Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story

It is not that we do not have the gene. It is that we share with all other primates this particular copying error. (As to whether theere is something wrong with that animal, it depends on whether it gets enough vitamin C naturally. If it doesn't, there is something wrong with it because it developes a disease it would not have if the machinery were working properly.) Now we are grouped into the primates based on many physical traits which together on primates share. (Actually, only primates share most of these individually.) You have five fingers and toes, each of which can be used for grasping. The fingers are further developed such that they can be used with dexterity. Primates only have two lactal nipples and they are found on the chest instead of the belly. They have fingernails instead of claws. They have fingerprints to help them hold on to items. And so. We share these and many other characteristics with primates and primates only. We then share an additional subset of traits with only those primates known as apes. Physically we are apes and we are primates. These physical traits are powerful evidence for a common ancestor. But then you add these copying errors in and you have a more powerful case because the genetics agrees with the physical evidence. And then you add in the similarity of the functioning genes and you have even more powerful evidence.

Tool use in the apes is just one more trait that apes have developed to help them survive. Mutations when combined with natural selection to keep the new (or improved) traits which confer an advantage to an individual are a powerful force.

Not really part of evolution. But since God apparently wnted us here, I do not think He would have any trouble making sure the right conditions existed.

Sorry to hear about your condition. But the pseudogenes are just another set of markers in the genome that can be searched for to show where related species have been on the receiving end of all the copying going on from common ancestors.

You will not ever find absolute proof. But we have found many pieces of the fossil record and continue to make discoveries. For instance, it is believed that a creature called Proconsul is the last common ancestor of great apes. Unfortunately, we cannot do genetic analysis on fossil bones.

It is a good theory. Like any science, though, we are always searching for more data. We have many ancestoral members already found, and work continues. When you ask specifically about the last common ancestor of all primates, who knows. You are talking about a creature that likely lived about the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs and would look little like what we consider a monkey. Maybe it has already been found and we do not recognize it. But it science, finding that specific link doesn't matter, it is that the majority of the evidence collected thus far agrees with the theory and new evidence continues to strengthen the theory.

 

Don

I think it is important to note what has happened to the YECers on this thread as details of evidence has been presented to contradict them.

Taufgesinnter went on about how speciation did not bother him but that there could not be new organisms at the level of genus or higher. So I posted evidence of the development of not just a new genus, but a whole new class, the mammals from reptiles. He has not even shown up to try and refute the evidence. He just disappeared.

Same thing with vitamin C. When pointed out that all primates, including humans, lack the ability to make vitamin C, he tried to distract by pointing out that neither can guinea pigs make vitamin C. When presented with the details that show that primates all share a specific mutation that prevents them from making vitamin C and that guinea pigs do not share this mutation, he disappears. Then all Mark can do is to compare primates sharing this problem with trucks and carts sharing working wheels. Apples and oranges. No attempt to deal with the evidence.

Finally John6:63 also cannot deal with the evidence so he completely changes the subject from evolution to biogenesis. I do not know how more clearly I can say this. These are two seperate subjects. Why don't you stay on topic somewhat and at least try and deal with the evidence at hand? Second, chemicals do not leave fossils. He knows this and this is why he tries this distraction. We can never have any good evidence of how biogenesis happened because there cannot be any evidence for us to find. But chemists and biologists continue to make progress on ways it could have happened so I would not hang my whole objection on the area with the least amount of evidence to date. Possible / probable steps are likely to be discovered in the future.

In the mean time, there is the giant elephant of evidence for evolution sitting in the living room that all these are trying their best to avoid. Common descent explains so much of what we see so well that they are not even trying to object. They hope that if they wave fervently enough, you'll look at them instead of that elephant. But there it sits. And all they can do is distract and ignore. Sometimes this takes for as asking to "prove" that so and so is true, knowing that NOTHING is ever "proved" in science. But the evidence still sits there. Sometimes they distract by saying that you are only making an "interpretation" when they cannot show the holes in the interpretation nor can they provide a better interpretation to explain the evidence. Basically it boils down to them trying to make hay by saying you cannot know these things for sure. But no hard evidence presented for their side. No evidence that the various species are actually unrelated. No evidence of a young earth or a young universe. No glaring holes poked in the evidence presented.

And the elephant continues to sit there.

 

One thing you pointed out is that "nothing is ever proved in science," which we both know to be false. There are those things that have progressed from theory to fact, such as the planets spinning around the sun and gravity.

