[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism and Evolution; some essential differences

[Cygnus]

You're still trying to graft religion to science. Won't work. And it keeps you going the wrong way, if you want to understand any of this.

With all due respect...your the one who said evolutionism is compatible with Genesis. I've said they're not and will never graft.

 

[Barbarian]

With all due respect...your the one who said evolutionism is compatible with Genesis.

Nope. "Evolutionism" is your idea. Evolution is compatible with Genesis. Evolutionism is just all the misconceptions that creationists have about evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Calvin, don't be duped into the simple....coloring book...version of evolutionism.

The easiest way to avoid that, is to read the OP and learn some of the important differences between evolution and the creationist idea called "evolutionism."

Sure the environment selects certain traits. We can see that in Darwns finches...but it's not real evolution.

Evolution is "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." So yes, that's what evolution is. You're thinking of "evolutionism".

It's simply the environment selecting already established genes that allow for larger beaks.

That's only part of evolution. Yes, recombination does change allele frequencies. But as you learned, it also involves new alleles by mutation. Would you like me to show you some of that, again?

The real issue is...and the issue that EVERY believer in evolutionism runs from is...

The actual theory of evolution. Creationists prefer "evolutionism"; because they invented it, they can make it whatever they want it to be.

presenting a second, third, fourth, etc mutation that continues to change a trait in an animals progeny.

Directly observed in bacteria. But there are other examples in animals would you like to see some?

EVERY believer in evolutionism here simply breaks out the coloring book and assumes it can't happen. Being creationists, they designed evolutionism to exclude real evolution.

Never, and I repeat....NEVER...will one who believes in evolutionism tell you how a trait can be added to until something such as a new system is realized (dolphins echo-location system) or how a bunch of so-called beneficial mutations have the ability to effect the DNA again and again responsible for a particular trait or developing trait.

Evolutionism can't explain this, but evolutionary theory does. It's really not complex. In any given generation, new alleles that make organisms more likely to survive long enough to reproduce, tend to have a larger distribution in the next generation. So the next generation has a different allele frequency. But then, again, any useful new alleles will tend to leave more copies, changing the allele frequency again in the next generation.

For the study, the researchers sequenced the whole genomes of 27 Tibetans. As they looked for advantageous genes, Huff’s team flagged two that are already known to confer adaptations at high altitudes, namely variants to EPAS1 and EGLN1. Both of these gene variants are activated when oxygen levels are low, triggering production of more hemoglobin—a protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen throughout the body. These genes stave off hypoxia, a dangerous condition that happens when the body is deprived of oxygen.

But the researchers also found variations to three human genes that hadn’t previously been associated with high altitude adaptations. Two of these genes, PTGIS and KCTD12, have been shown in prior studies to be related to low oxygen levels and hypoxia, while VDR is known to play a role in vitamin D metabolism. Tibetan nomads are susceptible to vitamin D deficiency on account of their limited diets, and the VDR gene compensates for that.

All of these gene variants, except for EPAS1, emerged through mutations among the ancient Tibetans.
http://gizmodo.com/key-mutations-show-how-tibetans-thrive-at-high-elevatio-1794709789

You'll see the Evo's here claim they have....but when asked to support the claim...you'll here crickets, ad-homs, or the topic is quickly changed.

C'mon. You've already seen examples. Here's another one.

So, for the evos, there is variation in the gene pool. This accounts for what is considered as micro-evolution.....when we speak of macro-evolutionism, it's a whole different story.

Ah, "micro-evolutionism" is a new one. You guys are creative, I'll grant you that. But there really is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, except that macroevolution results in a new species. In fact there are cases where microevolution could retroactively become macroevolution from the same change in alleles. Would you like to learn how that could happen?

There is not one evolution present who can delve deep, throw away the coloring book and really explain how evolutionism works.

The OP has a short comparison between evolution and the creationist invention called "evolutionism." Read it and learn.

 

[calvin]

I think that could count as evidence against the idea that it's historical fact that Adam existed before Eve, though. We wouldn't have been made male and female from the beginning of (our) creation if one gender showed up first.

Hello calvin here
I don't see a problem really.
Adam was the first and was a male. Eve came from Adam's body an unknown time later.
It is perfectly legitimate to talk of common beginning when talking of Adam and Eve as a couple. (They as a couple did have a beginning...right?)
Right from his beginning he was a male. Right from her beginning she was a female. Therefore why would it be wrong to refer to them as having a beginning?
Was Eve some other than she was prior to her beginning?
I f Eve were to have been created as neuter gender and later changed into a female I think your reasoning would be sound enough, but not otherwise.

