God and natural selection

Evidence - such as vestigal hips in whales?

 

Evidence - such as vestigal hips in whales?

</font>[/QUOTE]Is this really the best you can do?

I asked you for evidence of the many "stages" in the development of the eye that you claimed exist and you responded with a video from PBS that simply describes some fairy-tale speculation about how the eye COULD have evolved without providing any EVIDENCE that it did evolve. The video even states that the evolutionist "envisions a sequence of stages" by which the eye "could evolve". No effort is made to present actual EVIDENCE.

Can’t you see how ridiculous it is to claim that the eye evolved and not be able to produce some evidence (not a fairy tale video) that it actually happened?

Now you show us this picture of what you call a whale's hip?

Can’t you see how ridiculous it is to cite this picture of a whale’s bones as evidence that whales evolved from walking mammals?

Is this really the best you can do?

Think about it, Paul. Use your “reason” which you, justifiably, value so highly. If these examples are the closest you can come to “evidence” the there’s really no evidence at all.

You have chosen to accept evolution by faith, not because of evidence. It's not my place to tell you what you should believe by faith. That's between you and God.

Just don’t call it science or "reason", please.

 

Thank you... that's exactly what I said.

Since you are claiming that God used the "creative process" of evolution rather than speaking things into existence... please cite your scripture. My Bible says that God willed it and it was so. Does your Bible say somewhere that God willed it... and a process of millions of years began that effectively made the universe look as if it didn't need Him at all and allowed very vain men to say that evolution allows atheists to be intellectually satisfied?

 

Well, theres more of course.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

Sorry, denial of the fact of evolution is done by denying the evidence.

 

No Paul. It is done by denying the premise of naturalism. Naturalism is not necessary to science. However, evolutionists when explaining natural history insist that it is- a purely metaphysical presupposition.

Have you ever read "Darwin's God"? It would be worth your while whether it changes your mind or not. One of the main efforts is the study of the popular conception of God that led Darwin and others to the conclusion that natural evil necessarily demanded either no God, no good god, or else a God detached from His creation.

Whether intentional, incidental, or as a product of your indoctrination, you all repeat many of the fallacies that were popular amongst liberal religionists then.

 

My claim is not a "rather than".

My claim, which you are free to disagree with, is that God spoke and willed things into existence the result of which is the process of evolution and the diversity of life over time.

 

That isn't what the text of scripture describes.

But while we are at it, what exactly did God will into existence? And if you can believe that He willed those things into existence then why not a perfect order within the last 10K years that has devolved into the natural world we now see? If God is omnipotent enough to do great things that you allow Him then why isn't He powerful enough to do the things He claims repeatedly to have done?

 

FTR, the events needed for evolution were not "good" by any stretch of the imagination. Death, cruel mutations, and thousands of years of humanity engaging in the morality of mere animals.

 

I agree. Just like how the earth rotating around the sun isn't how the bible describes the motion of the planets.

God willed everything into existence.

What is this "perfect order" you propose. I have never heard of such a thing and it is not talked about in the bible.

He is definitely powerful enough to do the things He claimed, and He did them.

He is also powerful enough to do the things that YECs claim he did, even though he didn't do some of them.

 

Evolution isn't about "goodness" or "badness". It is an observation of how God created. Physical death is part of God's creation, whether it came after the fall or before the fall.

I have not known a mutation to exhibit the emotion of cruelty. But there are many mutations that confer beneficial survival traits.

If one classifies human is still animal then nothing has changed.

If one classifies human as not animal then humanity by definition was never animal for thousands of years.

What is the morality of animals?

 

Evolution isn't about "goodness" or "badness". It is an observation of how God created. Physical death is part of God's creation, whether it came after the fall or before the fall.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. Death is the result of sin.

I have not known a mutation to exhibit the emotion of cruelty. But there are many mutations that confer beneficial survival traits.</font>[/QUOTE] Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Have you ever seen a child with mutations? I knew a girl who had growths on her thumbs almost as if she were starting new fingers. They were not useful and in fact painful. Surgery removed them but she died early in life from natural causes.

If one classifies human is still animal then nothing has changed.

