The lie of evolution, part II

At this point, I'll add one more type retort to the above:
"You quoted me out of context!"

 

"
I don't think anyone could actually count the number of times the consensus of science has been wrong!"

There is a difference between being wrong and not knowing everything yet.

In the cases you mentioned above, these are in general times when new information came to light that changed the opinions of those in the field. There was no way for how the process actually worked to have been known before because there was yet to be data collected.

Now some of these were fairly radical shifts. Some were even met with hostility in the beginning. Yet each were eventually accepted based on the strengths of their arguments and their agreement with data. They were each then build upon with further work.

And that is how science works. Things are discovered and once accepted they are used as the basis for further discovery. New things are always being discovered and this is where all the rewrites take place. No one has given us reason to doubt the basic premice of Darwin in the intervening century and 1 half. But in the time new discoveries and especially new means of research have open the world to discoveries Darwin would have never dreamed about. But although much has been learned about the mechanics of evolution since Darwin and much has been learned about the history of life on earth, Darwin's basic theory has remained intact and has been the basis for an incredible amoun of learning.

I guess those who continue to count the ongoing nature of scientific research as a negative wish that we would simply quit learning about the creation and stagnate in our current state of knowledge.

I also hope that the lurkers are paying close attention. There is a lot of bluster from the YEers but please pay close attention. They put forth their arguments and those arguments are factually picked apart and shown not to be true. If you look acoss the last couple of pages you will see more than once comments about how OEers likely will find some reason to not accept a given claim. And its true. Their claims are generally shown to have no basis in fact when examined. A few if any are ever left unchallenged. Also notice the rarity with which YEers defend their claims after they have been addressed. They prefer to wait until the refutation rolls off the page and then to just reassert the same claim with no more support than before.

In contrast, look at the OE claims. Look at how many the YEers even try and address. Very few. And even then it is generally with strawmen and red herrings. Look through the threads for fact based challenges to the OE claims. They are hard to find. They seem to be simply ignored instead.

Go back to the first first post in the thread. I took a part of that quote directly and used it as part of a case for birds evolving from dinosaurs. I carefully showed why that should lead to the expectation that genetic testing would show that crocodiles and birds would be more closely related that crocodiles and any living reptile. I then provide multiple references to show that just this is the case. I have begged for a testible YE explanation. It has not been touched. It is like actual data is the third rail in debate with YEers. Not to be touched under any circumstance.

On the last thread on this subject I did a similar thing with whales, a summary of which is on this thread as well. In this case, I stepped through the evidence in support of the evolution of whales from a particular group of hooved animals and then used this to show how evolution correctly predicts the close genetic relationship between whales and animals like camels and hippos. No response.

And for good measure, the same thing is done with 4 - 5 dozen different junk human sequences of DNA showing our common ancestry with the other apes.

For all the talk about strong evidence for support of YE and for all the talk about how we all have the same data but it is merely a matter of interpretation, no one seems to be willing to touch the actual data.

And if you look through the threads, you will see that I am not the only one. The other OE posters are more than happy to provide evidence which is then ignored and to refute the claims of the YEers. But the opposite is not true. The YEers refuse to be tied down on a specific area of inquiry, preferring instead to flee from the facts.

I wonder why...

 

Helen is absolutely correct.

Notice that my argument was considered a "strawman" argument because of a quote I used.

I asked for an evolutionist to take each verse and tell us their commentary for the first few chapters of Genesis.

They will NOT do it. I have YET to see an evolutionist on THIS board actually get into the Bible and present their arguments from what God said and not from what they are told of their professor's perceptions of their science.

Will an evolutionist please explain EXACTLY what God meant in His Word when He spoke of a detailed creation? And please be specific.

 

Helen, Can you please post these versus.

thanks.