A good theory is just that: A theory. Science has proven a lot, but a lot more is still waiting to be proven. Until further evidence becomes available, you'll always have the two trains of thought: Those that look at the evidence and say "it must be this way" (knowing full well that any of a number of things could have happened as well--I refer to one of Gould's postulations that meteor activity in the Gulf of Mexico appears to indicate the possibility of many species springing up all at once)...and those that say "Since God wanted us here, we don't think He would have any trouble making sure the right conditions existed."

And there the argument will stand, until some day (or the judgment day, whichever comes first), something more comes up.

 

Don

I think you actually brought up a good choice to prove my point. Sure, that planets spin on their axis is an observation and a fact. There are even scientific laws. But when it comes to theories, you are basing your findings on empirical data and your theory attempts to best expalin that data.

But gravity still falls into that theory category. Think about it this way. Kepler went a long way towards explaining the orbital motions of the planets. We can even refer to Kepler's Laws of planetary motion. But once we had sophisticated enough epuipment, we found that the orbits of bodies in the solar system did not completely follow the rules set out by Kepler. Kepler's work was extremely good and very valuable, but it was incomplete. When Einstein came along with relativity, we found that we could predict the orbits with a much higher degree of success when also using relativity than by just using Kepler. But our predictions with relativity still are not perfect.

And gravity itself is still quite a mystery. We do not know what it is that makes gravity work. We are progressing towards a theory of gravity, but it needs a lot of work. I guess what I am trying to say is that you should not confuse the facts and the observations with the theories that describe the observations. Even what we call laws often have some underlying assumptions and / or a specific set of conditions to which they can be applied outside of which they are no longer good laws.

Same thing with evolution (and astronomy and geology and so on), we have a lot of oservations and a lot of data. The theory is on fairly solid ground. But you will never know everything about every aspect. There will always be unknowns and conjectures. We will never know the exact evolutionary relationship between every living and extinct organism. The details of the evolutionary tree (bush) will continue to be refined. (It is even difficult to say for sure that a given fossil is or is not a direct ancestor of another creature because of the bushiness of the tree.) The theories about how evolution operates will continue to be improved. You will never have proved beyond a doubt all aspects of evolution. But the overall set of data is quite persuasive and the theory does a good job of explaining what we see and predicting what we should find. And that is the mark of a good theory.

 

Mark,

Did God put every turn and twist , every rock slide, ever piece of river erosion into place or did he allow the elements to do some of it ?

Since God created the world and physical processes surely it is understandeable that these physical processes could mold the environment ? So if you believe in long age creationism it isn't really a problem.

As for stating publically like that , I don't think its a good witness I think it makes Christians look complete nutters. Sorry to be frank but I do.

The thing we should ask ourselves is our audiences reaction to such a bold statement. Do they stop and think -

1) Hey this is exciting news, this guys gotta message , tell me more
or
2) Another fundamentalist nutter who thinks that by speaking with incredible conviction he can convince me about his God.

People , sorry to sound sarcastic but thats how I see it.

If the earth appears old and the scientific evidence seems to support that view then our theological problems with 6 literal day creation are our problems. Dont carve up science to fit our mold because it then isn't science just dogmatism. If we cant find convincing scientific proof that the earth is young ie < 10K years then thats our problem.

 

Hi Mark, some thoughts

Agreed, origins are a completely different matter.

Agreed.

Not so simple, there are some flat earthers who espouse this view. If Christians fly in the face of scientific fact then how are we not blindly superstitious and dogmatic ? That makes believers a laughing stock and discredits Jesus. We have to be sensitive to the world , ( that doesn't necessarily mean comprimise ) but to dismiss scientific evidence is not always a good witness ( sometimes it is though ! ). Galileo's troubles with the Church were caused by men who believed they shouldn't 'comprimise with the world'. Its a careful and tough call here.

Sorry but maybe you aint looking hard enough. We know the Universe is probably hundreds if not billions of years old. The Andromeda galaxy is 2.2 million light years away, since Genesis says the stars were created after the earth you have a big problem.

Look at the lunar surface. If that impactor flux to create all those craters occurred in the last 6K years then we'd be caught in the rock storm by virtue of our locality. Essentially we wouldn't be here now. I've yet to hear a young Earth creationist explain that one.

Mark, apologies if I come across a tad caustic, its not you. I've sadly come across some well meaning but very narrow minded, dogmatic YEC's who have done nothing but discredit Christianity and reduced us to a laughing stock. In todays cultural battleground that's the last thing we need.

Jesus is Lord.

PS Re saying 'Amen' to the Christian on the Grand Canyon tour remember many Christians said 'Amen' to the geocentric view and thought they were defending the faith during Galileo's time. In retrospect...

