Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[Revmitchell]

If you believe in evolution and deny the reality of Adam or even the need (add to this defend Schuller) the only place you will find agreement on being a theological conservative is in your own mind.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As the link below demonstrates - intelligent design is a matter of science.



The principle of intelligent design soooo scientifically verifiable and tested that you can now see it at work every day -- just be setting your radio to "scan". There you will see the principle of intelligent design applied to one of the four forces of nature - the EM force.

in Christ,

Bob

How does the electro magnetic force show Intelligent design? How does the Gravetational force show intelligent design? I know God created the Universe but I also believes that he uses the laws of physics to bring about his purposes. So I believe that if you were to say that when you put water into a freezer God turns it into ice. That would be an accurate statement. How he does it is that he gave properties to water that when it reaches a certain temperature it solidifies turning to ice. But I'm curious to see how the EM proves intelligent design.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is an entirely false statement. Evolution has never met any of the requirements for the scientic method

This is not true Allen. You could say that evolution on a macro level cannot be observed but on a microlevel we see it repeated time and again.

 

[BobRyan]

Evolutionism sometimes seeks "air cover" by defining itself as "change" so that if your fingernail grows or if the moon's orbit decays slightly over time well "hey - evolutionism is proven".

But when you look at the REAL argument for amoeba-to-man storytelling you see as Dawkins' flummoxed response showed -- that the salient point for evolutionism needs much MORE than "variation within a genome". It nees a NEW Genome that is seen to become increasingly more complex by the addition of new coding genes and in fact whole new chromosomes -- all of which pass on to the descendants).

And THAT is what they never find in the lab. It only happens in "thought experiments".

Hence the "science problem" with the junk-science we call evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Johnv]

Nobody has ever been able to show one species becoming another.

That's untrue. There have been numerous documentd cases of observed speciation in plants, insects, worms, and bacteria.

It is required to be a bible believer.

That is by no means correct. Abandoning the theory of evolution is not required to be a bible believer. By your standard, a bible believer must also abandon theories of astronomy, geology, studies of anthropology. On a sidenote, hyperfundamentslists in the past (not you in particular) have also required believers to abandon microevolution, plate tectonics, and heliocentrism, but have since abandoned those positions.

There is enough science in the first chapter of Genesis to keep one busy for a lifetime.

Genesis is not a science book, and using it as such is a perversion of scripture.

I forgot how you liked to consider yourself the resident contrarian before you left. But your answers are as vague as they always were. Welcome back, but I was hoping you'd be out getting discipled.

I've speant the last 5 years in three bible colleges, one baptist, one foursquare, and one reformed. I appreciate the welcome, and I'm sure this will be seen by some as undisciplined.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Evolutionism sometimes seeks "air cover" by defining itself as "change" so that if your fingernail grows or if the moon's orbit decays slightly over time well "hey - evolutionism is proven".

But when you look at the REAL argument for amoeba-to-man storytelling you see as Dawkins' flummoxed response showed -- that the salient point for evolutionism needs much MORE than "variation within a genome". It nees a NEW Genome that is seen to become increasingly more complex by the addition of new coding genes and in fact whole new chromosomes -- all of which pass on to the descendants).

And THAT is what they never find in the lab. It only happens in "thought experiments".

Hence the "science problem" with the junk-science we call evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

You're still stuck with it not being observable. You need vast amounts of time to properly observe evolution on a macro level. Its clear on a micro level that organism adapt by changing their genome to match the requirements. its a bit simplistic put basically whats happening.

 

[Allan]

This is not true Allen. You could say that evolution on a macro level cannot be observed but on a microlevel we see it repeated time and again.

If you would have read all of my post you would have noted just such a distinciton.

BTW - micro-evolution is not evolution at all, but adaptation.

 

[BobRyan]

As the link below demonstrates - intelligent design is a matter of science.

I hope that all Christian college students will have a chance to see the case for intelligent design presented by the Amazing Discoveries group

Amazing Discoveries exposes Darwin's flaw

Dr Walter Veith is a former professor of evolutionary biology that has become a Christian and now teaches that intelligent design is "science" whereas evolutionism is simply wishful-thinking.

His argument for static genomes is impressive.

The principle of intelligent design soooo scientifically verifiable and tested that you can now see it at work every day -- just be setting your radio to "scan". There you will see the principle of intelligent design applied to one of the four forces of nature - the EM force.