 

Yes, you keep on saying so, even after it is presented and ignored. How many times do we have to present the same thing? Here's some of the threads where I actually got into the Bible and presented my arguments from what God said:
</font>

• Contextual evidence that some parts of Genesis aren't literal</font>
• The genre of Genesis 1</font>
• Looking biblically at the issue of animal death</font>
• Looking at NT references to creation and the flood</font>
• A mini-essay on the issue</font>

What is even more sad is that time and time again, I've found that those on the other side who claim the biblical high ground are generally far less familiar with what the Bible actually says. I've discussed the apparent contradictions between Genesis 1-2 at least three times here, and each time I got a different story (sometimes more than one) about what the Bible "plainly" said. One person wasn't aware that birds were created on day five, so the creation of animals after Adam could not just be another event on day six. Another thought Genesis 2:5 was speaking about certain plants having already been created, rather than not yet existing. One claimed that the creation of animals between Adam and Eve had a verb in the past tense, apparently oblivious to the fact that pretty much the entire account is written in the past tense!

I sometimes wonder if many YECs even read Genesis for themselves or just rely on Answers in Genesis and other organizations to tell them what it says.

 

The trouble with that interpretation is that if erets in this context must mean "geographical mass", then Genesis 11:1 must speak of the entire geographical mass having one language and one speech. I don't think that verse is saying that all animals, trees and rocks communicated with each other. One meaning of erets is "people of the land", and I think it makes far more sense to suppose that people are in mind in these contexts.

So, in Genesis 10:25 we have a summary statement:

"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg*; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." (* Peleg means division.)

This follows on the reference earlier in the chapter that uses a different word also meaning division:

"By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." (Genesis 10:5, KJV)

Then, we have the more detailed account of how division came to a united earth:

"Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. [...] And the LORD said, 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.' So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city." (Genesis 11:1-2, 6-8, ESV)

Interestingly, later in the Bible the same Hebrew word for "divide" found in Genesis 10:25 is again used to refer to confusing a people's language:

"Destroy, O Lord, divide their tongues; for I see violence and strife in the city." (Psalm 55:9, ESV)

So, this shows why these verses did not lead creationists to hypothesize plate tectonics. While some have grudgingly accepted it after it became very hard to dispute, the theory was vehemently denied by many creationists for quite some time because they thought it contradicted Scripture. There was no need to read the division of continents into Genesis 10:25 because a plain, literal interpretation of the verse already existed: it described the division of languages mentioned earlier in the same genealogy and detailed in the following chapter.

 

Yes, I am intentionally careful to state that what I present is my interpretation. Phillip said that he hasn't seen any TE "get into the Bible and present their arguments from what God said", so I presented links to posts where I have done what he asked.

I wouldn't want to claim that I speak in place of God, or that disagreeing with me is equal to disagreeing with God. I think it's hurtful when people confuse the trustworthiness of their interpretation with the trustworthiness of God's word.

I agree (except I'd place 2:4a with the second account, or with the editor who compiled the two accounts together, and end the second account at 4:26).

I did not say that multiple authors was a reason to suppose the accounts weren't literal eyewitness accounts. I think the gospels are an example of accounts that are both mainly literal and historical as well as eyewitness accounts, so I have no idea why you formulated this straw man. If you actually click the links I posted, you'll see my reasons are quite different.

 

"You mean science knows it all now?"

Of course not. Why would there still be ongoing research if all was known?

"Neither plate tectonics nor germ theory needed data. Both are indicated in the Bible. All anyone needed to do even then was believe the Bible."

I think Mercury has dealt very well with your strained interpretation needed to get plate tectonics from the verse you cite. In any case, a scientific theory needs data. Can you point to anyone who interpreted the these verses to mean plate tectonics before the science of plate tectonics was born? If not, why not? If the meaning is so obvious? Perhaps some people do occasionally change their minds on the correct interpretation of certain scriptures based on knowledge from outside the data.

"As far as not answering your/OE claims, I have gotten tired of doing that. I have done it for literally years and it makes no difference to you at all."

Well, no it does not because the answers you give have always been found to be wanting. Quite often you have told me you'd have to get back with me which invariably never happened. I showed much patience with you, waiting for promised answers that never came.