 

[Silmarien]

Eh, I actually would not consider Adam to be male from his beginning if Eve were not there too. Male and female are incoherent as concepts except in relation to each other, so... still not seeing it. I very much think that Adam would have been gender neutral by default in the beginning if their creation weren't simultaneous. (And actually, if you go back to the Hebrew, Adam isn't referred to with the explicitly gender specific word "male" until after the operation.)

I really don't think the quote in question implies separate beginnings, though. That would invalidate the whole point of the argument, since if the beginning weren't mutual, there's really no logical connection between the genders. A third one could pop up at any moment and throw everything into disarray.

 

[Cygnus]

Nope. "Evolutionism" is your idea. Evolution is compatible with Genesis. Evolutionism is just all the misconceptions that creationists have about evolution.

Evolutionism as been around for a long while. Hint: It's not my idea.

 

[Cygnus]

The easiest way to avoid that, is to read the OP and learn some of the important differences between evolution and the creationist idea called "evolutionism."



Evolution is "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." So yes, that's what evolution is. You're thinking of "evolutionism".



That's only part of evolution. Yes, recombination does change allele frequencies. But as you learned, it also involves new alleles by mutation. Would you like me to show you some of that, again?



The actual theory of evolution. Creationists prefer "evolutionism"; because they invented it, they can make it whatever they want it to be.



Directly observed in bacteria. But there are other examples in animals would you like to see some?

EVERY believer in evolutionism here simply breaks out the coloring book and assumes it can't happen. Being creationists, they designed evolutionism to exclude real evolution.



Evolutionism can't explain this, but evolutionary theory does. It's really not complex. In any given generation, new alleles that make organisms more likely to survive long enough to reproduce, tend to have a larger distribution in the next generation. So the next generation has a different allele frequency. But then, again, any useful new alleles will tend to leave more copies, changing the allele frequency again in the next generation.

For the study, the researchers sequenced the whole genomes of 27 Tibetans. As they looked for advantageous genes, Huff’s team flagged two that are already known to confer adaptations at high altitudes, namely variants to EPAS1 and EGLN1. Both of these gene variants are activated when oxygen levels are low, triggering production of more hemoglobin—a protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen throughout the body. These genes stave off hypoxia, a dangerous condition that happens when the body is deprived of oxygen.

But the researchers also found variations to three human genes that hadn’t previously been associated with high altitude adaptations. Two of these genes, PTGIS and KCTD12, have been shown in prior studies to be related to low oxygen levels and hypoxia, while VDR is known to play a role in vitamin D metabolism. Tibetan nomads are susceptible to vitamin D deficiency on account of their limited diets, and the VDR gene compensates for that.

All of these gene variants, except for EPAS1, emerged through mutations among the ancient Tibetans.
http://gizmodo.com/key-mutations-show-how-tibetans-thrive-at-high-elevatio-1794709789



C'mon. You've already seen examples. Here's another one.



Ah, "micro-evolutionism" is a new one. You guys are creative, I'll grant you that. But there really is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, except that macroevolution results in a new species. In fact there are cases where microevolution could retroactively become macroevolution from the same change in alleles. Would you like to learn how that could happen?



The OP has a short comparison between evolution and the creationist invention called "evolutionism." Read it and learn.

All this response from Barbarian...and he still chooses to use bacteria to prove his evolutionism?

But as predicted once again evolutionism failed to answer my question. "The real issue is...and the issue that EVERY believer in evolutionism runs from is...presenting a second, third, fourth, etc mutation that continues to change a trait in an animals progeny. Never, and I repeat....NEVER...will one who believes in evolutionism tell you how a trait can be added to until something such as a new system is realized (dolphins echo-location system) or how a bunch of so-called beneficial mutations have the ability to effect the DNA again and again responsible for a particular trait or developing trait.

 

[Cygnus]

Eh, I actually would not consider Adam to be male from his beginning if Eve were not there too.

That would be like saying...a door isn't a door if there is no frame to hang it in.
Or, if you remove all the women...the males cease to be males.

 

[Silmarien]

That would be like saying...a door isn't a door if there is no frame to hang it in.
Or, if you remove all the women...the males cease to be males.

We're not talking about removing all the women. We're talking about there never having been any women in the first place. And yeah, if there weren't and had never been any door frames, a board of wood sitting on the floor wouldn't suddenly be a door in a universe where doors don't exist.

