to reject it on the complaint that "it hasn't given us all the answers yet". :/

It doesn't explain any of those things, unless you call "just so" stories explanations. So many of the things you mention have glaring exceptions that are just explained away with the wave of a hand sans science.

Endosymbiosis is a very well supported property of living cells. Which part can be "explained away"? If they look like bacteria, act like bacteria, have genes like bacteria, why is it impossible that chloroplasts and mitochondria were once bacteria?

If they're all "just so stories", where is your explanation for them?

Of course. Since evolution just means "change", I don't think you'll find anyone that doesn't accept some evolution.

Well not since Darwin anyway. People originally believed species could not change and were created perfect. So really you just reject the *amount* of evolution you don't like.

I think you view anyone's work on the flood as silly at best. That's why people can correctly say you live in a confirmation bias bubble.

Considering I read through the history of scientific approaches to the Biblical flood and all of those early Christian geologists eventually rejected the concept of a Global flood based on the evidence they found. I had two copies of the Genesis Flood back in the day, and it sounded plausible, before I learned just a bit more about geology and biogeography.

In fact I'd recommend if you want to read any of the books I've mentioned, read The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence by Davis A. Young. I'd think that would be more useful for you, over Endless Forms most Beautiful.

 

[Alate_One]

Yes. That's why the periodic table was never created. lain:

DSTDT.

Huh? Were the elements all human created? Are they in a nested hierarchy? No.

They follow a regular pattern based on the number of protons in the nucleus combined with the number of electrons in the orbitals and what space there are in an orbital. It's just simple addition for the most part.

I believe this is the underlying order of the universe, but it doesn't look anything like a table of inheritance where features appear in one part of a tree of descent and are inherited by one specific subset but not in another. e.x. Birds having feathers, but not bats or snakes or vertebrates having a repeating internal skeleton while arthropods have an exoskeleton.

 

[6days]

Regardless there are a few vestigial structures in the anatomy of some organisms.

Alate… We were not discussing so called vestigial structures. The discussion was how the evidence often does not matter to evolutionists. They claimed a "useless" appendix (based on homology) was because evolution did it. Science has proved that the appendix is functional, so now evolutionists claim 'evolution did it'.

Obviously, if functionality...and non functionality are both claimed as evidence, then the evidence does not matter. Likewise, if sloppy design and superior design are used as evidence of common ancestry, it simply shows the nature of that non-falsifiable belief system.

Even if the study you cite is correct about the appendix, that doesn't refute common ancestry or evolution in general.

Of course... It doesn't matter how many studies correct false evolutionary beliefs; new explanations are devised to fit the common ancestry belief system. (Examples Junk DNA, pseudogenes, retroviruses, dimwitted inarticulate Neandertals, "simple" cells, backwards wired retina, numerous false claims about various 'hominids'..ETC).

BTW... your comments about 'darwins point' and other so called vestigial organs, is no different that the many other claims based on a priori beliefs, which have been proven false by science. We know from God's Word that humans are not descendants of non humans. We know from science that there are explanations other than common ancestry which better fit the evidence. Re. Darwins point...https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/d...e-for-common-ancestry-of-humans-with-monkeys/

 

[Alate_One]

Obviously, if functionality...and non functionality are both claimed as evidence, then the evidence does not matter. Likewise, if sloppy design and superior design are used as evidence of common ancestry, it simply shows the nature of that non-falsifiable belief system.

I already showed you several ways to falsify evolution. Small things like how XYZ organ originated don't falsify evolution any more than finding ancient copies of the gospels, for example, with minor textual differences "falsifies" them. In fact we would expect both things. Scientists are not perfect in figuring out all evolutionary processes, but the big picture remains. The theory of evolution in the abstract would predict several possibilities for any structure or feature:

1. It could be actively selected for, an essential or very helpful structure. (This can actually be detected by studying DNA that surrounds the sequence that creates the structure/feature)

2. It could be a structure that is somewhat helpful in some situations and thus isn't lost from the population.

3. It could be a structure that is a remnant of an earlier state that either no longer serves the same function or is somehow connected to an important function so it can't easily be lost.

