Creation by evolution? The empirical evidence is missing

[St.Roymond]

@adamjedgar

I am critical of anything that is non biblical

But you embrace a non-biblical worldview!

@adamjedgar

I am not a follower of secular Scientific interpretations

You read Genesis according to a secular worldview, though.

@adamjedgar

very obvious biblical statements regarding events and the age of the earth.

It makes none. You can only get an age for the Earth from scripture if you follow scientific materialism.

@adamjedgar

the apostle Peter states Noah was saved from a global flood

No, he doesn’t. You can certainly choose to read that into what he wrote, but it can’t be gotten from what he wrote.

@adamjedgar

the only difference between the Old and the New Covenants is that in the New Covenant it is God who takes the initiative not the people.

Wow, is your theology off! God took the initiative in every single covenant – Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New.

@jammycakes

Quotes must accurately reflect the context from which they were taken.

Interesting how AiG fails to apply that to Genesis.

@adamjedgar

and don’t you find it rather ironic that one may essentially say ALL AIG and Creation Ministries, SDA Universities scientific interpretations are lies and the non Christian ones are truth?

This itself sits on a lie, as well as being insulting to all the Christians who are scientists and do follow the rquiremnt for honesty!

Anything from AiG is suspect because Ken Ham not only lies, he manipulates, slanders, and deceives, and built AiG by doing so.

@adamjedgar

the ones you call truth directly discredit the bible narrative

You love to say that but have never actually supported it. You try, but your efforts are founded on claims that are not supported by the text.

@adamjedgar

you guys simply ignore the red flags

Just as I would ignore any red flags along a race course that weren’t put there according to the rules.

@adamjedgar

Anyone who cant even follow their own philosophical writings

I don’t care about philosophical writings, especially those founded on premises from scientific materialism as YEC is – I’m interested in the text.

@adamjedgar

TEists are not really Christian…they are evolutionists who believe evolution is also a religion.

Back to lying again, I see.

[St.Roymond]

@adamjedgar

i do not belive they can continue to practice that abomination and be saved

Why that abomination and not the rest? YEC especially ignores this one:

Unequal weights and unequal measures
are both alike an abomination to the Lord.

or its companion in the same book:

A false balance is an abomination to the Lord,
but a just weight is his delight.

[St.Roymond]

@rsewell

What I find ironic and immensely depressing is the willingness of apologetic organizations to lie in the supposed service of defending creation.

Besides the fact that the leader of AiG lied profusely (along with slander and libel) in order to take control of the organization.

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

The paper has been submitted to Qeios, which is a platform where one can post papers and get AI to try to recruit review. It has a few reviews made on the platform. But as far as I can tell the paper is not actually published.

The paper makes a distinction between different aspects of evolution. Everything is interconnected in biology, so drawing a hard line between those aspects is not easy, but it may be useful as a way to consider certain topics.

However, the claims in the post that “As a consequence the evidence for the first type of evolution (‘micro-evolution’) - for example the changing beaks of Darwin’s finches - cannot be used as evidence for the second type of evolution (‘macro-evolution’) - for example the transformation of a bacterium into a human. As a result, evidence for the theory that humans originated through evolution is missing.” do not follow from the article. The article has both the “first order” and “second order” processes operating in the digital model system. Using that to conclude that “second order” processes do not happen is peculiar. Also, the post makes the jump from labeling “first order” processes as microevolution and “second order” processes as macroevolution to different uses of the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution”.

Thus, the post is just another example of “Macroevolution is whatever evolution I reject”, which is not a very useful way of assessing whether it happens. There is no fundamental difference between tanagers evolving into finch-like forms in the Galapagos and the series of changes from bacteria to humans. Both involve many changes both in the structure (the genes, including the regulatory elements) and the level of expression.

The popular ID and YEC claim that there is no new information is simply wrong. Mutations are new information and they are not mostly negative in value; most have no particular influence. It fits with a distorted concept of the biblical model of corruption due to sin. The Bible focuses on the corruption of our thinking and acting due to sin. Therefore, we must always be checking our ideas and claims against the evidence (particularly the Bible) and the insights of other people.

[T_aquaticus]

@paleomalacologist

Thus, the post is just another example of “Macroevolution is whatever evolution I reject”, which is not a very useful way of assessing whether it happens. There is no fundamental difference between tanagers evolving into finch-like forms in the Galapagos and the series of changes from bacteria to humans. Both involve many changes both in the structure (the genes, including the regulatory elements) and the level of expression.

The closest the authors get to defining the difference is changes in the length of the genome. They seem to claim that no amount of substitution or deletion mutations can cause macroevolution. Instead, it requires an increase in genome size and gene number. However, this claim is almost instantly contradicted in their section on COVID 19.

The distinction between changes of a biological system in its parameters (= first-order evolution) versus change in its dimensions (= second-order evolution) thus helps to clarify: (a) the fundamental differences between Covid-19 and the human influenza virus; (b) the necessity to avoid zoonosis and thus second-order change in the domain of human viruses, for instance, by the removal of bio-industrial complexes from highly populated areas.
Micro- and Macroevolution: A Continuum or Two Distinct Types of Change? - Article (v1) by William DeJong et al. | Qeios

In their usage of terms, first-order evolution is microevolution and second-order evolution is macroevolution. In that section, they define zoonosis as macroevolution, yet the genome structure of SARS-CoV-2 is just like other coronaviruses, including those that have previously freely circulated in the human population. Also, there are many known cases of zoonotic infections from influenza, including a current H5N1 strain that moves from cattle to humans that is being closely watched by the CDC.

Their viral examples do nothing more than add more confusion as to what micro and macroevolution are.

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

Besides the fact that major changes in genome length occur quite easily and are commonly observed in plant breeding.

[T_aquaticus]

@paleomalacologist

Besides the fact that major changes in genome length occur quite easily and are commonly observed in plant breeding.

Exactly. They also seem to ignore the evolution of de novo genes (i.e. orphan genes) from DNA that was not previously transcribed. You get a new gene without needing to increase the size of the genome.