Religion Creationism, Evolution and the Bible

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Because some people do not understand how hard it is for fossils to get preserved at all, have no concept of things like 'geological unconformities' where gaps of millions of years between rock formations mean that 'transistionary' fossils may have been destroyed by natural processes, or that 99% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is extinct already and we have a fossil record that captures only brief snapshots into it.

They view the theory of evolution as a threat to thier religious views, because their church father's felt the same, and passed down a twisted view of evolution and what it means to them.

There is no conflict between the natural theory of evolution and any Abrahamic text or religion, unless someone is a young earth creationist who wants to take the Biblical time scale literally.

No. The Bible can, in theory, work on the 'day-age theory,' I've studied the position, and it's not theologically crippling to Christianity.

The reason that evolution is bunk, is because the facts do not support it.


You say that the fossil record is too incomplete to show evidence one way or the other? Isn't that the same as saying that it's completely useless as proof at all? But then why did you bring it up? I didn't bring up the fossil record as proof that evolution is bunk (though it does fall against evolution rather than support it), and there's a reason for that.

Abiogenesis by itself defeats the theory of evolution. Irreducible complexity by itself defeats the theory of evolution. Either of those by itself would have any biologist acting in good faith reduce evolution to, at best, something that's off the table unless no other alternative is available.

But all of this is putting the cart before the horse; I have one simple question for you on the matter:

What is the evidentiary standard that needs to be met for evolution to be proven false? To put it another way, what would someone have to show you in order for you to say 'Ah, I guess it isn't real after all?'
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
No. The Bible can, in theory, work on the 'day-age theory,' I've studied the position, and it's not theologically crippling to Christianity.

The reason that evolution is bunk, is because the facts do not support it.


You say that the fossil record is too incomplete to show evidence one way or the other? Isn't that the same as saying that it's completely useless as proof at all? But then why did you bring it up? I didn't bring up the fossil record as proof that evolution is bunk (though it does fall against evolution rather than support it), and there's a reason for that.

Abiogenesis by itself defeats the theory of evolution. Irreducible complexity by itself defeats the theory of evolution. Either of those by itself would have any biologist acting in good faith reduce evolution to, at best, something that's off the table unless no other alternative is available.

But all of this is putting the cart before the horse; I have one simple question for you on the matter:

What is the evidentiary standard that needs to be met for evolution to be proven false? To put it another way, what would someone have to show you in order for you to say 'Ah, I guess it isn't real after all?'
I'm not going to play this stupid game where you put words in my mouth, misreptesent what I said, and make me defend positions I didn't take, which is pretty much all you've done here.
 

ShadowsOfParadox

Well-known member
You say that the fossil record is too incomplete to show evidence one way or the other?
No. It's incomplete enough to not have a perfect record, but, again, there are PLENTY of obviously transistory fossils if you look.

What is the evidentiary standard that needs to be met for evolution to be proven false? To put it another way, what would someone have to show you in order for you to say 'Ah, I guess it isn't real after all?'
Species not changing.

Fundamentally, if they change, they will eventually drift far enough to have incompatible gametes and thus become a different species.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Can you breed broccoli with cabbages?
Yes. That's how you produce Broccolini.

No. It's incomplete enough to not have a perfect record, but, again, there are PLENTY of obviously transistory fossils if you look.


Species not changing.

Fundamentally, if they change, they will eventually drift far enough to have incompatible gametes and thus become a different species.
Good news then, science has overwhelmingly proven that species never change. A chihuahua is still fertile with a wolf if you get the mechanical aspects out of the way, and that's a massive number of generations and thousands of years to play with their genes. Somehow, all we got out of it was funny-shaped dogs, never any other species, and they always remain the same species, according to their kind as the Bible calls it.

Multiple experiments have shown that speciation never occurs. One of the interesting brick walls evolution keeps ramming its head into is the Law of Recurrent Variation. Decade after decade of mutation experiments showed that a species has only a limited number of variations possible, as they continued to produce mutants, somehow the same mutants kept arising from different strains and experiments and no new species could ever be created.

A century of Fruit Fly Mutation experiments proved as well that evolution simply wasn't happening. Millions of generations of fruit flies have been carefully bred and mutation encouraged by every possible means, equivalent to several million years of human evolution. They evolved into... the same damn fruit flies. A fruit fly could be pushed to certain limits within its genome (They cataloged about 3000 variations), and then you produced nonviable flies, not a new species. But soon the law of recurrent variation raised its ugly head and they found themselves breeding identical mutants from totally different strains. Even worse, a second recurrent problem with evolution came to the fore: The genome repaired itself over time, and attempts at breeding the mutant flies began to produce the original strain as the mutations worked their way out of the system.

Even an experiment to try to Breed New Bacteria covering 20 years and 40,000 generations could not produce a new bacterium, only variants of the already-existing species they started with.

“After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species” -Darwin Retried, page 22

Needless to say, the media and establishment have never been eager to trumpet these results and it's as hard to find mainstream media admitting to proof that speciation occurred as it is proof that Trump won the election in 2020.
 

posh-goofiness

Well-known member
Yes. That's how you produce Broccolini.
This was not produced through sexual reproduction, it was produced via cultivar hybridization.