4. The structure is actually not important and is in the process of being lost.

The theory doesn't tell you which of these options any particular structure is. The appendix being #4 is a hypothesis. Any of the other possibilities for the appendix are also hypotheses. I would argue to be really certain you'd need to find the DNA that controls the formation of the appendix and study it to look for evidence of purifying selection.

To falsify evolution as a whole (common ancestry and all) you'd need a very high level of evidence that somehow showed organisms hadn't evolved or didn't share a common ancestor. Some other kind of Theory that explains all the data better.

Of course... It doesn't matter how many studies correct false evolutionary beliefs; new explanations are devised to fit the common ancestry belief system. (Examples Junk DNA, pseudogenes, retroviruses, dimwitted inarticulate Neandertals, "simple" cells, backwards wired retina, numerous false claims about various 'hominids'..ETC).

That's what science does, it changes when new evidence emerges. Science is about fitting and explaining reality.

If it was purely a "belief system" it would insist on only one possible process like say . . . young earth creationism. Christianity in general would say, God created the earth, but we're not going to dictate how. YECs say this is how God must have created the earth, don't deviate from it. That is what makes YEC a belief system.

BTW... your comments about 'darwins point' and other so called vestigial organs, is no different that the many other claims based on a priori beliefs, which have been proven false by science. We know from God's Word that humans are not descendants of non humans. We know from science that there are explanations other than common ancestry which better fit the evidence. Re. Darwins point...https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/d...e-for-common-ancestry-of-humans-with-monkeys/

Re: your link. It's a fallacy to say "if chimpanzees don't have it then it can't be an ancestral trait we retain". This is totally wrong. We didn't evolve from chimpanzees, we share a common ancestor with them. It's already known that humans have more "primitive" hand shape than chimpanzees do. Chimpanzees have gone their own way from the common ancestral form. That means using them as a base for primitive ancestors is questionable at best.

Regardless, if you don't like Darwin's tubercle, there are dozens of other pieces of evidence to show humans are still primates and descend from them.

 

[Stripe]

It doesn't look anything like a table of inheritance where features appear in one part of a tree of descent and are inherited by one specific subset but not in another. e.x. Birds having feathers, but not bats or snakes or vertebrates having a repeating internal skeleton while arthropods have an exoskeleton.

And echolocation.

 

[6days]

I already showed you several ways to falsify evolution.

Metaphysical beliefs can't be falsified. Common ancestry is a metaphysical belief. The belief is not observable, testable, or repeatable. As Michael Ruse former zoology prof and ardent evolutionist said "Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

The theory of evolution in the abstract would predict...

Biblical creation would predict sophisticated function and design that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption. Geneticists continue to marvel at the sophistication on our genome.

That's what science does, it changes when new evidence emerges. Science is about fitting and explaining reality.

And that is exactly why common ancestry is not science... it is a non-falsifiable belief. It is like a dense fog that can cover any landscape. Functionality and non functionality are claimed as evidence. Homologous and analogous structures are claimed as evidence, as is good design and bad design.

Re: your link. It's a fallacy to say "if chimpanzees don't have it then it can't be an ancestral trait we retain".

Your zeal in defending evolution (slightly dishonestly) is noted. What the article actually says is "The first problem, a minor one, concerns a failed prediction. If Darwin’s tubercle were a homologue and an atavistic remnant of the pointy ears of monkeys, we should expect to find this structure in other apes, too, and especially in chimpanzees. The latter, of course, are claimed to be our closest relatives, and have rounded exterior ears similar to human".

Regardless, if you don't like Darwin's tubercle, there are dozens of other pieces of evidence to show humans are still primates and descend from them.

