[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

[JAG ..]

Turns that result is exactly as likely as any other combination. Now, if you predicted it in advance, that would be something. You can test this by using three dice to make it workable for you.

Toss it about 1000 times, and tally the number of results for each possible combination. You will find that three sixes is as likely as any other combination. Most likely , it will turn up 4 or 5 times. So will every other combination, if the dice are fair. This sounds wrong to someone unfamiliar with probability, but it's true. Do you see why?

But that's not the only reason your idea fails. You see, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random. Nor is chemistry. Some combinations of AAs in proteins just don't function. Many other do. So some mutations will harm an organism (and some will actually benefit, as in the case of Hall's bacteria). Some combinations of genes won't work, either, and those combinations will either die before birth, or tend to die before reproducing. And you won't see them, either.

It's way more interesting than you imagine it is.

Barbarian,

I have serious questions for you because I truly desire
to learn your views on this question.
It is basically the same question asked different ways:
"Earliest" , , ,
The keyword in my questions is "earliest.."
{1} What did the earliest ancestors of humans look like?
{2} And exactly what were they?
{3} Were the earliest ancestors of humans non-human?
{4} Was there ever a time when the earliest ancestors of
humans were about the size of a chicken?
{5} Was there ever a time when the earliest ancestors of
humans were about three feet tall?
What can you tell me about the earliest ancestors of humans
that you know for a FACT to be true?

The answers to these questions are important to me. Please
give them your very "best shot."

Thanks..

Best

JAG

Bible Verse For Today
A Paradox , , ,
"For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever
loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for
someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or
what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
Matthew 16:25-26

paradox - a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement
or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove
to be well founded or true

_______________


Interesting Thought For Today.
Hannah , , ,
The name Hannah is a palindrome

palindrome - a word, phrase, or sequence that reads the
same backward as forward, e.g., madam or nurses run.

``

 

[Barbarian]

sorry but that is what the hebrew means - twilight/darkening and dawning/lightening/becoming light - and even if you want to say evening morning that is fine too - it's all the same thing - evening means light is leaving - morning means light is coming - hebrew is just interestingly more clear imo

Sorry, if you have to redefine words to make them fit your doctrine, there's an obvious problem. Now if you want to argue that the Bible has it wrong, you're free to do that, but it doesn't sound like a very good argument to me.

By definition, morning is when the sun rises and evening is when it sets. "Boker" meaning "dawn."

 

[Barbarian]

God divided the eretz from the mayim - soil/dirt from water - creating dry land and continents with mountains

Yes. But "land" is different than "world."

then later He flooded the eretz/ dry land/continents/mountains with the mayim

so the mountains and the continents were covered by water in the flood

"Continents" is your addition to His world. As you see, he flooded the land, (erets)but never said that the whole world (tevel) was flooded.

"Erets" means pretty much what "land" means in our language; it is never used for the whole world.

 

[Barbarian]

The keyword in my questions is "earliest.."
{1} What did the earliest ancestors of humans look like?

Since the evidence (as noted even by YE creationists who are familar with it) shows all living things have a common ancestor, it would have been a prokaryote.

{2} And exactly what were they?

Single cells, no nucleus, with many of the genes we have already present.

{3} Were the earliest ancestors of humans non-human?

Unless you think prokaryotes are human. In a sense, as God remarked all things on Earth are according to their "kind", (notice He doesn't say "kinds") with mostly the same biochemistry, DNA coding, cell membranes and such.

{4} Was there ever a time when the earliest ancestors of
humans were about the size of a chicken?[/quote]

And smaller.

{5} Was there ever a time when the earliest ancestors of
humans were about three feet tall?

There were humans three feet tall. Homo floresiensis were well under 4 feet tall, with relatively large brains, used fire, made stone tools, and somehow managed to navigate across Wallace's Line (which stopped most other mammals) to and Island where they lived for a very long time. They were fully human, albeit a different species than our own. Most closely related to H. erectus, which gave rise to archaic H. sapiens. But of course, these were not our most ancient ancestors. As you know the genetic and fossil data show that all living things on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.

What can you tell me about the earliest ancestors of humans
that you know for a FACT to be true?

Going back to the earliest living things on Earth... They were autotrophs. Most likely chemical autotrophs. They were single-celled, and prokaryotic, (lacking a nucleus). They had the many of the same genes we do, and they had an extremely simple cell membrane, as we do.

Genetic analysis shows they used the same nucleic acids for reproduction that we do.

There were two great divisions of prokaryotes, the Eubacteria, and the Archaea. Archaea are more ancient; they are sometimes called "extremophils", since they often prosper in anoxic, chemically harsh, and/or hot environments. They are genetically more like us than Eubacteria are. This indicates that eukaryotes and Eubacteria evolved from Archaea.

