Dear Bill,
there it is again, no it is “Natural Selection’ that "selects from the already existing variation in a population.” not evolution!
It is false to use the term Natural Selection and Evolution as equivalent in meaning.
Natural Selection can only select from what already exists, it cannot create new complex specified information that is needed for evolution to be real. Thus, you need to ask yourself where does this alleged new complex specified information come from?
Yes, but you don’t say what they are. What are those units of measurement then?
Can it? Only if you look at the evidence with a deep time, evolution believing worldview. The problem I have with that kind of answer is that you don’t provide any of the billions of examples that should exist if evolution were a real mechanism for the origin of species. Not a single one. This is yet another claim that is without the massive quantity of evidence that would exist if evolution were real.
you are spot on in this, and the same applies for every organ, every structure, such as the exquisitely designed eye of humans, the information coding, writing and transcription machinery in every cell, the ATP Synthase motor spinning at 10,000 rpm and generating three molecules of adenosine triphosphate every revolution that maintains living things to be ‘alive’ at the cellular level, the strong hook/barb locking features on flight feather filaments that allow them to hold an aerodynamically efficient shape that is similar to velcro,
See Dinosaur bird evolution
to name but a few, the truth is it is only peoples faith in it that keeps evolution as the ruling paradigm, it is clearly a misleading and false teaching.
Evolution is the result of the natural selection so I do tend to use the terms interchangeably, but I am not a biologist so cut me some slack.
When natural selection results in the fixation of a genetic change in a population then you can say it has created new information but I wouldn’t call it “complex”. But given evolution always moves in very small steps the change is never very complex. The journey of 1,000 miles begins with one step.
Don’t know about “billions” but the DNA evidence certainly provides a very large number of examples. Off the top of my non-biologist head I can think of a few.
Development of lactose tolerance.
Loss of the ability to synthesize vitamin C.
The large number of endogenous retroviruses shared with chimps.
etc. etc.
Numbers. Numbers compared to other numbers are ratios. So things like single nucleotide polymorphism can be counted and assigned frequency. And such quantification sir, is indeed a measurement. Population genetics engages rigorously with such measurements to offer mathematically sound models of evolution.
It seems you think evolution and its proponents think the incremental changes are made with an outcome in mind, but that is not the case. A change is made in the population either for an immediate advantage, or sometimes just random changes occur that have no real benefit, as the result of neutral drift. That does leave a big philosophical or theological question as to how God works in the process to achieve his purpose, but that is above the pay grade of science and scientists, who can only see the evidence before them. In this case, it shows feathers developing for purposes unrelated to flight, and only much later being modified to be useful for that purpose. Much as the 12 volt power outlet in your car was made to light cigarettes, and only later became useful in charging your phone.
luke 24:27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
and John 5:39
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
Ok with the above verses in mind, let me try this from another angle… Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
You believe this to be literal, yes ?
Meaning the Book of John’s revelation at the end of the bible is the revelation to the world of Jesus Christ along with His bride the church, Yes?
Now if we take that literal, in what manner can we also take the beginning as the revelation of Jesus Christ in the creation of the universe?
John writes "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
And “For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist” (Heb 2:10)
“ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him, all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:15,16)
Eph 4:10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)
If we want to be serious about literal interpretation, then Genesis is the revelation of the creation of all things through Jesus Christ. The religious message is the truth of reality. Jesus is the truth.
we need to look intently as in John’s revelation (the end/ omega) to see the same Jesus Christ in Genesis as well (beginning/ alpha). The bible is a true religious revelation about Jesus, not a scientific revelation about nature. It offers a true Metaphysical foundation. Understanding Genesis as gospel is eternal life giving to the person who understands this.
Adam is the word for earth. If the earth is considered a human body then it contains blood. LIfe is in the blood (Lev 17:11). We see in Genesis 1:2 A disordered body, a dead body. With the blood outside the body. No life can exist with the blood outside the body. Neither can life exist on a water covered earth.
Jesus connects himself to Jonah in Mat 12:40. Jonah said;
“In my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me. From deep in the realm of the dead I called for help, and you listened to my cry. You hurled me into the depths, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me, all your waves and breakers, swept over me. I said, ‘I have been banished from your sight; yet I will look again toward your holy temple. The engulfing waters threatened me, the deep surrounded me; seaweed was wrapped around my head. To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you, Lord my God, brought my life up from the pit”. (Jonah 2: 1-6)
Now think about the man of earth Jesus Christ, under the waters of death in Genesis.
Do we believe all created things in the universe come from the deluged earth? Yes and Amen. Paul, John and Hebrews all agree everything is made through Christ. Then one must conclude the water covered earth IS the body of Christ from which all things are created.
Now the earth is raised up out of the water on the third day, and with this dry earth (body of Christ) God produces a man in His image. The ground of Christ also produces two main sources of food for mankind and beast.
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food, this is exactly what Christ said of His body in John 6:53.
These two general categories, Grass (seed bearing plant/ herb) and Vine (fruit) are the two plants which produce the Lords supper.
8 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Gen 14:"18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)
and
Heb 7:17
For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
Finally the waters of the deluged earth are the death of Christ, when someone is baptised, they have applied this same water. Romans 6:3
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
This water was the same as in Genesis. The baptism of Christs death.
Ok there is a lot more to unpack but you get what I am suggesting. Genesis (alpha) and Revelation (omega) are both egnemantic, full of symbols and are both the revelation of Jesus Christ. He is the main character to be found and worshiped. The bible is a inspired religious text that is sufficient in its revelation of Jesus Christ. It Is the literal true metaphysical foundation of all things. Its main aim is to bring people into a living body(church) with Christ as the head in order to worship and praise Him forever.