Fortunately science helps confirm the truth of scripture. God created man from the dust distinct from all other creatures, then woman was formed from mans side. Fortunately science continues disproving false evolutionary beliefs. Genetics shows it is impossible that 100 million beneficial mutations could occur and be constrained in 6 or 7 million years to evolve 'nearest common ancestor' into modern humans. That is why secular geneticists call it a paradox... They believe in spite of the evidence. As the Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made

 

[7djengo7]

Why are there more than two ellipses drawn on the shower head node marked "Kingdom", and "Animals"? It is utterly absurd to say that that node can branch in more ways than two. Read what is said to the right of the second shower head node from the bottom, marked "Phylum", and "Chordates": "Animals with a backbone". According to that, the node marked "Kingdom", and "Animals", branches in two, and only two, ways:

• Chordates: Animals with backbones
• Non-chordates: Animals without backbones

Five of the ellipses drawn on the node are meaningless, as two, alone, of the ellipses drawn on it already exhaust the logically conceivable (and actual) ways in which the node will branch. In other words, the one kingdom, "Animals"--where one of the phyla of which it consists is the phylum, "Chordates"--will consist of two, and only two, phyla: "Chordates" and "Non-chordates".

And, I would add, here, a mention, once again, that your picture in no way, shape, or form has anything, whatsoever, to do with inheritance. Not all diagrams consisting of nodes and branches have to do with inheritance, or biological descent, as does a pedigree--not even all biology diagrams.

 

[7djengo7]

Modern mammals inherited the trait from primitive mammals. Mammals share the feature of mammary glands, hair and a specialized inner ear and jaw structure.

From what did "primitive mammals" inherit the feature of mammary glands, hair and a specialized inner ear and jaw structure? From "even more primitive mammals"??

Technically the simplest animals, sponges, don't move on their own except at the single celled stage.

Thus you've just flatly contradicted what is expressly stated in your picture: that animals are "organisms able to move on their own". According to that definition of animals, a phrase such as "an animal unable to move on its own" is necessarily an oxymoron, and thus, meaningless. And, to say that a sponge is an animal is necessarily to say that a sponge is able to move on its own.

So the figure glossed over this issue a little bit.

In other words, the figure's designer was either unwilling to say/depict, or incapable of saying/depicting, what he/she meant.

And yes most single celled eukaryotic cells can move on their own.

So, according to what is stated in your picture--viz., that animals are "organisms able to move on their own"--you're telling us, here, that "yes most single celled eukaryotic cells [are animals]". And, by your word, "most", are you telling us, also, that some "single celled eukaryotic cells" are not animals?

From what did "most single celled eukaryotic cells" inherit their ability to move on their own?

 

[Alate_One]

Metaphysical beliefs can't be falsified. Common ancestry is a metaphysical belief. The belief is not observable, testable, or repeatable. As Michael Ruse former zoology prof and ardent evolutionist said "Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Okay and I should accept what this guy said why exactly? Evolution is a scientific theory, just like the Cell Theory, the Gene Theory and the Germ Theory of Disease.

And that is exactly why common ancestry is not science... it is a non-falsifiable belief. It is like a dense fog that can cover any landscape.

It cannot be falsified in actuality, because it is true. But you can falsify a particular aspect of the theory's predictions, as I mentioned in my earlier post with enough information you could decide if the Appendix has an important function or if it has simply been carried along through selection for some other function.

Would you consider the Cell Theory a belief system because it is not falsifiable in actuality?

Functionality and non functionality are claimed as evidence. Homologous and analogous structures are claimed as evidence, as is good design and bad design.

You just did the same thing with your creation "theory", claimed both good and bad aspects of the genome as being the products of creation. Anything that's found in the genome can be claimed as "good creation" or "corrupted creation". Of course when a new function is found that seems to be made of "corruption" what do you do?