 

Well, I guess we should all throw our Bibles away since UTEOTW has proven that evolution is now a fact.

Isn't it funny that all of the research done by scientist that believe in creation, such as those at the Institute for Creation Research, has now been proven to be false, and all this because primates, along with humans, cannot synthesize vitamin C. Wow, UTEOTW has provided the missing link, a vitamin deficiency.

I don't know, but perhaps there is a reason for this vitamin C problem that simply has not been discovered yet.

I do know that what God says in the Bible is to be trusted over anything that science, falsely called so, can or cannot explain. To believe anything else is to call God a lier, and that is something that only a fool would do.

 

>>>>Isn't it funny that all of the research done by scientist that believe in creation, such as those at the Institute for Creation Research, has now been proven to be false, and all this because primates, along with humans, cannot synthesize vitamin C. Wow, UTEOTW has provided the missing link, a vitamin deficiency.<<<<<<

Well, those "scientists" at the Institute for Creation Research have proven nothing, contrary to your claims. And I will admit that the inability to make vitamin C does not prove, beyond all doubt, that humans and other primates have common ancestor. The inability to produce vitamin C is entirely consistent with a common ancestor and is certainly very suggestive, along with many other things, that man has evolved and that apes have evolved from a common ancestor. As for absolute proof, that is something for mathematics. I think we can say that there is evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that humans have evolved. I think it is sufficient for most reasonable, for most educated and for most informed people to accept it, even though it is not absolute proof.

Mark, I suspect, is pastor of a church with at most a few dozen members, most of whom probably are not well educated and are not well informed about science or evolution. So Mark probably can get by on what little he knows about the subject. But he won't make such a good impression if he has to discuss this issue in front of well informed and well educated laymen.

 

Hey, let's all jump on the evolutionary bandwagon!!! A squid has an eye with the exact same design as a human's, so we must be linked. A pig's pancreas works the same way and produces insulin human's can use, AND a pig's heart valve is made just like a human's, so we just gotta be descended from the same blob of protoplasm. Hey, a yak's nose runs constantly, so it must be related to every three-year-old human on the face of the planet...

OK. Can we all see just how absurd that can sound? I believe in a six 24 hour day creation. To accept the fact that God created the world just as we see it, with older mountain ranges (erosion), dirt (caused by millions of years of erosin...supposedly), full grown trees, full grown animals, full grown man and woman, is to take God at His word. Personally, I don't see this as a problem.

Evolution is man's attempt to explain away the creation of the world without God. Evolution is itself a religion (it takes a lot of faith to believe something like that...sort of like believing God can to earth as a man, was murdered, and came back from the grave...). I know. I used to be its high priest. Thank God, He loved me enough the save my soul from the Godless hell that I was running full-tilt into (even though I didn't believe in it...evolution doesn't have room for it).

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Hi Mark,

The clash of spiritual swords......

Agreed evolution in my opinion is a theory but you are completely missing the point. The paelontological record reasonably suggests different creature groups lived at different times. This much we know in spite of its weaknesses. You don’t find dinosaur and elephant bones in the same strata. If both dinosaurs, elephants, and other modern day creatures lived at the same time you’d find them in the same strata level or in the Tar Pits in California. Problem is you don’t. Please explain ? Doesn’t that at least suggest different epochs of existence ?

We are not pacifying infidels by accepting long ages. You are surrendering science to Atheists when science was a product of God’s creation !
As to

I’m sorry Mark, must rank as theological hubris of the worst kind. If you have overwhelming , conclusive evidence that radioactive and fluorine dating are so wrong then I suggest you publish in respected Scientific Journals at the earliest opportunity. I fully agree with those who say scientific dating has problems but the problems are not of such magnitude to rank the entire process as ‘absurdity’. You have radiometric evidence and astronomical evidence suggesting long ages. If you can shoot this down to the degree of calling other viewpoints absurd then publish. Soon. So all those Petroleum Geophysicists/Geologists are wallowing in absurdity , strange it seems to help them find oil.

Perhaps you could explain lunar cratering within the last 6K years then as no civilisation on Earth seems to have recorded this process. Please explain how the earth avoided bombardment on that scale during this period ? How would you explain this to an earnest seeker ? Or are we all going to retreat into the ‘just because it is’ mantra and accuse any questioners as being agents of the devil or dangerous liberals/backsliders/ doubters/ not the 'right stuff' ?