How does the electro magnetic force show Intelligent design? How does the Gravetational force show intelligent design?

As stated above - the SCAN function of your radio is applying the principle of intelligent design to the natural force we call EM. (One of 4 fources in nature, EM, Gravity, weak binding force and strong binding force). The scan function evaluates a segment of the EM band looking for a pattern that will show intelligent design as opposed to the "background noise" that even rocks can make given access to an energy source such as radioactive decay.

And Romans 1 says we should expect that our Creator God shows himself to be intelligent by what he MAKEs in the same way that an artist shows the level of his genius in what he paints. Romans 1 says that even pagans are without excuse for the "invisible attributes of God are clearly seen in the things that have been MADE".

I know God created the Universe but I also believes that he uses the laws of physics to bring about his purposes. So I believe that if you were to say that when you put water into a freezer God turns it into ice. That would be an accurate statement. How he does it is that he gave properties to water that when it reaches a certain temperature it solidifies turning to ice.

Indeed. But he gave no properties to dirt that allow it to turn into an amoeba. And no properties to an amoeba that allow it to evolve into a man and he gave no properties to our genome that allow us to gain new coding genes and pass them on to our descenants.

Instead he gave us His Word telling us that ALL life was created on this planet in a real 7 day week with "evening and morning" for each day.

He has "spelled it out for us".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Evolutionism sometimes seeks "air cover" by defining itself as "change" so that if your fingernail grows or if the moon's orbit decays slightly over time well "hey - evolutionism is proven".

But when you look at the REAL argument for amoeba-to-man storytelling you see as Dawkins' flummoxed response showed -- that the salient point for evolutionism needs much MORE than "variation within a genome". It nees a NEW Genome that is seen to become increasingly more complex by the addition of new coding genes and in fact whole new chromosomes -- all of which pass on to the descendants).

And THAT is what they never find in the lab. It only happens in "thought experiments".

Hence the "science problem" with the junk-science we call evolutionism.

You're still stuck with it not being observable. You need vast amounts of time to properly observe evolution on a macro level. Its clear on a micro level that organism adapt by changing their genome to match the requirements. its a bit simplistic put basically whats happening.

that is not how science works.

You can not say "there is an easter bunny bouncing up and down at the center of the moon and you can not see it because you have not dug down to the center of the moon" and claim that as a "science" fact that "I am stuck with" since I can not see the center of the moon.

That is not science -- it is bad religion.

Neither can you argue that coding genes are adding all the time to our genome (millions per year) in versions that pass on to descendants but then fail - only to find a succeeding one after a million years or so when in fact we see NONE of that activity at all.

Continually coming up with " a story" about why the essential element in the argument is not scientifically observable in the lab is not science. It is religion - in this case, bad religion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If you would have read all of my post you would have noted just such a distinciton.

BTW - micro-evolution is not evolution at all, but adaptation.

Indeed it is "variation WITHIN a single static genome that does not change"

 

[Allan]

That's untrue. There have been numerous documentd cases of observed speciation in plants, insects, worms, and bacteria.

Sorry not true again. There is no case of one species becoming an different and distinct species. Please do not confuse micro with macro evolution.
You don't have trees becoming rose bushes, nor do you have bees becoming butterflies, or worms becoming ants, ect..

Genesis is not a science book, and using it as such is a perversion of scripture.

Correct, it is not a science book but it does contain scientic things/aspects God had recorded. Many of our scientific discoveries came things in scripture which men set out to see if it was true. Lo and behold God didn't lie about those scientific things

 

[BobRyan]

There is no example of so-called speciation where genome is actually seen to change by adding a new coding gene. This point was shown in the link given in the OP.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no example of so-called speciation where genome is actually seen to change by adding a new coding gene. This point was shown in the link given in the OP.

in Christ,

Bob

I haven't argue that specifically. But I did say evolution on a macro level is non observable. Doesn't invalidate it. Just can't be determined in the space of time required. But keep in mind these points:

Genetic variation has two components: allelic diversity and non- random associations of alleles. Alleles are different versions of the same gene. For example, humans can have A, B or O alleles that determine one aspect of their blood type. Most animals, including humans, are diploid -- they contain two alleles for every gene at every locus, one inherited from their mother and one inherited from their father. Locus is the location of a gene on a chromosome. Humans can be AA, AB, AO, BB, BO or OO at the blood group locus. If the two alleles at a locus are the same type (for instance two A alleles) the individual would be called homozygous. An individual with two different alleles at a locus (for example, an AB individual) is called heterozygous. At any locus there can be many different alleles in a population, more alleles than any single organism can possess. For example, no single human can have an A, B and an O allele.