Analysis of the structures of the human amylase genes has demonstrated that this multigene family contains at least five tandem gene copies, closely related in sequence but with distinct tissue specific expression. The structures of the genes demonstrate that the human salivary amylase gene was derived from a preexisting pancreatic amylase gene. Insertion of a retrovirus upstream of the amylase gene is responsible for the alteration in tissue specificity. A parotid specific enhancer has been identified within the retrovirus by expression studies in transgenic mice. The independent origin of salivary amylase in rodents and primates suggests that there has been strong evolutionary selection for amylase in saliva. The amylase genes demonstrate a novel mechanism for evolution of new patterns of tissue specific gene expression.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7690604

Genetics shows it is impossible that 100 million beneficial mutations could occur and be constrained in 6 or 7 million years to evolve 'nearest common ancestor' into modern humans.

I don't know of any genetics professor or paper that says that. 100 million beneficial mutations seems extreme as well. The genetic basis of the difference between humans and other apes is quite small.

That is why secular geneticists call it a paradox... They believe in spite of the evidence. As the Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made

I believe we are fearfully and wonderfully made, through the amazing process and historical events that were ordained by God to bring us to where we are now.

 

[Stripe]

Okay and I should accept what this guy said why exactly?

You shouldn't accept what he says. You should look at the evidence and show us why what he says cannot be true.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

If only you would stop presenting it as fact.

It cannot be falsified in actuality.

Which is a statement of faith.

You can falsify a particular aspect of the theory's predictions.

:AMR:

Every time this happens, the confidence in the theory should decrease.

With enough information you could decide if the Appendix has an important function or if it has simply been carried along through selection for some other function.

We already know it has function. :up:

Would you consider the Cell Theory a belief system because it is not falsifiable in actuality?

Cell theory is tautologously true. It simply states that organisms are made of cells, while cells are defined as the basic building blocks of life. The theory is a historic idea that predates our capacity to see cells directly. It's not now a theory that organisms are comprised of cells: It's a fact.

So it seems that you're attempting to carry your ideas to a higher echelon on the coattails of something entirely different, although it uses a word to your advantage. Hint: Random mutations and natural selection have not been observed generating new "kinds."

You just did the same thing with your creation "theory", claimed both good and bad aspects of the genome as being the products of creation. Anything that's found in the genome can be claimed as "good creation" or "corrupted creation".

Except we don't assume the truth of our ideas. Ie, we don't assert "new function" following "mutation." We use the universal "function" following "adaptation." Also, we don't use function as evidence, as the Darwinists do.

Of course when a new function is found that seems to be made of "corruption" what do you do?

Look at the evidence. :up:

The genetic basis of the difference between humans and other apes is quite small.

:rotfl:

I believe we are ... made, through the amazing process and historical events that were ordained by God to bring us to where we are now.

You can believe what you like, just don't pretend it's compatible with the biblical account.

 

[Alate_One]

And echolocation.

And non-sequitur . . .

Regardless, humans can do it too. It's likely a common pathway that can be exploited and improved in mammals.

 

[Stripe]

And non-sequitur . . .

And yet you understood enough to respond. :idunno:

Humans can do it too.

Do we have the same genetic backing for the ability that bats and dolphins do?

It's likely a common pathway that can be exploited and improved in mammals.

That's called assuming the truth of what's being challenged to answer the challenge.

It's impossible to generate informed function through random mutations and natural selection. Asserting that echolocation arose numerous times doesn't deflect the challenge, although you've distracted from it.

You assert that there is "a table of inheritance where features appear in one part of a tree of descent and are inherited by one specific subset but not in another," but there are vastly more examples that contradict your assertion than affirm it.

What you did was special pleading. "Birds have feathers, but not bats," but echolocation in bats and dolphins is a "non sequitur."

It's time to retract at least one of your fallacious assertions.

 

[6days]

Evolution is a scientific theory....

