The Missing Links in the Fossil Record

[iouae]

If your God is not complete within himself then his authority is diminished. If your god is ever learning, then he is not all-knowing.

Some folks use 1 John 3:20 to "prove" that God knows everything.
1 John 3:20
For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things

But they should read 1 John 2:20 which by the same logic "proves" that we know everything.
1 John 2:20
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

I think its a terrible comfort blanket which religious types cling to believing God knows everything, including the future. This is pure nonsense.

It is only when we are prepared to entertain the idea that God knows a lot, but not everything (like the future) that one can begin to understand what God has been doing on earth for the last 13.75 billion years.

If folks are not prepared to entertain the idea that God is not omniscient, then certain mysteries will always remain mysteries to them, including what on earth God has been doing.

 

[Jonahdog]

Some folks use 1 John 3:20 to "prove" that God knows everything.
1 John 3:20
For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things

But they should read 1 John 2:20 which by the same logic "proves" that we know everything.
1 John 2:20
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

I think its a terrible comfort blanket which religious types cling to believing God knows everything, including the future. This is pure nonsense.

It is only when we are prepared to entertain the idea that God knows a lot, but not everything (like the future) that one can begin to understand what God has been doing on earth for the last 13.75 billion years.

If folks are not prepared to entertain the idea that God is not omniscient, then certain mysteries will always remain mysteries to them, including what on earth God has been doing.

One would think that god would make his writing a bit clearer. Instead, the Bible makes it easy for Christians to dispute theology.

 

[iouae]

One would think that god would make his writing a bit clearer. Instead, the Bible makes it easy for Christians to dispute theology.

When Christ walked on earth and told parables, half the time even His own disciples did not know what He meant. And when He told the crowd that they would have to eat Him, He lost a lot of fans. John 6:66

 

[Jonahdog]

When Christ walked on earth and told parables, half the time even His own disciples did not know what He meant. And when He told the crowd that they would have to eat Him, He lost a lot of fans. John 6:66

Yep, I understand that. Just emphasizes my point.

 

[iouae]

Yep, I understand that. Just emphasizes my point.

You would think that the fossil record tells a story.

But look how many interpretations there are concerning the record in the rocks.

Some see evolution. I see ongoing creation. I see God as the great Scientist creating and then trying out different plants and animals, to see how well they work. Do they function as predicted?

I see God tweeking different hominids, finally being satisfied with Homo sapiens to bear His image.

 

[The Barbarian]

You would think that the fossil record tells a story.

See above. Even an honest YE creationist admits that it does.

But look how many interpretations there are concerning the record in the rocks.

There's just one among people who are familiar with the fossil record. There are always differences in the details, of course. Would you let an atheist tell you that because there are scores of Christian interpretations of scripture, it meant God doesn't exist?

Some see evolution. I see ongoing creation.

Most Christians realize it's the same thing.

I see God as the great Scientist

I realize you don't mean it that way, but it's an insult to God.

creating and then trying out different plants and animals, to see how well they work. Do they function as predicted?

That's why it's insulting to God. God is omniscient, and doesn't make mistakes. If He is not, none of His promises to us are worth any more than a man's promises.

I see God tweeking different hominids, finally being satisfied with Homo sapiens to bear His image.

Here's a hint: Engineers are starting to use evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too complex for design. Turns out, evolution is more efficient than design for things like that.

God knew best, as usual.

 

[iouae]

That's why it's insulting to God. God is omniscient, and doesn't make mistakes. If He is not, none of His promises to us are worth any more than a man's promises.

I have great faith in God's ability to fulfil His promises. God never promises more than He can deliver.

Terms like omniscient and omnipotent are meaningless since they are not Biblical.
In fact they are just slogans.

God has the power to deliver on what He promises, not because He knows the future, but because He has the means to make what He promises, come about.

I know many respected televangelists who tell the crowds that God knows everything that you and I will ever do, even before we were born. They are mistaken. But it gives the congregants great (false) cheer. Whereas I derive great cheer from knowing that WHATEVER the future throws at us, God is equal to it.