So what is the excuse for not dealing with, for example, the claims of Petrel? I maintain my opinion that the reason that the hard facts are not dealt with is because there is no way to deal with them in A YE paradigm. It is easier to repeat over and over that all mutations lead to a loss of "specifity" rather than address all the mechanisms and examples from various posters that show that assertion to not be true.

"You corresponded with my husband for awhile about his work, as you recall. With every email Barry received he could only shake his head in disbelief that you still did not understand what he was saying and he would try all over again! Finally, enough was enough."

I was not the only one to fail to understand. There were also many question here where answers were promised but never delivered. In some cases it was old things like why you claim that there should not be anomalies in the Milky Way because of changing light speed but you have claimed anomalies with the moon and with satellites. There was a whole discussion about gravitationally controlled systems like eclipsing binaries.

Some, not me, asked detailed questions about why we do not see anomalies with variable stars. The only explanation you could give was that they were affected by the change in light speed when in reality they have a gravitational component, among other non-nuclear factors, that measn we should see them wax and wane more slowly than we do because of changing light speed.

Even recently, we had a thread which you managed to get closed where you tried to explain away expected anomalies in observed galaxy rotation rates but equivocating different values for the speed of light in formulas that assumed they were the same. Did that response ever make it to the website as you said it would? With ALL of the questions and alledged problems along for the ride?

Another item you promised a response and never delivered on was to explain how your flood model works without boiling the oceans and suffocating the ark. You have a severe thermodynamic problem which has been outlined mulitple times. You said you'd have to research the answer the first time around and now you just ignore the question.

 

"for both of us."

Since you could not convince me, you now ignore us all? Well at least any lurkers can draw their own conclusions about whether answers really exist.

"Whether it is dinosaurs and birds or whales, you are STARTING with the presumption that man trumps God in explanations."

[yawn]

There is a difference between what God says and how man interprets it.

But you, nor anyone alse, have even bothered to offer an explanation that follows your assumptions. The claims are often made that it is merely a matter of interpretation or that the assumptions are all wrong. Well I think that I and others have laid out some very nice data sets. The opportunity is there for the well practiced YEer to show how to properly tell how to interpret the data and what assumptions should be made. It needs to include how the hypothesis can be tested and how it can be differeniated from common descent.

"There is no evidence that whales evolved, only the presumption that they did and therefore certain animals are claimed to be transitional and certain features of the whale are claimed to be evidence or proof of this evolution. I do not accept your presumptions and therefore do not accept your conclusions."

Then your challenge is to show how the observations that lead to the conclusion that whales evolved can be better explained with your set of assumptions. If those alledged transitionals are not really such then why do the genetics and fossils and vestiges and homologies and atavisms all lead to the same conclusion? Please tell us why whales have the land dwelling animal genes, as pseudogenes, for making a sense of smell. Tell us why, if the fossils connecting whales back to the cetartiodactyls are not really transitional, then why does genetic testing show whales as most closely related to living cetartiodactyls.

"I cannot speak for others, but I certainly do not flee from facts. It is facts I am interested in -- much more so than your interpretations of them!"

So you say. But a lot of facts have been put into play by multiple posters and no one seems to interested in addressing them. These other interpretations always seem to stay more nebulous than concrete.

 

"Notice that my argument was considered a "strawman" argument because of a quote I used."

Yours was a strawman because you concocted a reply by misinterpreting the quote you used. Now whether you did not understand the quote or whether you were deliberately equivocating I have no idea. But the strawman you knocked over from that quote was not what the poster was trying to say.

 

UTEOTW said,

The poster in question seems happy to just provide random weblinks and to spam huge amounts of copy and pasted material from all over the place which is not his own.

What is wrong with me going to websites and getting information?

I already know that you do not take Genesis literally, so trying to convince you that God created life in modern forms will get nowhere with you.

You have your own interpretation of the Bible. Fine. Arguing from the Bible with you is pointless.