Considerable variation is present in natural populations. At 45 percent of loci in plants there is more than one allele in the gene pool. [allele: alternate version of a gene (created by mutation)] Any given plant is likely to be heterozygous at about 15 percent of its loci. Levels of genetic variation in animals range from roughly 15% of loci having more than one allele (polymorphic) in birds, to over 50% of loci being polymorphic in insects. Mammals and reptiles are polymorphic at about 20% of their loci - - amphibians and fish are polymorphic at around 30% of their loci. In most populations, there are enough loci and enough different alleles that every individual, identical twins excepted, has a unique combination of alleles.
...In small populations, the variance in the rate of change of allele frequencies is greater than in large populations. However, the overall rate of genetic drift (measured in substitutions per generation) is independent of population size. [genetic drift: a random change in allele frequencies] If the mutation rate is constant, large and small populations lose alleles to drift at the same rate. This is because large populations will have more alleles in the gene pool, but they will lose them more slowly. Smaller populations will have fewer alleles, but these will quickly cycle through. This assumes that mutation is constantly adding new alleles to the gene pool and selection is not operating on any of these alleles... Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today. Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study. These include: comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the fossil record.

 

[BobRyan]

Coding genes (those that code for proteins and enzymes) are always found at the same location on the same chromosome relative to the other coding genes on that same chromosome. Thus ALL members of the SAME genome (all humans) have the SAME coding genes and genomes are therefore static.

But each coding gene appears in the form of one pair of a fixed set of alleles (settings if you well) at that position. So for example the coding gene for eye color is always at the same position on the same chromosome for all humans. (Hint you will never find the coding gene for flower pedal color at that spot nor does the eye color gene hop around to different chromosomes. The human genome is static). When you damage your DNA (by radiation or through the aging process or some forms of abberant duplication) you suffer but you do not pass acquired damage on to your decendants.

The allele value for that gene determines how much melanin (brown color) is present in the stroma of the eye. If the allele form is set to little or no melanin - then the eye appears to be blue. If it is set for a larg amount of melanin (which is always brown) then the eye appears brown. Diploid genomes such as the human genome always have two alleles at a given position that combine to determine the phenotype expressed for that individual.

Alleles for a coding gene are NOT an example of evolution adding a new coding gene nor a new chromosome. All the allele pair does (in this case for the eye-color coding gen) is determine the amount of melanin for the stroma. Very hard to argue that as "evolutionism".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Johnv]

The idea that evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable isn't quite accurate. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats.

In reality, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world, examining that evidence, and hypothisizing how that evidence works. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists learn a great deal from multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful hypotheses about the objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences. This is entirely consistent with the scientific method, and not just on the topic of evolution.

On a sidenote, the micro-vs-macroevolution argument is an issue that hypercreationists adopted somewhere in the late 1980's. Prior to that, the assertion was that any type of evolution was anti-scriptural. But when microevolution was observed, the position was changed to be "mocrievolution is scripturally okay, but macroevolution is not". Same thing with speciation. The view used to be "speciation is antiscriptural", and now the view is "the development of new species is scripturally okay, but the developlent of new genuses is not". As a result, whenever a new observation is made, the hypercreationists raise the bar.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Coding genes (those that code for proteins and enzymes) are always found at the same location on the same chromosome relative to the other coding genes on that same chromosome. Thus ALL members of the SAME genome (all humans) have the SAME coding genes and genomes are therefore static.

But each coding gene appears in the form of one pair of a fixed set of alleles (settings if you well) at that position. So for example the coding gene for eye color is always at the same position on the same chromosome for all humans. (Hint you will never find the coding gene for flower pedal color at that spot nor does the eye color gene hop around to different chromosomes. The human genome is static). When you damage your DNA (by radiation or through the aging process or some forms of abberant duplication) you suffer but you do not pass acquired damage on to your decendants.

The allele value for that gene determines how much melanin (brown color) is present in the stroma of the eye. If the allele form is set to little or no melanin - then the eye appears to be blue. If it is set for a larg amount of melanin (which is always brown) then the eye appears brown. Diploid genomes such as the human genome always have two alleles at a given position that combine to determine the phenotype expressed for that individual.