BTW you have not proved God is omniscient. But when you lose that mistaken notion, many truths in the Bible and in the rocks make perfect sense.

 

[6days]

Engineers are starting to use evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too complex for design. Turns out, evolution is more efficient than design for things like that.

That is a dishonest argument. Some engineers intelligently design computer programs, programming in certain perameters. Don't be fooled just because they use they use the word 'evolution'. Algorithims are nothing like the downhill process of mutations and selection.

 

[6days]

No one is going to breed dogs long enough to produce another species.

But what if you did have a lot of time. A reallly reallly looong time---millions of years?

The answer is simple Jonah. Ask any breeder, and you will be told that artificial selection, like natural selection, causes a loss of variation. Purebred dogs often suffer from genetic problems and have shorter lives than mongrels. Selection eliminates.


Adding time as you suggest to mutations and selection, means that genetic load increases. (Moving populations closer to extinction). Secular geneticists are unable to explain how we have survived such a high mutation rate, in the looong timelines they believe in. (They create models trying to explain away the obvious... synergystic epistais, multiplicative model, additive model)


However, the evidence is consistent with perfect genomes that have been subjected to corruption.

 

[Hawkins]

My question is rather the missing links of what? The missing links of interbreeding?


Live example,

Liger is a result of tiger mating with lion. Liger may go back and forth to any cats to give other species. So after a million years, you've got the fossil of a liger, how can you tell that whether it is evolved from a tiger, or it is a hybrid of both the tiger and the lion, and back and forth with all other cats?

 

[Jonahdog]

The answer is simple Jonah. Ask any breeder, and you will be told that artificial selection, like natural selection, causes a loss of variation. Purebred dogs often suffer from genetic problems and have shorter lives than mongrels. Selection eliminates.


Adding time as you suggest to mutations and selection, means that genetic load increases. (Moving populations closer to extinction). Secular geneticists are unable to explain how we have survived such a high mutation rate, in the looong timelines they believe in. (They create models trying to explain away the obvious... synergystic epistais, multiplicative model, additive model)


However, the evidence is consistent with perfect genomes that have been subjected to corruption.

Does time+mutation+selection = increased genetic load on all living creatures?

 

[6days]

Does time+mutation+selection = increased genetic load on all living creatures?

Hmmmm.... Interesting question. Perhaps load would not increase in an organism such as bacteria that has a high enough reproductive rate to overcome a high mutation rate.
As to other creatures, the answer would likely be yes. Certainly all primates have increasing genetic load, and that seems to apply to all mammals as well.

 

[Jonahdog]

Hmmmm.... Interesting question. Perhaps load would not increase in an organism such as bacteria that has a high enough reproductive rate to overcome a high mutation rate.
As to other creatures, the answer would likely be yes. Certainly all primates have increasing genetic load, and that seems to apply to all mammals as well.

Not sure why high reproductive rate would overcome a high mutation rate. Seems to me would just make it worse. Plus most, but not all, bacterial reproduction is asexual so you dont get any benefit from adding unmutated genes.

In any event. If time+mutation+natural selection leads to decreasing fitness, in mammals especially, why do we still have rats and mice?

 

[6days]

Not sure why high reproductive rate would overcome a high mutation rate.

If selection actually was going to detect and remove all deleterious mutations, and VSDM's, you would need a reproductive rate greater than the mutation rate. Another way of explaining this... For the past 70 years or so, geneticists understand that if a population has just one deleterious mution, per person, per generation, then genetic load increases. This ia true because natural selection would need remove mutations as fast as they occur. So... back to your question... if the mutation rate is 1 or greater per person per generation then genetic load increases, moving a population closer to extinction.

Plus most, but not all, bacterial reproduction is asexual so you dont get any benefit from adding unmutated genes

Bacteria have unique ways of survival and exchanging genetic informatiin. We need bacteria in order that life can exist on earth. We need them to be able to adapt quickly to changing environments. Most bacteria on earth is still beneficial but there are some who have mutated and become harmful.

In any event. If time+mutation+natural selection leads to decreasing fitness, in mammals especially, why do we still have rats and mice?