No you are hiding your head in the scriptures and calling young Earth Creationism science when its really dogmatism unless it can explain what we see in scientific terms. It has failed to do so. It’s not a problem if you ignore reality or hide behind an fundamentalist interpretation of days.

How effective is your witness if you tell people there’s no problem with the Andromeda Galaxy being 2.2 million light years away yet you tell them it must be less than 6K light years away ! Goodness we’d be just about right in the galaxy if that was the case !

Your problem is that God gives you a brain and expects you to use it. If you claim the Andromeda Galaxy is <6K light years away then you are bearing false witness. You are denying physical reality to incorporate your narrow view of Genesis. Don’t you see that ?

Agreed, but again your missing the point, these men were not Christians the persecutors of Galileo were claiming to support a Christian viewpoint. What that tells us is that we have to be really careful regards being too dogmatic ( that doesn’t mean open door liberalism by any means but we need to carefully scrutinize ). Don’t forget that many devout Christians also opposed pain relief for women in Childbirth on scriptural reasons based on Genesis. They were devout ‘Amen’ characters. Looking back now their dogmatism and foolishness is apparent. It tells us Christians to be very careful and religion. The pendulum can swing to both extremes.

 

>>>>2) I understand why sharing the same exact genetic "corruptions" helps group kinds together. However, please consider that it doesn't further the suggestion that this is a "corrupted" gene, because primates also share something that few or no other animals exhibit: The ability to use tools. Because there's a difference in genetic makeup there that allows primates to do something that no other animals can do, does that now mean there's another "mutation"? Or simply a difference in genetic makeup?<<<<<<<

The fact that one gene may have a mutation that prevents Vitamin C production does not mean that another gene cannot have a mutation that is favorable for intelligence. These are two independent events. And yes, it is likely that man's greater intelligence is the result of mutations, just as it is virtually certain that mutations are the cause of the lack of ability to make vitamin C.

 

>>>>>5) Common descent can explain much of what you're describing, yes; but the Young Earth people can always point back to the question: Where's the proof? Where's the common ancestor who had the uncorrupted gene? Where's the common ancestor who had the corrupted gene?<<<<<

Very seldom do we have absolute proof in this life, outside of the area of mathematics. What we do have is a smoking gun, regarding vitamin C. If you walk into a room, see a man holding a smoking gun and a dead person on the floor, you don't have absolute proof that the man holding the gun killed the dead person. But it would be the way to bet, if you had to bet on it. I think the same logic applies to the inability to make vitamin C on the part of primates. It is not absolute proof that primates have a common ancestor, but it is certainly the way to bet. It is strongly suggestive of a common ancestor, to an impartial witness.

 

Hi Mark,

How are you ? Hope you're well and everythings going okay for you. To the combat zone so to speak , hopefully in Christian love and respect ! -

This is called the slippery slope fallacy. Scientific fact is not the precursor to liberalism. Scientific truth regards AIDS/HIV is hardly the open door to liberalism, in fact quite the reverse.

Human speculation is the only thing we can do re the word of God. Does that shock you ? Hopefully if you think about it no. Are the days literal ? Some speculate yes others no. Is the gift of tongues and healing still widely in use today ? Some speculate yes others no. Symbolic language is used in the Bible as I'm sure you'd agree, its not literal but symbolic. I respectfully ( or try to ) disagree with literal 7 day creationists.

No its not. Why ? A literal belief in Genesis is the rear guard action of a troubled Church by Young Earth Creationists and a gross over simplification of Jesus's answer for society.

Fundamentalism always has its roots in troubled times. Stop and think about all the atrocities the Church has committed ( to our shame ). The crusades , inquisition, wars, slavery etc. These terrible things were all done during a period when literal 7 day creation was believed !!!!! Its only in the last 200 odd years that long ages belief was around. But terrible things were done by men ( and women ) who believed in a literal creation. Young Earthers deceive themselves badly if they believe society will turn around if they take the Bible literally. The whole history of ancient Israel is marked by rebellion against God against a literal 7 day belief system. Man doesn't want to hear about God , 7 day or billions of years creation, full stop. So harkening back to the 'good ole days' and biblical literalism will not help us. In a sense "a return to the word of God with all it's iron clad certainty" would be wonderful but not if it involves making up science to suit ourselves and dogmatism.

Miriam-Webster states
Main Entry: dog·ma·tism
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&-"ti-z&m, 'däg-
Function: noun
Date: 1603
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises Bottom of Form 0

You think Christians should be arrogant , or promote viewpoints with insufficiently examined premises ? Is that a good witness or the sin of pride and arrogance ?

Go softly Mark, take care.

Now whats is this ?

