Well, a prediction would be that mutations would accumulate differently over time as one is further geographically from Africa. See paper below.
Hi Patrick,
I read the paper you linked. Some of it, I have to admit, went over my head. However, one thing was abundantly clear: the āfactsā of evolutionary were assumed a priori.
E.g.:
Matt
Matt,
Evolution is a fact. Mutations have evolved as if they were neutral during the out-of-Africa expansion as this paper shows. It was the expansion which lasted more than a thousand generations (more than 15,000 to 30,000 years). What do you find as unsupported by the genomic data?
Hello Matt,
When you read the paper, did you start with the figures and tables, or did you just search the text for something you could quote?
1 Like
Hi, Patrick,
I must strongly disagree with you there - if you are talking about general evolution, that is changing from one trait into another. Adaptation happens. But this is not the same as one trait or organism turning into another. There is absolutely no observational scientific evidence that suggests that one organism has āevolvedā into another. There is an assumption - based on evidence from fossil remains, etc. - that it might have happened, but this does not make it a āfactā. What it does do is make it a theory and philosophy.
Mutations donāt evolve. Mutations happen. Whether they accumulate into something else is another matter. I believe they donāt. I believe they simply corrupt what is already there - occasionally producing a trait adjustment that is beneficial to the organism. But a mutation cannot produce a brand new trait. And there is no observational scientific evidence to show that it can or has ever done so.
Matt
Evolution is a fact. All species on Earth descendant from earlier species. Both the genetic and fossil record show this clearly. Yes, evolution is as true as gravity.
Correct, mutations that accumulate in a population are the reason the population diverges into two species over time. Certainly mutations can produce a brand new trait. Every new trait in every species is caused by mutations accumulating over time in a population.
1 Like
MattC, simply denying that the evidence for millions and millions of years of evolution and the ātree of lifeā exists does NOT make it go away. Evolution is a fact because we observe it everywhere we look and because the reality of evolutionary processes has survived peer-reviewed falsification testing. Denial is not an argument. Covering your eyes is not an argument.
Now, if you have an alternative theory which better explains the existing evidence than the Theory of Evolution explains it, that is fine and appropriate. By all means present that theory to us. But you canāt simply presume to sweep away all of the existing evidence and pretend it doesnāt exist. (Yes, an entire evolution-denial industry makes millions telling deniers what they wish to hear. But they do so without ever presenting a scientific case for their position.)
If a snakeās chromosomes got a bit twisted up ā¦ and suddenly his leg and arm genetic instructions were switched back onā¦ is that a degeneration? Or is that a new trait?
If a monkey is born that has feet that are less flexible for hanging from trees ā¦ but because it is stiffer and stronger, the monkey can travel much longer distances ON THE GROUND with less fatigue - - is that degeneration or a new trait?
If a fish is born with gills that are less efficient, or eyes that are less sensitive to light, and so he spends more time near the surface of the water (instead of down deep where his cousins are) ā¦ he suddenly discovers a new source of food (falling insects and water spiders) that never gets down to where the deep fish live. He survives better in a food shortage that affects fish that prefer the bottom layers because of the darkness, or the temperature.
Mattā¦ I think you need to study science more.
My prayers to you, George
Ah, the flood. One of those parts of the Bible you need to spend hours and hours researching and twisting just to be able to accept it as possible at all.
The only way it can be accepted is to believe it was localised to the Mesopotamian region.
No Global flood occurred. Humanity wasnāt reduced to Eight individuals.
Kangaroos did not come from Australia to be saved in a massive Ark.
YEC subscribers and their leader, Ken Ham are damaging to faith in God and knowledge itself. Just imagine how many kidsā minds are being warped on a daily basis in that āmuseumā of hisā¦
I personally find the flood appalling. That children were drowned along with adultsā¦ Children who could have been relocated and taught properly how to live. Unborn babies were killed in their motherās wombs tooā¦
Truly a disgusting and monstrous massacre. It cannot be justified. If those people wanted nothing to do with God then what right does He have to interfere with them? He created free agents. So they should be free to reject Him and do as they please. This is why I dislike God, He finds it perfectly okay to launch an attack on free will and kill everyone but He cannot help a single child in need Today? Maybe we should all start praying for Him to kill our enemiesā¦ He might answer then.
God is the ultimate ādo as I say, not as I doā father figure. Sure, His rules are excellent, the Ten Commandmentsā¦ The Golden ruleā¦ Follow those and you canāt go wrong. But He sure doesnāt practise them Himself. Not at all.
And the fact that He regretted His decision only shows how imperfect He is.
In some of my darkest moments, I imagine a Human court judging God instead of the other way aroundā¦ I think Heād need an amazing lawyer.
So we should accept this as fact because you think it is a problem? Can you give a little insight into your expertise about God and morality that enables you to make such a dogmatic proclamation?
And why would you think Kangaroos would have to come from Australia? Isnāt it widely accepted that there was one land mass at some point in the ancient in which case no one would have had to come from anywhere?