Multiple experiments have shown that speciation never occurs. One of the interesting brick walls evolution keeps ramming its head into is the Law of Recurrent Variation. Decade after decade of mutation experiments showed that a species has only a limited number of variations possible, as they continued to produce mutants, somehow the same mutants kept arising from different strains and experiments and no new species could ever be created.

A century of Fruit Fly Mutation experiments proved as well that evolution simply wasn't happening. Millions of generations of fruit flies have been carefully bred and mutation encouraged by every possible means, equivalent to several million years of human evolution. They evolved into... the same damn fruit flies. A fruit fly could be pushed to certain limits within its genome (They cataloged about 3000 variations), and then you produced nonviable flies, not a new species. But soon the law of recurrent variation raised its ugly head and they found themselves breeding identical mutants from totally different strains. Even worse, a second recurrent problem with evolution came to the fore: The genome repaired itself over time, and attempts at breeding the mutant flies began to produce the original strain as the mutations worked their way out of the system.
This article misunderstands the main drive of natural selection. The correct means of testing this would be to introduce one or two extreme environmental constraints into a breeding population and maintain those one or two pressures indefinitely. The experiment would need to be completely isolated from introduction of external genetic material and run for... well much longer than a century. much much longer. Observing that multiple short term experiments of the course of the last century do not show the sort of speciation the theory of evolution predicts is utterly unsurprising and fully consistent with the theory.

Even an experiment to try to Breed New Bacteria covering 20 years and 40,000 generations could not produce a new bacterium, only variants of the already-existing species they started with.

Needless to say, the media and establishment have never been eager to trumpet these results and it's as hard to find mainstream media admitting to proof that speciation occurred as it is proof that Trump won the election in 2020.
Twenty years... you think you're going to convince anyone that the theory of evolution is an incorrect model for biology with a twenty year study?
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
This was not produced through sexual reproduction, it was produced via cultivar hybridization.
Holy cow, you don't actually know what sexual reproduction is (Hint: cultivar hybridization is sexual reproduction) and yet you feel qualified to speak on scientific matters of evolution. Not only is it produced sexually, you can save the seeds and re-plant Broccolini.

This article misunderstands the main drive of natural selection. The correct means of testing this would be to introduce one or two extreme environmental constraints into a breeding population and maintain those one or two pressures indefinitely. The experiment would need to be completely isolated from introduction of external genetic material and run for... well much longer than a century. much much longer. Observing that multiple short term experiments of the course of the last century do not show the sort of speciation the theory of evolution predicts is utterly unsurprising and fully consistent with the theory.
Sure, over a century of dedicated evolutionists trying their very best have less notion of how to conduct an experiment than you who isn't clear on what sexual reproduction is. You seriously think none of the top minds in the world working for a century straight ever thought of that?

Twenty years... you think you're going to convince anyone that the theory of evolution is an incorrect model for biology with a twenty year study?
Only the ones who are open-minded. The significant bit there is that it went on 40,000 generations. This is twice the number of generations we're expected to believe it took for Homo Erectus to turn into Homo Sapiens, yet negative results in evolving a germ.
 

Bigking321

Well-known member
The main problem with evolution is that instead of using the scientific method and changing the theory to fit the data it does the opposite and forces everything to fit the theory instead.

Every single time some aspect of the theory is proven inaccurate the inevitable conclusion people come to is that the theory is still absolutely accurate and correct, it just happened some other way then we thought it did and we need to think up ways for it to have worked again.

It's basically asking anyone going against it to prove a negative, which isn't the least bit scientific.

It's a belief system.
 

posh-goofiness

Well-known member
Holy cow, you don't actually know what sexual reproduction is (Hint: cultivar hybridization is sexual reproduction) and yet you feel qualified to speak on scientific matters of evolution. Not only is it produced sexually, you can save the seeds and re-plant Broccolini.
This is a good point which I can concede.
Sure, over a century of dedicated evolutionists trying their very best have less notion of how to conduct an experiment than you who isn't clear on what sexual reproduction is. You seriously think none of the top minds in the world working for a century straight ever thought of that?
No. I think they know exactly the type of experiment needed to fully test and falsify the theory, don't be obtuse. I think they know and have no interest running an experiment to falsify the theory given the sheer difficulty of such an undertaking. Especially since we can get useful results from the current working theory of genetics and heredity fit into the greater theory of evolution.
Only the ones who are open-minded. The significant bit there is that it went on 40,000 generations. This is twice the number of generations we're expected to believe it took for Homo Erectus to turn into Homo Sapiens, yet negative results in evolving a germ.
Bacteria have a very robust genetic makeup. They're existed for much much longer than humanity with stronger selection pressures acting on them as a whole. Once again, utterly unsurprising that you don't see speciation here. What is 40,000 generations to a species that have evolved mechanisms for genetic stability over countless millions of generations.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
This is a good point which I can concede.