So, I have tried to find sites with direct quotes from evolutionists, scientists, and geneticists all showing tremendous problems with the theory of evolution.

What do you do? You blow them off and say I take things out of context.

You seem to make all the rules. Whenever someone presents any evidence to you, you have a convenient way to rationalize it away.

By the way, I have seen very long lists of references from you. I really do not see a lot of difference here. I hardly think that 100% of evolutionary theory came out of your mind solely.

You also like to have all the marbles. You (and several others) have made subtle inferences that you are far more knowledgeable than us simple folk.

Fine. You are a smart guy. We are dummies who can not understand your sophisticated science.

But you are also very selective IMHO as to which evidence you listen to and consider. So, while you are very intelligent and educated, I would not say you are open-minded whatsoever.

I'm SURE you will disagree.

But I will continue to post from sites. Even if you do not read a word (and you probably don't), at least others will see that many scientists and geneticists have great problems with the theory of evolution.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html

So, at least it is presenting an opposing view.

I believe most people are pretty smart and discerning too. They can make up their own minds from the evidence presented.

 

I would say this writer has pretty good credentials (see the end).

Grasse compares a mutation to "a typing error made in copying a text (p. 96)." He says "Mutations have a very limited 'constructive capacity'; this is why the formation of hair by mutation of reptilian scales seems to be a phenomenon of infinitesimal probability; the formation of mammae by mutation of reptilian integumentary glands is hardly more likely ...(p. 97)." He goes on to say, "Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how. ... As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy (pp. 97, 98)."

Grasse in several different places in his book provides devastating evidence to show that "chance" cannot account for evolution. He correctly evaluates the attitude of Darwinists toward "chance" when he says: "Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped (p. 107)

Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)
Evolution of Living Organisms
Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
Pierre-Paul Grasse is the past President of the French Academie des Sciences and editor of the 35 volume "Traite de Zoologie" published by Masson, Paris.

Boy, he said it all with this line;

"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped (p. 107)

 

So, JWI, how 'bout them B cells and their somatic hypermutation?

And did you see the link I posted in the "Evolution and common genetics" thread regarding a gene from Archae being transferred to E. coli, used for ampicillin resistance (although that was not its original function), and improved over time by mutation?

 

"What is wrong with me going to websites and getting information?"

Absolutely nothing. It is one way to learn.

But what I object to is that you seem to think that just linking to a webpage or making a large copy and paste from a webpage counts as putting forth an argument. It really is not.

Worse, these links and quotes often introduce a lot of new subjects all at one time making it difficult to have a decent conversation.

All that I am asking is that if you think you have a good argument, then write up that argument in your words and provide links and citations to support said argument. It is easier to have a thread if we deal with a handfull of issues at once rather than dozens.

I also ask that if you find them websites good enough to link to and to quote from, that when objections are raised that you at least make an attempt to defend the original assertions instead of picking a new topic and introducing several new lines of inquiry while the old ones are still unresolved.

There is a mtive in there that if we focus on a couple of topics, then you have to work harder and dig deeper. This can only make us both better informed.

I have no illusion of changing your mind. But if I can make you dig a little deeper, learn a little more and remove the most objectional arguments from your repotoire, then I will have accomplished something.

"I already know that you do not take Genesis literally, so trying to convince you that God created life in modern forms will get nowhere with you."

I am more open to changing my mind than you appreciate. The problem is, the typical YE arguments are all so bad that they convince me further of their untruth every time I hear one. It was just such argements that turned me from YE to OE/TE.

But, if you can, please present your evidence that the species were created in their modern forms. Let's see how well it stands up to the alternatives.

"So, I have tried to find sites with direct quotes from evolutionists, scientists, and geneticists all showing tremendous problems with the theory of evolution.

What do you do? You blow them off and say I take things out of context. "

Its not you. It is those supllying the quotes.

When you first started providing the quote mines, I took several and showed that the meaning had been changed by remving the context. One had even been made up from thin air.