If one classifies human as not animal then humanity by definition was never animal for thousands of years.</font>[/QUOTE] God does not... and never did. He said that He made man from the dust of the earth and breathed life directly into his lifeless body making him a living soul... He didn't say anything whatsoever about man being the most advanced product of undirected natural forces over 5 billion years... or anything remotely like it.

Amorality. A lack of the conscience associated with a living "soul".

 

That was one of the choices I stated. Death coming after the fall.

Yes, some mutations have negative and painful impacts.

So if humans are not classified as animals, then humans never engaged in the morality of mere animals because they were human and not animal.

 

I was hearing this so often that I asked, on another board, for examples of mutations that were considered beneficial by the poster who made that claim. I did request they be in the animal kingdom and did not try to define any terms, so that the field could be as wide open as possible.

Polar bears' webbed feet were the first example. I looked on the web. There is NOTHING about them genetically to indicate that is a mutation and not a simple variation.

Then the Milan Apo-AIM mutation was brought up, and I said that I agreed that it seemed to be beneficial, but I did not see how it would confer evolutionary benefits; nevertheless I agreed it appeared to be beneficial and I would like to see more tests run on people and not just animals on this one for a definitive judgment. The fellow was upset that I was not totally agreeing, but the only human test I was able to find dealt with less than 50 subjects for a total of 6 weeks and that is just not enough to show something definitively. Nevertheless, it appears to be a positive mutation with no negative costs involved.

Then there was the mutation which resulted in more bone mass -- AND a deformed lower jaw with little bony protuberances inside the mouth.

Then there was the mutation which resulted in more muscle mass -- but work with the gene involved in this mutation resulted in reproduction problems in cattle. I am still not clear as to whether their work involved a similar effect as the mutation mentioned or not, the poster has gone off the wall on me.

But, folks, if this is the best evolution can come up with, it is bankrupt regarding those claims for beneficial mutations. The mutations, even if they seem beneficial in one way, are exacting what is called a 'cost' -- there are other effects that go along with them.

And this is not surprising, for we do not see one gene = one trait in genetics. It is most often the interplay of genes and timing mechanisms which produce most traits. Thus, in order to FORM a new trait, you need far more than a 'new' gene or a mutated one; you need a new set of interplays coordinated with timing mechanisms.

But to cause damage, you only need to mutate or knock out one gene. The effect is like knocking out a few teeth in the gear of a Swiss watch or even taking out the whole gear. That one gear did not define the movement of the watch -- it took all the gears. But disturb the workings of any one gear and there goes the watch.

Or the trait, when the analogy is plugged back into genetics.

And that is another reason evolution does not and cannot work. It is not a matter of this or that mutation -- it is a matter of coordination as much as anything else.

 

How would you genetically differentiate between mutation and variation?

 

So if humans are not classified as animals, then humans never engaged in the morality of mere animals because they were human and not animal. </font>[/QUOTE]Evolution cannot and does not make a distinction between human the animal and human the man.

 

How would you genetically differentiate between mutation and variation? </font>[/QUOTE]Are you serious?

 

Helen, I read awhile back that scientists are finding now that biological systems seem to have some cause or governance beyond just the genetic code. I forget the exact terms or I would look it up.

Do you recall what I am thinking of?

 

He's serious, Scott, and it's an interesting question, because, unless there is definitive information either way, you can't be sure. There are a number of traits which can be recessive for many generations and then when circumstances are right, appear. They would look like novel traits but may well not be. In reverse, there are some traits which may appear to be simple variations but which are actually the results of mutations.

It's a good question, actually.

 

Epigenetics. It is an exploding field which has to do with just what you said -- there is a lot more than chromosomes involved in our heredity. One of the first known examples I know of regarding anything was by Franklin in Way of a Cell -- the shape of the E.coli bacteria is NOT determined by its genetic components. So why is it the shape that it is?

 

Per your answer above, my simplistic definitions would actually make mutations and adaptations pretty different. One is when DNA does what it actually should. The other is when it does what it shouldn't.

I agree that it might be difficult to discern whether a mutation were actually a recessive trait. But my understanding is that there are two different processes at play with mutation and adaptation.