No. I think they know exactly the type of experiment needed to fully test and falsify the theory, don't be obtuse. I think they know and have no interest running an experiment to falsify the theory given the sheer difficulty of such an undertaking. Especially since we can get useful results from the current working theory of genetics and heredity fit into the greater theory of evolution.

Bacteria have a very robust genetic makeup. They're existed for much much longer than humanity with stronger selection pressures acting on them as a whole. Once again, utterly unsurprising that you don't see speciation here. What is 40,000 generations to a species that have evolved mechanisms for genetic stability over countless millions of generations.
No they aren't. Quit posting fake science.


Bacteria are among the least stable organisms genetically and change much more rapidly than anything else. They will even borrow genes from each other to recombine into new forms (Which was specifically tried in the bacteria experiments I cited). They just never manage to change outside their own species, even with ludicrously long timeframes and strong effort from scientists to give them every opportunity.

And here's the thing, you just snipped my post about the Law of Recurrent Variation. That's the one that really drives a knife into the heart of most evolution arguments because the only string on their bow tends to be "We need even moar time!" But with that law known and proven, you can't have more time, because we know now that more time only generates the same variations that have already been generated before even with a genetically separated population. It's like expected a Roguelike game to eventually generate a romance novel instead of it just generating more of the same type of levels.
 

ShadowsOfParadox

Well-known member
Ok, let's say Evolution is debunked.

How many times exactly has God handcrafted every species over again after a Meteor or too much Oxygen generation, or Volcanism or w/e.

We can point to several points where 90%+ of everything just died. If Evolution isn't a thing... then why is it that immediately after these points we see all sorts of stuff that then just fades out and gets replaced?

The reason people keep insisting Evolution is real is because no one has a better explanation for the pattern with mass extinction.

But also, serious question, how exactly do you get a sexually mature Wolf and sexually mature Chihahua to actually have sex?
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Ok, let's say Evolution is debunked.

How many times exactly has God handcrafted every species over again after a Meteor or too much Oxygen generation, or Volcanism or w/e.

We can point to several points where 90%+ of everything just died. If Evolution isn't a thing... then why is it that immediately after these points we see all sorts of stuff that then just fades out and gets replaced?

The reason people keep insisting Evolution is real is because no one has a better explanation for the pattern with mass extinction.

But also, serious question, how exactly do you get a sexually mature Wolf and sexually mature Chihahua to actually have sex?

Low standards man.
 

Bigking321

Well-known member
But also, serious question, how exactly do you get a sexually mature Wolf and sexually mature Chihahua to actually have sex?
I would assume artificial insemination before them actually engaging in sex.

Like the most popular breed of turkey sold in America is actually incapable of breeding on their own because they were bred for large breast size or whatever. The workers have to gather the material from males and fertilize the females artificially because they are a non viable species on there own.

Pretty sure that's correct. Saw it on a episode of dirty jobs.
 

ShadowsOfParadox

Well-known member
I would assume artificial insemination before them actually engaging in sex.
If that's the case, they've speciated.

Speciation is about if they are able to have sex on their own. There are genetically compatible creatures considered distinct species because their mating behaviors are too different for them to mate anyway.
 

posh-goofiness

Well-known member
And here's the thing, you just snipped my post about the Law of Recurrent Variation. That's the one that really drives a knife into the heart of most evolution arguments because the only string on their bow tends to be "We need even moar time!" But with that law known and proven, you can't have more time, because we know now that more time only generates the same variations that have already been generated before even with a genetically separated population. It's like expected a Roguelike game to eventually generate a romance novel instead of it just generating more of the same type of levels.
I snipped it out because it's literally just an example of homologous adaptation. Giving it a fancy name doesn't change what it actually is, convergent traits in divergent genetic branches.

No they aren't. Quit posting fake science.

Why are bacteria so difficult to classify at the species level? | Socratic

Bacteria are among the least stable organisms genetically and change much more rapidly than anything else. They will even borrow genes from each other to recombine into new forms (Which was specifically tried in the bacteria experiments I cited). They just never manage to change outside their own species, even with ludicrously long timeframes and strong effort from scientists to give them every opportunity.
On the contrary, and as you are claiming, they are very very stable. So much so, that they can remain viable even after being put under artificially strenuous environments. I believe phenomena like this are called meta-stable. Just because you don't see speciation within a cohort with a lot of genetic variation, it does not follow that speciation will not occur. Especially, in the timescale evolution is theorized to work at.

Again. Twenty years. Twenty. You do your argument no favors by being hyperbolic about the scale and depth of these experiments. Twenty years of selection pressure are negligible on the claimed timescale evolution operates under.
 

ShadowsOfParadox

Well-known member
Again. Twenty years. Twenty. You do your argument no favors by being hyperbolic about the scale and depth of these experiments. Twenty years of selection pressure are negligible on the claimed timescale evolution operates under.
True, if twenty years was terribly relevant we'd have seen much more significant changes in responses to cities.(and by "cities" I'm talking Babylon)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top