Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[TOG]

Evolution isn't just about change. It's about change from one species into another. (It's also about change from one genus to another, one order to another and so on, but I'll go easy on you evolutionists and stick to species). To determine whether evolution is true, we must be able to determine whether one species can change into another and whether this has actually happened. To determine that, we need an objective definition of the word "species". It seems to me that the definitions (there are many) of that term are used very subjectively. One definition, put into layman's terms, is "if it looks sufficiently different, it's a different species". Now, People might justify this by saying that no one definition could apply to all the different species in the world, and they would be right. It would be hard to find a definition that could apply both to species that reproduce sexually, such as most plants and animals, and also to species that reproduce asexually, such as many single-celled organisms. Since that is the case, I would like to put a limit on the challenge I'm about to make. Let us limit ourselves to plants and animals who's only method of reproduction is sexual (there are some that can reproduce either sexually or asexually). With that limit, this should be easy. Here's the challenge.

I would like to ask the evolutionists here on the forum to provide us with a single objective definition of the word "species" that can be applied to the afore mentioned group, and then stick to that definition while trying to support your theory. The reason I am asking this is simple. It is my belief that a subjective definition, in fact, many subjective definitions, are needed to make the theory work. If evolutionists are required to be objective (which is required of all true scientists), their theory will fall apart.

Any takers?

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

Sorry I didn't mean to start going so far off topic.

What I have observed about evolution and the way people think the way they may think about it is....most of the scientist that believe in evolution do not believe in God. Remember I said most and not all. If this is true then I can see how it would be difficult for a Christian to believe what the scientist are saying who don't believe that God is the creator. If someone ask me to prove to them how evolution is false then I couldn't do it because I don't know enough about it one way or the other. I just believe God is the creator, but I can't explain the mechanism he used to do it.

You couldn't do it because the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable. Part of that is the subjective definition of the word "species". You can't very well prove that one species can't change into another when the definition can change 5 times in a single sentence.

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Sorry I didn't mean to start going so far off topic.

What I have observed about evolution and the way people think the way they may think about it is....most of the scientist that believe in evolution do not believe in God. Remember I said most and not all. If this is true then I can see how it would be difficult for a Christian to believe what the scientist are saying who don't believe that God is the creator. If someone ask me to prove to them how evolution is false then I couldn't do it because I don't know enough about it one way or the other. I just believe God is the creator, but I can't explain the mechanism he used to do it.

An honest and refreshing answer. We all believe that God is the creator here, we just have differences on the mechanism.

 

[turnorburn]

To Doulos lesou.. have you ever been a drunk..

tob

 

[Doulos Iesou]

To Doulos lesou.. have you ever been a drunk..

tob

No my alcoholic brother drank enough for the both of us, I only drink wine and in moderation. I definitely have had an intimate experience with the power of the addiction that is alcohol dependency. I don't rely on my personal experience either, the science backs up everything I have said.

 

[turnorburn]

Faith in God backs up everything i say..

tob

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Faith in God backs up everything i say..

tob

I was talking about everything I said about alcoholism, but I see how you took advantage of that opportunity to demonstrate your spiritual arrogance.

 

[turnorburn]

Science isn't faith based Christianity is that's how i base my life before it was different science needs proof same statement you'll here from an atheist. Is it arrogant in your opinion to base your everything you do on faith..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps you're not familiar with what a theory is in science. Learn about it here:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

That's exactly what I said.

No. You seem to be unfamiliar with the process of verification that is essential to theories.

Barbarian observes:

Hence, one can test Darwin's theory by his predictions, such as:
"There should be fossils of whales with functional legs."
"There should be fossils of fish with functional legs."
"There should be fossils of transitionals between birds and dinosaurs, but not birds and mammals."
"A population moving into a new environment will change over time to become more fit in that environment."
"Humans will be found to have first appeared in Africa."​

You seem to totally misunderstand the theory of evolution.

I've spent a lifetime studying biology. I've read Darwin's works on the subject. I've taken various courses in evolutionary theory. I know the four points of Darwin's theory, and the modifications of that theory through genetics to that produced the modern synthesis. I've taught the theory, and I produced several mathematical models to demonstrate the process.

What do you bring to the discussion?

The theory is not that there should be fossils of various kinds.

If the theory is true, the fossil record should show all those things, as Darwin, Huxley, and others predicted, based on Darwin's theory of natural selection. And, as you know, those predictions have later been verified. Hypotheses which have been tested and verified in this manner are theories.

In fact, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils.

No, that's wrong. Indeed, Darwin formulated his theory to a great degree, from his studies of fossils. You might do a lot better, if you read his books, particularly The Voyage of the Beagle and The Origin of Species.