I don't think you're a nutter but society will if you espouse undefendable positions especially in the field of science. I suspect your a perfectly decent bloke.

Look at this Christians dogmatic interpretation of Flat Earthism -

Flat Earth Fundamentalism....dogmatism

he believes he's 'loyal to the gospel'

Go softly and tread carefully Mark,

God bless, Doug.

 

What a stereotypical group of YEC responses.

There are people on this board who believe in geocentrism and who can do a most excellent job of going through the scriptures and pointing out how a literal interpretation demands that we be geocentrists also. But I bet you are not geocentrists. Why? Because you have taken things you know to be true from science, from outside the Bible, and realized that those verses must be reinterpreted as having a symbolic meaning though not necessarily true literal meaning.

No difference here. There is this arrogance about YECs that that says that "I know I am right and therefore God must be on my side." It allows you to stick to your own beliefs with your head in the sand unwilling to even look at the evidence for fear it might upset your world view. Didn't you say "I make no claim to being "well educated" on the subject of evolution. My sole basis for rejecting evolution is that it is contrary to the Scriptures." You do not even attempt to learn what the facts of the case are to see if there might be something to it. Is that not at least a bi disingenuous to claim you see no evidence when you have not looked? You have your interpretation and you're sticking to it. No matter that you have no problem reinterpreting other parts of Scripture as not being literal when it fits your worldview. Or are you a closet geocentrist? Do I need to give other examples of when you easily deny the literal reading of Scripture when it is convenient to you?

You say"I have seen nothing that would indicate to me that the earth is any older than the Bible says it is" yet you admit that you haven't even looked at the evidence. How can you see the evidence of an old universe if you refuse to even look because you're already convinced you are right? I started out YEC. The evidence, and the absurdity of the YEC arguments (especially the absurdity of the YEC arguments) convinced me otherwise. Challenge yourself. Educate yourself a bit on the matter. If you still do not change your mind, then at least you will be able to give a coherent argument as to why. At his point, you cannot even give any evidence for a young earth, only your interpretation of Scripture.

You still cannot deal with the evidence. I think you are even willfully misunderstanding the evidence. I have been extremely clear that the problem is not that we cannot make vitamin C. The issue at hand is that we share very specific DNA sequences, that have no functional reason to be there but that we can identify as having come from specific functioanl sections of DNA with the other primates which would be a prediction of evolution and has been shown to be true. No attempt to deal with the evidence, just a hope that "perhaps there is a reason for this vitamin C problem that simply has not been discovered yet." You cannot argue the facts so you roll your eyes at me and call me a fool. Very convincing. Typical.

And just what research has been done by those fellows at the ICR? How about AIG? Do you have any good publications of theirs in scinetific journals? What discoveries have they made that have benfitted mankind? None? Did you follow any of my links about how evolution helps modern medicine? Didn't think so. It might challenge your worldview.

And no, I didn't think that I was setting out to "prove" evolution by dealing with one very specific thread. But I think I did show very convincingly how the peice of evidence at hand fits perfectly with common descent and not at all with created "kinds." You still haven't contradicted that.

Doug pointed out that essentially all of the universe is much farther away than 6000 light years. You said "I have no problem with these things at all. If you do, that's your problem, not mine." No, that is still your problem. Get all that light here in 6000 years, if you can. And remember, that light records in it the history of all those objects. So if you want to convince me that all that light was created in transit you'll have to convince me of why they all have histories that did not actually happen.

Sometimes. To just stick with the subject, how can you convince the nonbelievers that you have the Truth when you deny most of modern science as being true. They will think you're all "nutters" and the ability to reach them will be greatly diminished.

First, a squid's eye has significant differences from that of a human's eye. Second, a pig is a fellow mammal so why would we not expect it to have similar organs to a human? In fact, this is part of the nested heirarchy of evolution and is another bit of proof about the common descent of the species. Without common descent, what reason would you have for a pig to be more closely tied to a human than say a crocodile? You do not have a reason. But evolution does.

Once again, we have had a whole series of posts that do nothing but ignore the evidence and try to convince us that you have the correct interpretation of scripture. You mock people who have actually looked at the evidence while you admit that you have not looked yourself. You willfully take a nonliteral interpretation when convenient, but you refuse to look at evidence that might contradict your worldview and roll your eyes at those who have. You speak of the absurdity of evolution even as you use absurd claims to try and defeat it. Typical.

Bring me your convincing evidence for a young earth. Or at least make a good argument against the evidence for an old earth other than giving your opinion that it cannot be so.

 

God bless you.