Alleles for a coding gene are NOT an example of evolution adding a new coding gene nor a new chromosome. All the allele pair does (in this case for the eye-color coding gen) is determine the amount of melanin for the stroma. Very hard to argue that as "evolutionism".

in Christ,

Bob

Its hard but not impossible. Note the very last part of the quote with regard to this issue. One of the things in this discussion with regard to the scientific method is predictability. Which the evolutionist point of view is capable of doing. We should be able to predict certain outcomes with regularity. The problem with the macro level again is time. yet we can do this on the micro level.

 

[Allan]

The idea that evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable isn't quite accurate. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats.

Keep with your own declaration. You said "the theory of evolution is frequently subjected to the scientific method, and consistently passes."
There are seven specific steps to the scientific method:
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results

In accordance with the scientific method to which you state evolution has been frequently subjected, fails on point 4 always.

It is true that there is a branch of theoretical science which are things that can be 'presumed' but currenlty no real way scientifically to determine if it is true or not. This is not and should not be confused with hard fact based science. At best evolution should be set forth in the theoretical sciences and not constatantly perpetuated mythology of being hard and factual sciences.

Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists learn a great deal from multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful hypotheses about the objects of study.

But both these have areas that are hard science and theoretical. They should never be seen as one and the same.

The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences. This is entirely consistent with the scientific method, and not just on the topic of evolution.

Adaptation (microE) has never been proven to be a 'mechanism' of evolution. Macro nor ANY of it's mechanism have EVER been observed nor studied. That is a complete misrepresention of the facts.

On a sidenote, the micro-vs-macroevolution argument is an issue that hypercreationists adopted somewhere in the late 1980's. Prior to that, the assertion was that any type of evolution was anti-scriptural. But when microevolution was observed, the position was changed to be "mocrievolution is scripturally okay, but macroevolution is not". Same thing with speciation. The view used to be "speciation is antiscriptural", and now the view is "the development of new species is scripturally okay, but the developlent of new genuses is not". As a result, whenever a new observation is made, the hypercreationists raise the bar.

That is just pure ignorance of any real facts.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

That's untrue. There have been numerous documentd cases of observed speciation in plants, insects, worms, and bacteria.

Then you should be able to show some.

That is by no means correct. Abandoning the theory of evolution is not required to be a bible believer. By your standard, a bible believer must also abandon theories of astronomy, geology, studies of anthropology. On a sidenote, hyperfundamentslists in the past (not you in particular) have also required believers to abandon microevolution, plate tectonics, and heliocentrism, but have since abandoned those positions.

You either believe the bible or you don't.

Genesis is not a science book, and using it as such is a perversion of scripture.

That is ridiculous. Genesis is the word of God, and far be it from you to limit what is in it. Saying we came from monkeys is the perversion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Then you should be able to show some.

You either believe the bible or you don't.



That is ridiculous. Genesis is the word of God, and far be it from you to limit what is in it. Saying we came from monkeys is the perversion.

This is a common misunderstanding of evolution. Humans did not evolve from some modern form of monkey.

A related, and common, fallacy about evolution is that humans evolved from some living species of ape. This is not the case -- humans and apes share a common ancestor. Both humans and living apes are fully modern species; the ancestor we evolved from was an ape, but it is now extinct and was not the same as present day apes (or humans for that matter). If it were not for the vanity of human beings, we would be classified as an ape. Our closest relatives are, collectively, the chimpanzee and the pygmy chimp. Our next nearest relative is the gorilla.

 

[Johnv]

Then you should be able to show some.

You want me to post documentation of observed speciation? Are you sure you want me to do that? It's quite the cure for insomnia. Plus, this thread wasn't about posting evidentiary support for scientific theories. My point was to note the fact that speciation has been observed, not to post evidence for speciation. If you want me to, I will, but it will probably hijack the thread.

You either believe the bible or you don't.

That's the same thing that is often said in the calvinism/arminiam argument, the premil/postmil/amil argument, and the israel argument. Similarly, a particular position on the creation/evolution debate is no more or less a requisite for believing the bible than the calvinism/arminiam argument, the premil/postmil/amil argument, and the israel argument.

Saying we came from monkeys is the perversion.

The theory of evolition does not claim that "we came from monkeys", .