Geniticists have also asked that about humans..why do we still have humans. Our high mutation rate and low reproductive rate is not consistent with vast time periods.


Re. your question about rats and mice - they have a much higher reproductive rate than humans; I think our rate is about 1.5 per person and each of us is born with about 100 new mutations, (possibly much higher) over the thousands we inherit from our parents.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Engineers are starting to use evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too complex for design. Turns out, evolution is more efficient than design for things like that.

That is a dishonest argument. Some engineers intelligently design computer programs, programming in certain perameters.

If you think so, you have no idea how it works. Most of the time, the engineers don't even know for sure why the optimum solution works the way it does. You see, they only specify the result they want, and let natural selection and random mutation work out the most efficient way.

As you see, God chose the most efficient method. Why wouldn't he?

Don't be fooled just because they use they use the word 'evolution'. Algorithims are nothing like the downhill process of mutations and selection.

As you learned earlier, even many creationists admit that random mutation and natural selection increase fitness in a population. Scientists are just copying nature to do things that are too complex to solve by design.

 

[iouae]

I wrote, "God is a scientist" to which you replied...

I realize you don't mean it that way, but it's an insult to God....

That's why it's insulting to God. God is omniscient, and doesn't make mistakes. If He is not, none of His promises to us are worth any more than a man's promises.

Gen 18:20
And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen 18:21
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

The above two verses show that God is neither omniscient, nor omnipresent.

If He were omnipresent, God would not have to "go down".
If He were omniscient, He would already know, without having to go down.

 

[6days]

You see, they (algorithms) only specify the result they want, and let natural selection and random mutation work out the most efficient way.

Common ancestry/ "evolution" does not specify a certain result. Your analogy was dishonest.

As you see, God chose the most efficient method. Why wouldn't he?

Correct. He tells us about this in Ex. 20:11, Psalm 33:9 etc.

Scientists are just copying nature to do things that are too complex to solve by design.

Yes... scientists and engineers often do try copy God's design. https://youtu.be/Mz4SOY4Vw1U

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian points out a misunderstanding:
You see, they (algorithms) only specify the result they want, and let natural selection and random mutation work out the most efficient way.

Common ancestry/ "evolution" does not specify a certain result.

You have that wrong, too. Survival long enough to reproduce.

Your excuse was based on ignorance.

Barbarian explains why God used evolution.
As you see, God chose the most efficient method. Why wouldn't he?

Correct.

Barbarian explains why engineers copy evolution:
Scientists are just copying nature to do things that are too complex to solve by design.

Yes... scientists and engineers often do try copy God's design.

It is blasphemous to claim that God must "design" like a limited creature.

 

[6days]

You have that wrong, too. Survival long enough to reproduce.

You have that wrong, too... unless you are referring to evolutionism. Natural selection and mutations do not "specify a certain result"... That is why your analogy to algorithms was dishonest.

It is blasphemous to claim that God must "design" like a limited creature.

Sure... God has designed things far superior to what "limited creatures" are capable of. Scientists and engineers often try copy God's design. As Bill Gates said our DNA is superior to any man made software.

 

[The Barbarian]

You have that wrong, too... unless you are referring to evolutionism.

Perhaps you don't know what the word means. "Evolutionism" is the collection of weird ideas creationists have about science.

Natural selection and mutations "specify a certain result"; survival long enough to reproduce. That is why the analogy of genetic algorithms works. If it didn't specify a result, engineers wouldn't use it. They just write their programs to define "survive" as whatever result they want.

Barbarian observes:
People who refer to God "designing" are unaware of His nature as Creator. It is blasphemous to claim that God must "design" like a limited creature.

Scientists and engineers often try copy God's design.

Creation. God is the omnipotent Creator, not some little nature deity who was created. Engineers copy evolution for one reason; it works. And it's more efficient than design for complicated problems. You see, God is a lot smarter than creationists are willing to let Him be.

As Bill Gates said our DNA is superior to any man made software.

It was evolved, after all, not designed. God's got it right, once again.