The Eukaryotes evolved by endosymbiosis; the incorporation of two or more organisms into one. Every cell in your body is such a compound organism. The mitochondria, for example, reproduce on their own, using their own bacterial DNA. Chloroplasts in plants are also endosymbionts that retain bacterial DNA and reproduce on their own.

Do we have evidence that this can happen? Turn out that we do. It's been directly observed. Would you like to learn about that?

There's a lot more in the details. What aspect of cells would you like me to show you?

 

[Barbarian]

There is nothing that can be said with the English language to make
me believe that , , ,

999 trillion X's 999 trillion , , ,
to the power of
, , , 999 trillion X's 999 trillion , , ,Dice thrown into the air will at some point
all come up 6's

As you just learned, that is no less likely than any other combination. Calling it in advance would be remarkable. Use my test, with as many dice as you'd like; you'll still find that the likelihood of all 6s is precisely the same as the likelihood of any other combination, no matter how many dice you use. You'll need more throws to get an accurate answer as you use more dice for reasons that should be apparent.

And as I showed you, Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't random; so your example doesn't even apply to the real world.

Just be aware that astonishingly unlikely things (like you and me) occur every day.

 

[Barbarian]

It would NOT bother me if science proves at the certainty-level that
Abiogenesis is actually true -- and that totally dead material can
spontaneously come to life --- that life CAN and DID come from
non-life.

That's what God says. Good enough for me. He says that life was brought forth by the Earth according to His will.

 

[Cygnus]

That's what God says. Good enough for me. He says that life was brought forth by the Earth according to His will.

He also said Eve was made from Adams rib....which isn't good enough for you...as you now need to make it into some sort of analogy.

You still can't explain the fall. You know, where it happened, why it happened, how it happened and to whom it happened.

 

[dimmesdale1]

You started with a faulty assumption. Evolutionary theory
isn't about the origin of life.

Common descent is not theory in a science sense. It is conjecture. For example, unidentified ape/human common ancestor mystery creatures is conjecture based on a model. Cannot be fact-checked or observed. Nobody disputes trivial changes in bird beaks.

Darwin, for example, just
supposed that God created the first living things.

Doubtful.

Christians do. The problem is creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

Got anything more on this other than an evidence-free indictment?

 

[Barbarian]

Common descent is not theory in a science sense.

No, that's wrong. The hypothesis was formed long before the evidence confirming it was found. Genetics, fossil record, and other evidence is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" as one knowledgeable YE creationist freely admits. A scientific theory begins as a hypothesis and then is tested by checking its claims. And the genetic data, observed evolutionary processes, and the fossil record are all confirmations that make it a valid theory.

For example, unidentified ape/human common ancestor mystery creatures is conjecture based on a model.

Nope. There are many, many transitional hominids, showing the evolution of humans from other primates. YE creationist Kurt Wise mentions those transitionals as part of the "very good evidence" for evolutionary theory.

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist and PhD paleontologist, Todd Wood

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Darwin, for example, just
supposed that God created the first living things.

Doubtful.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, Last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878

(regarding creation of living things)
Christians do. The problem is creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

Got anything more on this other than an evidence-free indictment?

Notice that Todd Wood honestly admits that he prefers his particular reading of Genesis to the evidence. Notice that Dr. Kurt Wise freely admits that the many transitional fossil series are very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Like Dr. Wood, Dr. Wise prefers his reading of Genesis.

 

[Barbarian]

He also said Eve was made from Adams rib....which isn't good enough for you...as you now need to make it into some sort of analogy.

An allegorical interpretation. Which most Christians acknowledge. You don't stop being a Christian if you think it literally happened, unless you insist that it's the only way a Christian can accept it.

You still can't explain the fall.

The first two people given living souls by God, disobeyed Him.

You know, where it happened,

The garden.

why it happened

Man is perverse, and wants things his own way, often not God's way.

how it happened

Disobedience to God.

and to whom it happened.

Adam and Eve.

 

[dimmesdale1]

No, that's wrong. The hypothesis

Which does not obtain to the level of science theory.

was formed long before the evidence confirming it was found.

Right the evidence was grafted into the existing model. It is like nobody but the husband could have killed the wife and that is the way all the facts are interpreted. Confirmation bias. Why would old earthers think ex post facto is compelling or convincing to others?

Genetics, fossil record, and other evidence is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory"

You mean common descent. That means you believe if you go back into your lineage far enough you get to fish-like creatures. Fish lineage and common ancestor mystery creatures' identity unknown. Remains do not survive in nature. There has to be circumstances like quick burial to preserve the carcass. Flood account consistent with quick burial and inconsistent with the natural circumstance where remains dissipate. If they are there to be discovered they were preserved and they find them all over the world. Consistent with a worldwide flood and inconsistent with natural processes. It is not a matter of facts. It is a matter of how the facts are interpreted.