The change in gene frequency resulting in adaptation caused by mutations, drift and selection is observational science consistent with God's Word... a perfect creation corrupted by several thousand years of mutations.
Common ancestry is a non falsifiable belief. The belief is not observable, testable, or repeatable.

as I mentioned in my earlier post with enough information you could decide if the Appendix has an important function or if it has simply been carried along through selection for some other function

Or...you could accept the evidence that in six days God created the heavens, the earth and everything in them, and that, that creation has been subjected to several thousand years of mutations. Science helps confirm the truth of Scripture... and helps dispel false evolutionary beliefs
Our appendix seems to...
- Assist in production of antibodies boosting our immune system.
- produce molecules "that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body”
- Also... Interesting as that people without an appendix are more likely to have reoccurrence of a common hospital infection. https://evolutionnews.org/2012/06/the_useless_app_1/

* Note... There are many people who have had severe problems with their appendix. It has nothing to do with common ancestry. We have evidence that fits the biblical model... Our appendix was created with design and purpose. Our appendix (like the rest of our bodies) has suffered the effects of the fall (sin), and several thousand years of mutations corrupting a good creation.

You just did the same thing with your creation "theory", claimed both good and bad aspects of the genome as being the products of creation.

God's Word is not a theory and neither is Biblical creation. Science helps confirm we live in a perfectly designed world that has been subjected to several thousand years of 'groaning'. Romans 8

I don't know of any genetics professor or paper that says that. 100 million beneficial mutations seems extreme as well. The genetic basis of the difference between humans and other apes is quite small.

Of course no geneticist claims that, because it is pseudoscience. And yet secularists believe in spite of the evidence.
Genetic research shows the folly of ape to man 'uphill' evolution. Our genome contains about 3 billion base pairs of DNA So...the question is how much difference is there between us and chimps? And, can evolution (mutations and selection) bridge the gap in a span of 7 million years?
First… The common belief, at least until recently, who was that chimpanzees were 98% genetically similar to humans. If true that would mean we are 60 million base pairs different between us and chimps. Newer research reveals the number is likely greater than 300 million base pairs difference. (Previous research / estimates did not include the entire genome and ignored differences where complete sequences in one organism existed and not in the other). But for argument's sake, let's go with just 60 million base pair difference.
Can mutations and selection (evolution) produce 60 million base pairs difference in the span of just seven million years? Absolutely not! We have about 70 nucleotide mutations added to our genome with each generation. Geneticists consider virtually all of these to be VSDM's…very slightly deleterious mutations. (In the past they were thought to be neutral). Of the 70 or so mutations added to our genome each generation, a couple might be deleterious and the rest slightly deleterious or near neutral. These mutations accumulate in our genome usually with no noticeable effect. But some geneticists have referred to this as the human time bomb. The slightly deleterious mutations accumulate to cause future genetic problems.
The next question becomes …can favorable mutations cause the necessary changes. NO! Favorable mutations are rare. (There may be one so called beneficial mutation to 100000 slightly deleterious mutations) . It is impossible for natural selection to detect and prevent the slightly deleterious mutations from accumulating, so it is equally difficult / impossible for selection to detect a slightly favorable mutation.
But for argument's sake, let's imagine against the evidence that the 70 new mutations added to our genome each generation are all favorable and constrained. Can 70 beneficial mutations added to our genome each generation, account for the 300 million base-pair difference between us and chimps? Absolutely not! If there was 30,000 Generations and 70 nucleotide mutations every generation that were beneficial….. we are nowhere close to the 300 million base-pair difference.
The ape to man belief system is like an adult fairy tale that contradicts God's Word. The belief exists in spite of the evidence. Believers rely on rescue devices such as quasi-truncation, antagonistic epistasis, multiplicative model, synergistic epistasis and others.

It is exciting as Science helps confirm the truth of Scripture...a perfect creation subjected to several thousand years of corruption. Science helps confirm the foundation of the Gospel (And the purpose of the cross)in that death entered our world from first Adam's sin...necessitating Last Adam for our salvation. Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15