So... if you want to get really theologically radical about it, three guesses how I approach the Problem of Evil.

 

[Cygnus]

We're not talking about removing all the women. We're talking about there never having been any women in the first place. And yeah, if there weren't and had never been any door frames, a board of wood sitting on the floor wouldn't suddenly be a door in a universe where doors don't exist.

So... if you want to get really theologically radical about it, three guesses how I approach the Problem of Evil.

You have completely missed the big picture of the creation of man. There was the intent of female to be created.
Then you throw in a universe where doors don't exist??? I find it hard to argue with such gibberish. Then again I see atheist argument always resorting to a form of gibberish.

As far as evil goes...OK, Ill bite.

 

[Silmarien]

You have completely missed the big picture of the creation of man. There was the intent of female to be created.
Then you throw in a universe where doors don't exist??? I find it hard to argue with such gibberish. Then again I see atheist argument always resorting to a form of gibberish.

You're the one who threw in the argument about the doors, not me. I'm just trying to make it applicable. And I'm not remotely an atheist.

As far as evil goes...OK, Ill bite.

Well, same argument. That from our perspective, good would have been meaningless in a universe where it was the only possibility. There'd have been nothing to distinguish it from. It does make the idea of a future creation where evil has been eliminated very intriguing, but it also makes the Problem of Evil look like a long, drawn out exercise in missing the point. (Though an extremely important one, of course.)

 

[Barbarian]

All this response from Barbarian...and he still chooses to use bacteria to prove his evolutionism?

Tibetans are humans, not bacteria. I thought you knew.

But as predicted once again evolutionism failed to answer my question.

That's because your invention of "evolutionism" doesn't account for second, third, fourth, etc mutations while observation of evolution does.

I posted the OP to contrast creationist "evolutionism" with evolution. You can't get past this because you believe in "evolutionism."

"The real issue is...and the issue that EVERY believer in evolutionism runs from is...presenting a second, third, fourth, etc mutation that continues to change a trait in an animals progeny.

Well said. Creationists, with their "evolutionism" are unable to account for the sequential mutations that happened to Tibetans after they migrated to the very high-altitude area of Tibet, mutations that made survival and reproduction possible in that new envirionment.

Never, will one who believes in evolutionism tell you how a trait can be added because the creationist belief in "evolutionism" is contrary to the way evolution works.

(dolphins echo-location system)

That's pretty easy to show. For example, you have an echolocation system, as almost all mammals do. Vikings used it to navigate near coasts when there was fog. If you go into a large, empty building like a gymnasium, and walk around with your eyes closed, stepping loudly, you will find that you can tell when you are getting close to a wall.

Two ears give you direction, including up and down. The higher the frequency, the better the signal is. So the first easy adaptation is to be able to hear very high frequencies.

And if you want active echolocation, then the ability to emit very high frequency sound helps. Also a pretty easy adaptation.

Some whales were thought to not echolocate. But then...
http://www.dolphincommunicationproj...oids/item/94362-do-humpback-whales-echolocate

Turns out they aren't anywhere as good as toothed whales. But they are somewhat better than you are. Transitional form.

or how a bunch of so-called beneficial mutations have the ability to effect the DNA again and again responsible for a particular trait or developing trait.

You're still trying to apply "evolutionism" instead of evolutionary theory. As you learned in the OP, "evolutionism" doesn't do a very good job of matching up with actual evolution. But evolutionary theory explains it easily.

Your assumption is that the DNA gene locus has to be affected each time. And as (for example) the Tibetan adaptations show, that's not what happens. Mutations at different loci can do it as easily as working on one locus.

That's what keeps tripping you up. So long as you stay with the creationist notion of "evolutionism", you won't be able to understand the real thing.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Has the Tibetan study been reproduced with other high altitude populations? Other high altitude populations should exhibit the same traits in relation to living in oxygen deprived places. Until then it is simply a theory. When they had the Olympic games years ago in Mexico city, many athletes went there several weeks in advance. It has long been known that us flatlanders who migrate to high altitude areas develope, over a period of several weeks to months increased lung capacity as well as producing more hemoglobin to compensate for the decrease in O2.....it is called getting acclimated. This not to equate acclimation to the cited study just an expression of how quickly the body can adapt to changing surroundings. More studies using similar high altitude populations would be necessary to sustain the conclusions posted in this thread

 

[Barbarian]

Has the Tibetan study been reproduced with other high altitude populations?