These remains can be interpreted in a number of ways. They can be interpreted to support evolution, but they can also be interpreted to support creation.

Creation, but not creationism. For example, the transitionals between dinosaurs and birds can only be interpreted as intermediates between the two groups. The fact that birds are genetically closest to reptiles, and dinosaur heme is closest to bird heme further confirms this. But that's just the start. Scutes (a form of scale found in dinosaurs and birds) can be induced to form feathers. The flow-through ventilation system of birds first existed in dinosaurs. Many of the structures of birds were first formed in dinosaurs. Wings were initially formed as aids in bipedal dinosaurs, to control movement while running. There's a lot more, none of which is consistent with creationism.

What the theory of evolution is really about is change. But not just any change.

Specifically, a change in allele frequencies in populations of living things.

We all know that things change and that different species adapt to changes in their environment in various ways.

We also know that new species evolve.

That's not being debated. According to the theory of evolution, these minor changes can accumulate over time to such an extent that a new species, genus, family, order or even higher classifications can arise.

Most creationists now admit that new species, genera, and families evolve. They can hardly deny it, given the evidence, and their need to explain how the Ark might have carried all those animals.

While evolution does predict that certain fossils should exist, other explanations predict the exact same thing.

No, that's wrong. Creationists ridiculed the idea of walking whales. Indeed, I watched a presentation by one creationist who mocked the idea of whales with legs, and who declared that a whale with legs would make him "become an evolutionist." He had to do a lot of fast talking when they were found.

You need more than just fossils to test evolution.

As you learned, the fossils predicted by evolution were later found. But that's not nearly as impressive as the fact that transitionals that should not exist according to the theory, are never found. And of course the genetic, biochemical, anatomical and other data also support evolution, but not creationism.

You need to actually observe a new species coming into being.

The rate of directly observed speciations is more than enough to account for the change in species over the ages. I gave you some examples.

Because of the time involved (millions of years) this can never be done.

Scientists used to think so, but now we have a good number of such examples. Would you like to learn about some more? And keep in mind, these are only the ones we happened to be watching at the right time.

Another thing you need to be able to test this theory is an objective definition of the terms used.

In sexually-reproducing organisms, it's "a population of interbreeding organisms." It works very well. Of course, there are half-way species, quarter-way species, and so on. That is one of the most damaging facts for creationists. If there were no speciations, you would not see the intermediate stages at all, and of course you would never see a speciation event. But we do.

Barbarian observes:
The first directly observed case was about 1914. O. gigas from O. lamarckania, but a polyploidy event. D. miranda was another example of an observed new species.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of information about this on the Internet. What I was able to find was that this mutant was the result of chromosome doubling.

That's what "polyploidy" means. It's rather common in nature. It's rare in vertebrates, but there is one known example of polyploidy in a rodent, which formed a new species.

I've heard of this happening a number of times in plants (never heard of it in animals, though).

Tympanoctomys barrerae, a South American rodent, is a polyploid species, which evolved from Octomys mimax. There are also a good number of fish and amphibian species that show such changes. In some mammalian species, aneuploidy has led to mating isolation.

One example is maize (aka "corn"). While it is indeed a different species than it's ancestor from which it doubled it's chromosomes, it is totally incapable of reproducing without human intervention. That may work in a field, but it won't work in nature and can't be used to support evolution.

Polyploidy speciations of wild plants are rather common. About half of all angiosperm species seem to have evolved this way.

Mutants form all the time and mutants die all the time. What you need to test evolution is a viable species.

I showed you some just a bit ago. Would you like to see some more?

It also has to arise without human intervention.

See above.

 

[Barbarian]

What I have observed about evolution and the way people think the way they may think about it is....most of the scientist that believe in evolution do not believe in God. Remember I said most and not all. If this is true then I can see how it would be difficult for a Christian to believe what the scientist are saying who don't believe that God is the creator. If someone ask me to prove to them how evolution is false then I couldn't do it because I don't know enough about it one way or the other. I just believe God is the creator, but I can't explain the mechanism he used to do it.

I don't understand why anyone would object if God brought life forth from the earth, rather than ex nihilo, as creationists would prefer. Why wouldn't He use nature? He made it for His purposes.

 

[TOG]

I don't understand why anyone would object if God brought life forth from the earth, rather than ex nihilo, as creationists would prefer. Why wouldn't He use nature? He made it for His purposes.

Why would He waste billions of years when He could do it in 6 days?

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Why would He waste six days, when He could do it instantly? Do you really think that a million years is more of a problem for God than six days? This illustrates why making up new doctrines takes people into all sorts of unnecessary excuses and new man-made doctrines to cover for the older man-made doctrines.