A scientific theory begins as a hypothesis and then is tested by checking its claims.

Against what?

And the genetic data, observed evolutionary processes, and the fossil record are all confirmations that make it a valid theory.

Not a theory nor conclusive. The evidence for fish lineage is equivocal. You are overstating.

Nope. There are many, many transitional hominids, showing the evolution of humans from other primates.

Remains are evidence of remains. They do not come with records of lineage or offspring. That is all, once again ex post facto. These retrodictions even less scientific than astrology. The world ending in 2012 falsified; retrodictions like this cannot. It is faith, not science.

YE creationist Kurt Wise mentions those transitionals as part of the "very good evidence" for evolutionary theory.

Opinion is not evidence. Like flood myth. Myth is opinion. 500 flood accounts is evidence. They can have their opinion. They cannot have their facts.

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

Common descent is worthless. How has your belief in fish lineage furthered the fight against COVID-19, for example?

Darwin, for example, just
supposed that God created the first living things.


"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, Last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878

We can quote Darwin too. He compared his wife to a dog and predicted race wars and inequality where civilized races of man would exterminate and replace savages. Inequality is inconsistent with Christianity. We are not born unequal by race in Christianity. Inequality is pagan, not Christian.

Notice that Todd Wood honestly admits that he prefers his particular reading of Genesis to the evidence.

Genesis is evidence along with the other accounts which takes Genesis as history. In Genesis, God is the eyewitness and directs Moses to write it down. Fallen men not there and do not know. That is fact.

 

[dimmesdale1]

There's a theory of gravitation, too. But gravity is a fact, just as evolution is a fact.

Gravity effects can be observed and repeat tested in the present. Not so with your belief in fish ancestry. Unobserved and cannot be fact-checked against what actually happened. With fish lineage, you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Evolutionary theory and gravitational theory are explanations for the observed fact.

Trivial changes in bird beaks does not get you to fish lineage, anymore than swallowing a fish stick gets us to swallowing a whale.

Science never "proves" anything in the true sense.

So it can be fiction and scientific. Agree.

Logical certainty only comes when you know all the rules and apply them to particulars. Science can only observe the particulars and infer the rules.

Apply that to your belief in fish lineage. It can be scientific and fiction at the same time in the same relationship.

 

[Barbarian]

Gravity effects can be observed and repeat tested in the present. Not so with your belief in fish ancestry.

Of course it can. For example, one prediction of evolutionary theory is that there must have been fish with functional legs. And then they were found.

Another was Darwin's prediction that primitive humans would first arise in Africa. And then that prediction was confirmed.

Another was Huxley's prediction, based on anatomical data from archosaurs, that there must have been birdlike dinosaurs from which birds evolved. And now we have those.

Another was the prediction of whales with functional legs. And then that was verified.

Another was the prediction that the genes of living organisms should show the same family tree that was found by Linnaeus, based on phenotypes.

And many, many more. All testable hypotheses which have been verified. But even more compelling, we never see such transitions where they shouldn't be. No octopi with bones. No feathered mammals. No birds with two-way lungs. And so on.

All of these very testable hypotheses were verified as predicted. This is why scientists overwhelmingly accept common descent, which is a consequence of directly observed evolution.

Trivial changes in bird beaks does not get you to fish lineage,

But the predicted fish with legs does. As does the fact that the fish of that group are genetically more closely related to humans than they are related to other fish. And we know this indicates relationships, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Science never "proves" anything in the true sense.

So it can be fiction and scientific.

No. We know many, many things without being able to prove it. You can't, for example, prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning, or that all the oxygen molecules in your room won't suddenly move to one corner of the room, suffocating you. However, you know the first will happen and the second will not, even if you can't prove it. Truth is a stronger thing than provability. Fiction would be something like YE creationism with neither scientific evidence nor scriptural support.

This is why we know tetrapods evolved from fish. The evidence is, as you now realize, overwhelming.

 

[Barbarian]

No, that's wrong. The hypothesis was formed long before the evidence confirming it.

Right the evidence was grafted into the existing model.

No. You're still confusing models with evidence. The hypotheses I showed you were predictions of the theory. If the theory was true, then the hypotheses would be verified by evidence. And they were. Hence theory, which is an idea that has been repeatedly verified by evidence.

A YE creationist, familiar with the evidence admits:
Genetics, fossil record, and other evidence is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory"

You mean common descent.

No, he meant macroevolutionary theory. Common descent is a consequence of macroevolutionary theory, not the theory itself.

