Dear Tim,
thank you for your comments to some parts of posts I have made on this forum…
Firstly, I must state before anything else that I do not doubt at all your sincerity or your integrity, I read your thoughts and beliefs with respect and hope to explain why I differ.
It is also important that we all understand precisely what we mean by various terms used in this debate. that is, we all need to be on the same page, so to speak.
Thus, when I use the terms evolution or evolutionary, I am referring to the massive or gross changes that according to evolutionary theory have led in an upward direction from a simple first cell to all the species diversity on Earth in the past and in the present. From the first cell in the ‘imagined’ primordial soup to man.
To clarify what I mean by the term’s evolution or evolutionary, I’ll write “”EVOLUTION”” .
To explain a little further, “”EVOLUTION”” by this definition, necessitates an increase of complex specified INFORMATION that directly codes for the novel complex heritable structures and processes that have arisen which give rise to completely new types of animals. If for example, off the cuff, I am talking about the information increase whereby animals without legs, first obtain heritable information for legs that then builds legs, or plants that don’t photosynthesize that first obtain heritable information for photosynthesis that then builds chloroplasts, chlorophyl, leaves with solar energy receivers etc…
Where does this novel complex specified heritable information come from?
Remember, natural selection can only select from information that is already present.
Yes, I know that the “”EVOLUTION”” story teaches you that the development of novel GoF structures goes through inordinate numbers of small improvement iterations over millions of years but that is not only untestable, it is a matter of faith to believe that. It is not demonstrable in the laboratory and despite claims to the contrary by many. The point is that ALL the information for photosynthesis or a leg needs to be there immediately, because if it isn’t all there, the novel structure half built isn’t going to work and is going to be a liability, I.e., it will consume many precious resources without any reproductive advantage thus will be removed from the population.
Yes, the ‘just so’ storytelling of “”EVOLUTION”” teaches that a novel functioning structure or process builds up over time, small gain by small gain, but don’t you see that is the stuff of Fairytales!
Sure “”EVOLUTION”” is the ruling paradigm in the world at present, but that doesn’t mean it is correct.
It is important to note that when I use the terms evolution or evolutionary, I am NOT referring to changes that occur from time to time within a population by natural selection. Natural selection can only ever select from information already present in the information storage machinery of an individual organism; if it is beneficial to reproduction it may become fixed in the wider population over time. But it is vitally important to understand the distinction here, that is NOT evolution, it is merely change within a species, in accord with the variability of epigenetic and genetic information within some structures and the genomes of members of that population. It is variation within a species not “”EVOLUTION”” across and giving rise to species!
Now, hopefully we are on the same page with respect to the basic terminology of this debate that must differentiate between variations within a specie and the creation of novel complex information that gave rise to the diversity of species. They are two separate things and need to be treated as such.
To answer your comments to some parts of posts that I have made:
ParaleptopectenTimothy Campbell
(Is the bible inerrant? - #641 by Paraleptopecten)
What you are talking about here is change within a specie, which is a necessary part of each organisms overall make up to adapt to environmental pressures, changes in environmental conditions etc… that no creationist that I know would ever think of disputing, those changes are empirically observed fact, however I am talking about those retained GoF changes that if evolution were a real phenomenon, would necessarily have taken place in the massive increase in information quantity and quality as 'life forms evolved into new types of more complex organisms, that is, the BIG changes from single cell over much alleged time and many iterations until we arrive at a rodent.
The BIG upward type of changes required are NOT observed, that type of change is BELIEVED to have occurred incrementally over vast periods of time, but has never been observed, for that convenient reason and of course also because it never happened!
I’m sorry but the changes required for “”EVOLUTION”” to be true are not demonstrated, they are assumed; it is a faith held religious “”EVOLUTION”” belief and is in reality NOT clearly demonstrable empirical science.
I am talking about the BIG changes that gave rise to all the diversity of species on Earth, but I suggest you are confusing real changes within a population (that are empirically observable), with the massive changes required for evolution to be the mechanism that gave rise to the diversity of species on Earth. The two things are not the same!
Evolution is a nice and neat Fairy Tale, that is a plain and simple reality.
It is God who created all the animals in creation week as the Bible ever so painstakingly sets out in Genesis.
##################
What I was asking for was the rate of alleged EVOLUTIONARY change that Bill claimed is measured in DNA that he claims can be used to date organisms. I have observed, that it is only if you look at the evidence with a deep time, evolution believing worldview, that it is then inferred that evolutionary change has occurred, that is, of the massive upward EVOLUTION type that it is believed, brought about the existence of all species diversity of life on Earth from a single cell over imagined billions of years; which I assert is nonsense! It is a belief held by faith where the evidence is viewed through the EVOLUTION paradigm.
FROM HERE ON WAS STRANGELY DELETED??? WHEN I FIRST TYPED IT ALL OUT SO HERE IS THE REPLACEMENT.
But in answer to your claims, Myllokunmingiidae are still Myllokunmingiidae; radiodont arthropods are still radiodont arthropods; scaphopod-like rostroconchs remain as scaphopod-like rostroconchs; alleged intermediate forms between species in the Yorktown Formation and the recent are nothing of the sort, they are merely either variations within a specie, or variants with pathology, or completely different extinct species, but to state they are transitional forms is taking another giant leap of faith that is supported ONLY by an EVOLUTION worldview; gorgonopsids are still gorgonopsids; labyrinthodont stem-amniotes are still labyrinthodont stem-amniotes, there has been no EVOLUTION!