Just let Him be God and do it His way.

 

[turnorburn]

the morning and the evening to define a day aren't new doctrines..

tob

 

[TOG]

Barbarian,

You have, on a number of occasions in this thread, demanded that I provide sources for my claims. Yet, you yourself provide none for your claims. You expect me to spend time googling or looking things up on Wikipedia or other places to find either confirmation or refutation of the things you say. I'm not doing that any more for you. If you don't provide sources for your claims, I will assume you don't have any, but have only believed what you have been told, as you once said of me. Your last response to me, as long as it was, contained no sources for your claims. I will therefore not respond to those claims. There is one thing, though, that I want to respond to because A) It doesn't require a source and B) It's a response to a challenge I made. You may recall from another thread that I said I had a challenge in mind for evolutionists. Well, this is it.

To determine whether evolution is true, we must be able to determine whether one species can change into another and whether this has actually happened. To determine that, we need an objective definition of the word "species". (snip) It would be hard to find a definition that could apply both to species that reproduce sexually, such as most plants and animals, and also to species that reproduce asexually, such as many single-celled organisms. Since that is the case, I would like to put a limit on the challenge I'm about to make. Let us limit ourselves to plants and animals who's only method of reproduction is sexual. (snip)
I would like to ask the evolutionists here on the forum to provide us with a single objective definition of the word "species" that can be applied to the afore mentioned group, and then stick to that definition while trying to support your theory.

In sexually-reproducing organisms, it's "a population of interbreeding organisms."

I believe I know what you mean by this, but I would like you to clarify it for me so I can be sure I'm not misinterpreting or misrepresenting what you've said. What exactly do you mean by "interbreeding organisms"? Does that mean only a group of individuals that actually do interbreed with each other, or does it also include groups of individuals that could interbreed with each other, if certain hindrances, such as geography were removed? Also, how would this apply to groups taht can not interbreed with each other, but can both interbreed with the same different group. I.e. A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, but A can not interbreed with C. Would A and C then be different species, or would their common connection with B make them the same species.

I believe my challenge will work whatever your answer is, but I want to be clear on it before continuing.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Part of that is the subjective definition of the word "species". You can't very well prove that one species can't change into another when the definition can change 5 times in a single sentence.

The definition for "species" is "population of interbreeding organisms." Of course, asexually-reproducing organisms cannot be so assigned. And because evolution is a fact, we have lots of cases of half-way species, which would never exist if creationism were true. If creationism were true, there would be hard, definable species with no in-between cases. Many creationists avoid this problem by admitting that new species and even higher taxa evolve. This also eliminates the problem of how all the animals got fitted into the Ark; they just evolved a lot, really, really, really fast, after the flood, the creationists say.

They don't explain how, of course.

Because of lateral gene transfer in bacteria, and because they reproduce asexually, a species definition is problematic. However, it's not impossible.

A phylogenomic approach can describe species. My ancient edition of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology (1978) merely notes that bacteriologists then assigned species as a convenience in classification, with only higher taxa considered to indicate phylogenetic ranking. The development of phylogenomics is allowing a better view of the taxonomic relationships between the Eubacteria and the Archaea.

 

[Barbarian]

the morning and the evening to define a day aren't new doctrines..

But a morning and an evening without a sun is certainly a new doctrine, which is one of the reasons that people who accept the Bible as it is, don't think that the "days" of Genesis are literal days. God is powerful, but He's not deceptive, and He's not logically absurd.

 

[TOG]

Why would He waste six days, when He could do it instantly?

Precisely! He could have done it in a millisecond if He had chosen to do so. All that shows is that your question (you asked it first) "why would He do it this way instead of that way" doesn't actually support any view, neither a literal 6 day creation nor evolution over billions of years. The fact is that, whatever time He actually took, He decided to reveal it to us as a series of days. If that's what He said, why would we doubt Him?

The TOG​

 

[turnorburn]

What do you mean no sun

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Science isn't faith based Christianity is that's how i base my life before it was different science needs proof same statement you'll here from an atheist. Is it arrogant in your opinion to base your everything you do on faith..

tob

You've ignored the context of my statement, I said that I could back up anything that I said regarding alcoholism with science. That doesn't mean I live my life totally based on science, I am not a logical positivist.

I believe there are many ways to obtain knowledge, which include reason, empiricism and even faith.

I don't see the reason for you to say, "faith in God backs up everything I say," and create a misconception that I am supporting science only, and you faith only. It's an irrelevant statement that was only for you to exalt your own spiritual ego.

 

[Barbarian]

You have, on a number of occasions in this thread, demanded that I provide sources for my claims. Yet, you yourself provide none for your claims.