Yes it has. Peruvian natives have also adapted to high altitudes.

Other high altitude populations should exhibit the same traits in relation to living in oxygen deprived places.

No. If the all the mutations were exactly the same, that would be a huge problem for evolutionary theory. Peruvians have been living at very high altitudes for a very long time, but we see a different series of mutations that enhance survival at those elevations. They aren't the same as those of Tibetans. If you set aside the creationist strawman of "evolutionism", and looked at evolutionary theory and cases observed evolution, I'm sure you could figure out why.

Andean Indians compensate partially by having a high level of hemoglobin, which can bring on its own problems late in life. So not as well adapted as Tibetans who have a gene that allows adequate oxygen uptake without increasing hemoglobion. Both populations had mutations involving nitric oxide synthesis, but they are different mutations. Do you understand why this would have to be, given what we know about evolution?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-...a.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans

Until then it is simply a theory.

So is gravity. But don't go stepping off high buildings. People who say "it's simply a theory" do not understand what the word means in science. When an idea in science has been repeatedly verified by evidence, only then is it raised to the level of theory. Theories are stronger than laws, because laws predict what will happen under specific circumstances, while theories predict and explain.

Actually evolution is a stronger case than gravity; we know why evolution works, but we still aren't precisely sure why gravity works.

When they had the Olympic games years ago in Mexico city, many athletes went there several weeks in advance. It has long been known that us flatlanders who migrate to high altitude areas develope, over a period of several weeks to months increased lung capacity as well as producing more hemoglobin to compensate for the decrease in O2.....it is called getting acclimated. This not to equate acclimation to the cited study just an expression of how quickly the body can adapt to changing surroundings.

True. Human bodies have a considerable range of non-genetic adaptation, which is not the same thing as the evolution of high-altitude tolerance by Tibetans and Peruvians.

More studies using similar high altitude populations would be necessary to sustain the conclusions posted in this thread

And they nicely demonstrate the key elements of evolutionary theory. Notice that the adaptations are analogous, not homologous. Same result, different series of adaptive mutations.

 

[Cygnus]

Has the Tibetan study been reproduced with other high altitude populations? Other high altitude populations should exhibit the same traits in relation to living in oxygen deprived places. Until then it is simply a theory. When they had the Olympic games years ago in Mexico city, many athletes went there several weeks in advance. It has long been known that us flatlanders who migrate to high altitude areas develope, over a period of several weeks to months increased lung capacity as well as producing more hemoglobin to compensate for the decrease in O2.....it is called getting acclimated. This not to equate acclimation to the cited study just an expression of how quickly the body can adapt to changing surroundings. More studies using similar high altitude populations would be necessary to sustain the conclusions posted in this thread

I know evolutionism is about dried-up when these are the examples given to support the theory.

 

[Cygnus]

That's pretty easy to show. For example, you have an echolocation system, as almost all mammals do. Vikings used it to navigate near coasts when there was fog. If you go into a large, empty building like a gymnasium, and walk around with your eyes closed, stepping loudly, you will find that you can tell when you are getting close to a wall.

Two ears give you direction, including up and down. The higher the frequency, the better the signal is. So the first easy adaptation is to be able to hear very high frequencies.

And if you want active echolocation, then the ability to emit very high frequency sound helps. Also a pretty easy adaptation.

Back to the coloring book version Barbarian? All you've dome is present an unsupported suggested path. I would think after all of tis time you would ave something a bit better to present...other than suggested unsupported pathways.

 

[Barbarian]

know evolutionism is about dried-up when these are the examples given to support the theory.

Evolutionary theory triumphs over the creationist belief in evolutionism once again.

 

[Cygnus]

Evolutionary theory triumphs over the creationist belief in evolutionism once again.

Once again you have shown the bible to be incorrect.

 

[Barbarian]

Back to the coloring book version Barbarian? All you've dome is present an unsupported suggested path.

I'm sure it was a surprise to learn that almost all mammals can echolocate. So bats and whales are merely more acute in their abilities. I realize that the creationist belief in "evolutionism" can't account for this. But observed evolution shows why that happens.

Merely insisting that it's not possible for a population to gain more acute senses is directly refuted by observed cases such acuity evolving. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[Barbarian]

Once again you have shown the bible to be incorrect.

The creationist belief in "evolutionism" says the Bible is incorrect. But evolution, as you learned, is completely compatible with the Bible.