But don’t you see, again you are confusing two different things here.
I was asking about what rate of change is being measured to which Bill claimed the rate of change in DNA can be used to date organisms.
But your reply is conflating change that comes about through genetic variation within a population with the change that I am asking for evidence of that demonstrates***“”EVOLUTION””*** has occurred.
The two are not interchangeable, they are entirely different things!
As I said previously, it is only if you look at the evidence with a deep time, evolution believing worldview that you will see EVOLUTION.
But here again, it is only if you look at the evidence with a deep time, evolution believing worldview that you will see transitional forms in the fossils that prove in your mind that EVOLUTION is real.
I suggest it is more likely that you are finding as I have previously stated, either variations within a specie, or variants with pathology, or completely different extinct species, but they are NOT transitional fossils.
Again, it appears you believe that mechanisms of change WITHIN a specie or group of species, (‘Biblical kind’), as the mechanisms that create the massive uphill changes in EVOLUTION.
I assert that a cat will still be a cat, a mouse will still be a mouse, an oak tree will still be an oak tree and a bacteria will still be a bacteria no matter how many insertions, allopolyploidy, etc. have taken place, there are hard limits that species, (kinds) cannot cross, thus the belief that the diversity of life arose on Earth by iterative steps from a single cell is a False Teaching of the highest order!
Yes Tim, I absolutely agree with you. You would also therefore agree that the same statement put another way, that reveals the problem, i.e., there are around at least one million near neutral and slightly deleterious mutations for every very, very rare beneficial mutation.
And that’s the point that it appears tome most evolutionists tend to ignore or not consider, or prefer to forget.
When you have a part of a million mutations that are not actually neutral, they are near neutral, and combine them with the remaining part of that one million slightly more deleterious mutations for every one very, very rare beneficial mutation, it takes a whole lot of religious faith to swallow the myth that the beneficial comes through and is fixed in the population to the point that ALL the origin of the diversity of life on Earth came about despite the absolute empirical reality of this REAL EMPIRICAL MATHEMATICAL REALITY! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?
I’m astounded that diligent, honest and highly intelligent people are unswerving in their commitment to EVOLUTION to such a degree they refuse to consider the possibility it’s a falsified paradigm that should be relegated to the same place that belief in the planet Vulcan was relegated, i.e., a falsified theory, the trash can for the failed ideas of history!
But once again, you are NOT talking about EVOLUTION , you are merely repeating what we creationists have always known, that change within species, (or Biblical kinds), occurs within certain constraints, as environmental pressures, niches, conditions change that permit natural selection to favour individuals more suited to reproduce well in the changed conditions, but that IS NOT demonstrating, “the development of new functions, new structures, new processes that needs to be demonstrated for evolution to be in truth, a real force in biology.”
When I say NEW, I don’t mean differential reproduction where existing genetic information within a population is favoured, resulting in a differential frequency of one trait over another, I am talking about completely novel information that makes the BIG changes across the species; not merely change within a species.
A snail changes a bit but remains a snail etc…
And the change is always limited, it does not convert over eons of time, a fish into a reptile, or a bird into a dinosaur, that belief is well and truly within the realm of mythological Fairytales that is known as EVOLUTION theory. And round and round we go…
Once again, I am truly sorry, but you appear unable to recognise there is a BIG difference between mere change within a specie or more accurately Biblical kind over time and EVOLUTION . They are two completely different things!
I strongly suggest that the “changes over time in a genus of gastropods from the Miocene to the Recent, with distinct species and intermediates between each one,” that you refer to are within a Biblical kind, , the snail to which you refer remains a snail it doesn’t turn into something completely different, it is most often likely to be variation within the genetic pool of individuals within the snail population, or other mechanisms at work, but the take home message is it is not EVOLUTION it is adaptive change that remains within the specie.
The Siphonocypraea mollusc of the Gastropda Class is a snail, is a snail, is a snail and remains a snail, there is no EVOLUTION except a forced belief of the faithful followers of EVOLUTION who will not tolerate any doubts about its validity.
The EVOLUTION Paradigm rules this world! I am glad that I am not of this world.
Once again, you appear unable to recognise there is a BIG difference between mere change within a specie over time and EVOLUTION .
They are two completely different things and insertions and allopolyploidy don’t change that fact. Yes, insertions and allopolyploidy happen but they are not EVOLUTION .
Sorry Tim, but I have seen no valid examples of mutations occurring that constitute the type of change that is required by EVOLUTION to make the BIG uphill changes that can explain the origin of species on Earth from the first alleged single celled organism. Mutations do cause change, but that change is limited in scope and ALWAYS remains within the specie.
EVOLUTION is a false teaching, plain and simple.
I understand that those thoroughly indoctrinated through years of training into the EVOLUTIONARY belief framework, will nearly always interpret their research findings in line with that ingested training. I know, I was the same once until the lights went on, I was absolutely blind to what is now strikingly obvious.
I wish I could communicate what I know in a more respectful and gentle way, but this subject requires boldness, mainly because the stakes are so high and many unbelievers see the theistic evolution --/-- creationist split amongst Christians and I guess, shake their heads in pity at all of us.
We really need to get over this false teaching and trust God and His Word the Bible, there is no other way!
As Andre Crouch and his disciples once sang, ‘Jesus is the answer for the world today, above Him there’s no other, Jesus is the Way’.
God bless,
jon