Remains do not survive in nature.

Turns out, they do. Hence the many transitional forms Dr. Wise (a YE creationist) cites as very good evidence for the theory.

If they are there to be discovered they were preserved and they find them all over the world.

That's another reason why honest creationists admit that fossils are very good evidence for the theory. You see, they aren't all over the world. They are only in specific strata consistent with evolution. Dr. Wise points out that whale fossils are a particular problem for creationism, because of this. Would you like to learn more about that?

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood:
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

Common descent is worthless.

It is true, as the evidence indicates.

How has your belief in fish lineage furthered the fight against COVID-19, for example?

Evolutionary theory predicts the path of virulence in viruses. It is an integral part of epidemiology. I happen to have some training and experience in the field. Would you like to learn more about that? One interesting aspect this was that Flemming, the scientist who discovered penicillin, accurately predicted that overuse of the antibiotic would lead to rapid evolution of resistance in bacteria.

As you learned, Darwin supposed that God created the first living things.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, Last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878

We can quote Darwin too. He compared his wife to a dog and predicted race wars and inequality where civilized races of man would exterminate and replace savages.

He expressed this as a crime against other nations, and deplored it. And often, it happened as he predicted.

And he infuriated creationists by arguing that if you brought primitive people to England, in a few generations, they would be just like Englishmen.

Unlike most creationists of the time, he opposed slavery. Not all creationist were pro-slavery; Samuel Wilberforce was an opponent of Darwin in biology, but supported his opposition to slavery. You would find very few racist evolutionists today, because genetics have shown that there are no biological human races. But into the 1990s, creationists like Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research was still writing nonsense about how blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people. This is one of the major differences between science and creationism. Not that all creationists are racists; many are not. But it was a constant issue with creationist leadership.

 

[Barbarian]

There's a theory of gravitation, too. But gravity is a fact, just as evolution is a fact.

Gravity effects can be observed and repeat tested in the present.

Oh, you're talking about microgravity. Sure, we watch falling objects. But no one has watched a galaxy make a revolution, or a long-term comet return. Just as we can observe evolution today, we can also realize that the long-term effects of evolution account for common descent, just as we can realize that Pluto orbits the Sun in an ellipse, even if no one has ever seen it happen.

It's like that with microerosion, too. You're using the "a man can walk 100 meters, but he can't walk 100 miles, because I've never seen that" argument.

 

[Moseme]

Macro evolution has no evidence for it and plenty against it. You cannot tell me that one prokaryotic cell had all of the genetic information for every living thing that ever existed and yet did not demonstrate any of these genetic traits. If all life had a common ancestor it would of necessity have to be a much higher life form than any we have discovered. Not the lowest. Natural selection within a closed community of organisms is always a process of losing genetic information as nature removes those who carry unbeneficial genes.

 

[Cygnus]

An allegorical interpretation. Which most Christians acknowledge. You don't stop being a Christian if you think it literally happened, unless you insist that it's the only way a Christian can accept it.



The first two people given living souls by God, disobeyed Him.



The garden.



Man is perverse, and wants things his own way, often not God's way.



Disobedience to God.



Adam and Eve.

Once again you have dodged the question with overly simplistic answers. You can't explain the fall in evo-terms.

 

[Barbarian]

Once again you have dodged the question

I directly gave you answers that (so far as I know) all Christian consider to be true. I just didn't add any embellishments. You shouldn't expect any, or do any additions yourself.

You can't explain the fall in evo-terms.

I can't explain it in gravity-terms, either. Or atom-terms, or plate tectonic-terms. The message in Genesis is about God and man and our relationship, not scientific things. If faith won't do it, for you, science can't help.

 

[Barbarian]

Macro evolution has no evidence for it

Your fellow creationists who happen to know what the evidence is, disagree with you.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
YE creationist and PhD paleontologist Todd Wood

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

I can show you more like this, if you like. Would you like to see more?

 

[Truthfrees]

Sorry, if you have to redefine words to make them fit your doctrine, there's an obvious problem. Now if you want to argue that the Bible has it wrong, you're free to do that, but it doesn't sound like a very good argument to me.

By definition, morning is when the sun rises and evening is when it sets. "Boker" meaning "dawn."

here it is in hebrew - follow the links or not - your choice:

5וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃ פ - Genesis 1:5

erev - grow dark - https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/6153.html

Strongs's #6153: `ereb - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools

www.bibletools.org

Strong's #6150 - ×¢Ö¸×¨Ö·× - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org

Strong's #6150 - ×¢Ö¸×¨Ö·× in the Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary on StudyLight.org

www.studylight.org

boker - grow light - https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/1242.html

Strongs's #1242: boqer - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools

www.bibletools.org