Since then I have been very clear. This is not my first exposure to quotes. Repeatedly, what sound like juicy quotes are not what the author meant. The context changes everything. So, if you want me to even read a quote, it needs to be provided with a link where I can read the whole writing from which the quote was pulled for myself. Otherwise, I have no way of knowing whether or not the quote is authentic or accurate or contextual.

It is just a waste of time trying to run down pages of quotes. And there is a key point. If someone tells you that they have quotes from evolutionists that say that evolution is not true, what do you think the odds are that the authors meant that evolution really is not true? If their actual opinion is not being reflected, then what is the value of the quote? None.

It also must be pointed out that quotes aren't really evidence in any case. If the quote has validity, then you should be able to make the case based on the facts surrounding the quote instead of using the quote itself. That is not to say that quoting is always unneeded. Quotes can be useful and insightful. But by themselves, they do not mean much.

"By the way, I have seen very long lists of references from you. I really do not see a lot of difference here. I hardly think that 100% of evolutionary theory came out of your mind solely."

None of it came from my mind.

But pay attention to what I generally do. I try and frame an argument by giving you my logic and understanding of it. I then provide the references as a means where you can go and check up on what I have claimed. I refer back to the experts in the field. I usually do not give just the reference and quit and usually I only quote sparingly from the references. The arguments and logic are somewhat my own.

Now I did go way overboard in one case. That was the question of abiogenesis. The claim was made that there is not even an idea of how that would work. So I provided a huge list of references. But the point was not necessarily what the references said themselves but that there was a huge number of works in a field where it was asserted that there was none.

"You also like to have all the marbles. You (and several others) have made subtle inferences that you are far more knowledgeable than us simple folk.

Fine. You are a smart guy. We are dummies who can not understand your sophisticated science."

First off, I don't make the rules. I do have a few requests if you want to have a reasonable discussion but feel free to ignore me. I do try and insist every once in a while that someone try and address the items that I and other bring up. But that has been rather fruitless.

Second, I don't think I have met anyone here I would say is dumb. Most posters in fact seem rather intelligent. Even those I do not agree with. I intend no offense. But there is an intent to try and exchange information and open new areas of inquiry.

"But you are also very selective IMHO as to which evidence you listen to and consider. So, while you are very intelligent and educated, I would not say you are open-minded whatsoever."

As I said, you'd be surprised.

But all I really want is a weighing of the evidence. Throw the chips down and see where they land.

"I believe most people are pretty smart and discerning too. They can make up their own minds from the evidence presented."

I agree. But we seem to have an inability to stick to one topic long enough and in enough detail for such a person to gather enough information to make their mind up.

 

JWI

You are bringing in Grasse as an expert. In the book from which you are quoting, he also says

This is from page 3.

So, do you agree with Grasse? Do you consider him to be an expert that we should trust? How do you decide which parts of his work to accept and which to reject?

 

Oooh.... Here is a fellow with TWO PhD's. One in DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY.


Jonathan Wells (PhD Yale [Relligious studies] and PhD University of California Berkeley [Developmental Biology]) explains this deficiency:


Mutations are supposed to provide the raw material for evolution, but they can do this only if they benefit the organism, and mutations in developmental genes are always harmful. In fact, the only DNA mutations that are known to be benficial are those that affect immediate interactions between a mutant protein and other molecules. Such mutations can confer antibiotic and insecticide resistance, but they can never lead to the sorts of changes that could account for evolution. DNA mutations cannot even change the species of an animal, much less change a fish into an amphibian or a dinosaur into a bird.3

 

Wells never practiced, as far as I know. He claims that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon encouraged him to get a PhD in biology so that he could destroy evolution. So this is not a reference that was swayed by the evidence but one who was convinced before he saw the evidence.

But that statement fails to address the claim you make.

So here goes. The quote says "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful."

However, a very quick search produced the following.

Dermitzakis, E.T. and A.G. Clark, Differential selection after duplication in mammalian developmental genes. Mol Biol Evol, 2001. 18(4): p. 557-62.