You find the idea of a flood appalling. But why is that the standard we should all hold to? Why if I find you appalling? Does that make it so? What if your finding this to be appalling says more about you than it does about God?
You talk about free will (but donāt bother to define that). Then you say that they should be free to reject him and do as they please. Which they did. But should they also be free from the consequences of that? Arenāt we all able to do as we please? But we are not free from the consequences of those choices.
It seems me to that you havenāt done much moral reasoning about the flood. You have simply assumed yourself to be some sort of authority and then rejected it out of hand.
[quote=āFind_My_Way, post:69, topic:4142ā]
In some of my darkest moments, I imagine a Human court judging God instead of the other way aroundā¦ I think Heād need an amazing lawyer.
[/quote]These are certainly dark moments. You would be well-advised to leave them behind and come into the light.
You have asserted yourself and your own thinking as the standard by which all else should be judged. I donāt know you, but I imagine that at some point in the past you have been wrong about something. And thus, you have disproven the credibility of your own assertion here.
Show me the SLIGHTEST thread of proper scientific evidence suggesting there was a Global Flood matching the Bibleās account and Iāll humour it.
As far as defences of God go, I find yours seriously ineffective.
I have spent the last Decade making sure I never again believe something that isnāt actually true. As you can see, I am still working on the Bibleā¦
[quote=āFind_My_Way, post:71, topic:4142ā]
Show me the SLIGHTEST thread of proper scientific evidence suggesting there was a Global Flood matching the Bibleās account and Iāll humour it.[/quote]Thereās actually quite a bit. That you are unaware of it a poor reflection on your ability to pass judgment on it.
[quote]As far as defences of God go, I find yours seriously ineffective.
[/quote]This would also demonstrate a serious problem: I didnāt attempt to make a defense of God. It might show a weakness in your thinking that you thought that was a defense. I would urge you to perhaps go back and read what I said.
1 Like
The question is not where Kangaroos came from ā¦ the question is how did all the marsupials get to Australia ā¦ and ONLY the marsupialsā¦
If we accept an evolutionary time frame of millions of years, the answer is easy.
George
1 Like
[quote=āgbrooks9, post:74, topic:4142, full:trueā]@LT_15
The question is not where Kangaroos came from ā¦ the question is how did all the marsupials get to Australia ā¦ and ONLY the marsupialsā¦
If we accept an evolutionary time frame of millions of years, the answer is easy.
George
[/quote]
The question is not where Kangaroos came from ā¦ the question is how did all the marsupials get to Australia ā¦ and ONLY the marsupialsā¦
If we accept an evolutionary time frame of millions of years, the answer is easy.
I havenāt been to Australia, but I am pretty sure there are more animals than marsupials there. And the comment was made about how the kangaroos got to the ark from Australia.
But I donāt see how millions of years helps kangaroos get to Australia. Itās not that long of a journey, but I will await your explanation.
1 Like
Yep, 200 million years ago. They moved apart by tectonic plate action, something that was not even understood when the flood geology theories creationists still advocate were proposed by Morris and company in the 50ās. It wasnāt until the late 1960s that geologists were able to use seismic wave data to adequately support the hypothesis of continental drift. We just read about it this week in my daughterās earth science text book.
1 Like
Then, my dear brother, you are misinformed.
The only placental mammals that were in Australia were humansā¦ until Europeans brought rabbits and other animals to Australia. Humans got there by boat.
The reason you donāt see how millions of years can help is because you donāt understand that Australia used to be connected to the mainland! While placental and marsupials were evolving together in parts of the world, there were no placental mammals on Australia when it separated and moved into the Indian ocean.
But from a CREATIONIST viewpoint:
Scenario A: Australia has ALWAYS been separated from other land masses for the last 6000 years.
Problem #1: How did the marsupials get to Australia at all?
Problem #2: Whatever method the marsupials usedā¦ the placentals would have used it as well.
Scenario B: Australia was once connected to other lands 6000 years agoā¦ and moved HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of miles into the middle of the ocean shortly after Noahās Ark released the animals.
Problem #1: How do we explain the marsupials RACING towards Australia before it detached ?
Problem #2: How do we explain none of the placental mammals following or even leading the marsupials to Australia?
Neither scenario is tenableā¦ Australia, all by itselfā¦ disproves Young Earth Creationism.
George
1 Like
There can be no true progress for the Church while itās members are fighting a civil war among each other. All people must put aside their fears and insecurities and come to accept the fact that YEC is mis-guided and harmful, consisting of false science and false interpretations.
Meanwhile the enemy laughs.
Those things are of no consequence to me. The Bible however is making promises that my mortal self finds VERY important should they be true.
If Global Warming promised me salvation or threatened me with eternal punishment then perhaps I would invest time inspecting it for weaknesses so I could determine whether it was a truth or not. But as it is, higher temperatures can be fought with air conditioning and the alternative only means lower electricity bills.
Letās assume it was 200 million years ago since there is nothing resembling proof for that. So what? The point still remains that the comment I was responding to has no basis.