I have lavishly cited sources and information. Notice on the creationist side, we're still waiting for that evidence that fossils of Hyracotherium and Equus can be found in the same strata. You might want to do that, if you're interested in documenting claims.

You expect me to spend time googling or looking things up on Wikipedia or other places to find either confirmation or refutation of the things you say.

I do assume a certain amount of knowledge on the part of anyone holding forth on biological science. If I've assumed too much in any particular case, just ask, and I'll provide the additional information you need, just as I did in the case of the claim of Hyracotherium and Equus. However, I promise I will actually deliver on the request.

I'm not doing that any more for you. If you don't provide sources for your claims, I will assume you don't have any, but have only believed what you have been told, as you once said of me. Your last response to me, as long as it was, contained no sources for your claims.

Feel free to challenge any of them. I wouldn't say it, if I couldn't back it up. For example, Darwin's excavation of the fossils of Megatherium in South America, got him thinking about how this very different animal had numerous anatomical features that connected it to living sloths. Hence, my correction of your (unsupported) claim that evolutionary theory had nothing to do with fossils.

I explained to you what "polyploidy" means, and cited the specific case of polyploidy speciation in mammal, including the name of the animal.

I will therefore not respond to those claims.

We all understand why. But here's the cite:

Genomics. 2006 Aug;88(2):214-21.
Molecular cytogenetics and allotetraploidy in the red vizcacha rat, Tympanoctomys barrerae (Rodentia, Octodontidae).
Gallardo MH, González CA, Cebrián I.
Abstract
The theoretical impossibility of polyploidy in mammals was overturned by the discovery of tetraploidy in the red vizcacha rat, Tympanoctomys barrerae (2n = 102). As a consequence of genome duplication, remarkably increased cell dimensions are observed in the spermatozoa and in different somatic cell lines of this species. Locus duplication had been previously demonstrated by in situ PCR and Southern blot analysis of single-copy genes. Here, we corroborate duplication of loci in multiple-copy (major rDNAs) and single-copy (Hoxc8) genes by fluorescence in situ hybridization. We also demonstrate that nucleolar dominance, a large-scale epigenetic silencing phenomenon characteristic of allopolyploids, explains the presence of only one Ag-NOR chromosome pair in T. barrerae. Nucleolar dominance, together with the chromosomal heteromorphism detected in the G-banding pattern and synaptonemal complexes of the species' diploid-like meiosis, consistently indicates allotetraploidy. Allotetraploidization can coherently explain the peculiarities of gene silencing, cell dimensions, and karyotypic features of T. barrerae that remain unexplained by assuming diploidy and a large genome size attained by the dispersion of repetitive sequences.

There is one thing, though, that I want to respond to because A) It doesn't require a source and B) It's a response to a challenge I made. You may recall from another thread that I said I had a challenge in mind for evolutionists. Well, this is it.

(definition of "species" in sexually-reproducing organisms)

Barbarian observes:
In sexually-reproducing organisms, it's "a population of interbreeding organisms.

I believe I know what you mean by this, but I would like you to clarify it for me so I can be sure I'm not misinterpreting or misrepresenting what you've said. What exactly do you mean by "interbreeding organisms"?

I mean organisms that interbreed in the wild. It is possible to hybridize many organisms in captivity, that never hybridize in the wild. And ring species and clines make even that very complicated. Again, this is one of the most damaging facts for creationists, because if evolution is true, there should be lots of semi-species in existence, which are almost, but not quite completely separated, and if evolution is not true, we would never see such a thing.

Does that mean only a group of individuals that actually do interbreed with each other, or does it also include groups of individuals that could interbreed with each other, if certain hindrances, such as geography were removed?

Sometimes. For example, leopard frogs living in the deep south cannot interbreed with leopard frogs from Minnesota. They both can, however, interbreed with leopard frogs from intermediate populations in the distribution. So, they could interbreed with Missouri leopard frogs. This means they are still a single species, since the genes can flow from one population to another. However, if the intermediate populations were lost, we would instantly have two new species.

Also, how would this apply to groups taht can not interbreed with each other, but can both interbreed with the same different group. I.e. A can interbreed with B and B can interbreed with C, but A can not interbreed with C. Would A and C then be different species, or would their common connection with B make them the same species.

Those are called "clines" or "ring species." An example a bit farther on the road to speciation are the Larus gulls:

Herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls cannot interbreed. But the adjacent populations in the rest of the ring can. So genes can still flow between them, and they are still just very barely a species. Not for long, probably.

I believe my challenge will work whatever your answer is, but I want to be clear on it before continuing.