Ron that is simply false. For a start, i know that you exist because your words are recorded on these forums in a manner in which a normal reading of language convinces me that without a doubt, you are a real person.
If I come back to these forums hundreds/thousands of years into the future and download the data stored from these discussions, the exact same methodology should convince me that you were a real person (ie a normal reading of language supports you really existed).
I would accept your eyewitness historical claims because of the fact i believe that since you really existed, your recorded words must also be true.
Now the dilemma here would be this…what if scientists in the future decide that they have new theories that disagree with what you saw during your lifetime and recorded on these forums…only that you are not around to challenge their theories and that they are completely wrong?
A Biologos individual would be sitting on the other end of this screen telling me that what i am reading about Ron Sewell is false when i know (because I’m here today discussing with you) its absolutely true?
You may say to me, “Adam, that’s ridiculous it can never happen. Science in the future won’t get this wrong”.
The thing is, Christ is the Adam Edgar in this illustration, because he was alive thousands of years ago and still is today, and in Matthew 24:37&38 he clearly tells us “Noah, a real man was saved from a flood that wiped out everyone else”. Noah and his family were the only ones who survived. Given Christ’s entire ministry centered on salvation for everyone on earth (not just the locals), one cannot possibly conclude Christ was suggesting it was a localized flood…that doesnt fit the Biblical model of salvation that Christ was preaching!
Its at this point that i want to produce a criticism of my own belief here…at a faith level. I find it hard to reconcile the idea that Noahs flood was brought about in order to provide future generations of Israelites (both literal and spiritual Israelites) with a model whereby they could understand the Second Coming! I really struggle with that to be honest as it suggests that no matter what pre flood mankind was like, God always intended to “kill em all” in order to help explain salvation to those in the end times. Im not a believer in predestination.
I am compelled to let you know, I agree with everything you have stated here, and what you have stated, will hopefully, provide the ‘local flood’ adherents with considerable food for thought about faith in theistic evolution.
The theistic evolution belief framework appears to be built upon a series of prerequisite beliefs, that run counter to a straightforward, logical, common sense reading of Scripture and Genesis in particular.
From the posts I’ve made, that have been critiqued by TEC’s, the methods employed appear to give a counter interpretation to a straightforward reading in Genesis of the creation and catastrophic flood historical narratives*, I presume to be consistent with theistic evolution dogma.
Our Honest and Gracious Creator, Lord and Saviour has made the creation and catastrophic flood historical narratives ever so straightforward and clear, I expect for all people at all times in history.
May the truth become known and clear to us all. Amen
God bless,
jon
P.S. I also do not subscribe to any form of per-destiny, every person has their own treasure in their heart and each is able to make choices, for or against the only Living God…
Adam, we have had some fairly direct exchanges on this forum, but I appreciate your striving to be guided by your principles. I believe all truth is God’s truth, but there is much in life that does not add up to me. I like everything to fit together, and one of the hardest lessons I have had to learn is that I do not have all the answers needed to make it fit. I have come to appreciate faith as just relaxing and trusting God with both what I think I understand, and especially with what I do not and may never.
Dear Phil,
before we even start to discuss feathers on birds, it is necessary to understand that evolution does not have a mechanism to go from a simple creature to a bigger, more complex creature, be it from a single celled organism to a Mouse or a Mouse to a Man.
The exquisitely brilliant design and organic technology at work in every living cell on the planet, be it in a Mosquito, a Moth, or a Mouse, or a Man, has no mechanism available to initially create the heritable complex specified information that codes for the structures and processes in that organic technology.
It is nothing more than a ‘faith’ held position that evolution somehow happens.
Natural Selection cannot create.
So, where did all the new specified complex information come from that codes for the new structures and processes in the exquisitely brilliant design and organic technology?
Remember, before we even get as far as Birds and feathers, there is the enormous gap from a single celled self replicating organism to Birds. That gap, in effect means that far more than encyclopaedic quantities of heritable complex specified information has to be written somehow to a quality standard that is unimaginable to most humans like myself.
Random mutations and time are all you have!
You state, “A change is made in the population either for an immediate advantage, or sometimes just random changes occur that have no real benefit” and that is correct, as far as it goes, except that is not evolution of the type of change that sees a single celled organism go through millions of iterations to become a man.
It is merely differential reproduction within a population, i.e., the variation in genetic information across a population, permits those with genetic information more favourable to the current environmental conditions or niche to increase in numbers.
Evolution simplistically claims the origin of species is through some individuals in a population being more suited to prevailing environmental factors such that they increase in numbers within that population over others less suited that correspondingly decrease in numbers within that population, but that IS NOT evolution, again that is merely differential reproduction. A cat is still a cat etc…
Where does the UPHILL INCREASE IN HERITABLE COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION come from?
Remember, Natural Selection is ruled out as it can only ever select from what is already present in the genome of an organism.
One thing to remember is that great changes in the morphology of individuals in a population may take a very long time, assuming that the great transformations are caused by the accumulation of small changes caused by mutations. If we have millions of years, the small mutations may lead to great changes in the morphology of individuals.
If the world is very young, maybe less than 10’000 years, there has not been enough of time for such great changes in morphology. In that sense, the advocates of YEC are logical when they claim that gradual changes cannot explain the differences we see between the diverse organisms. So, the conclusions made by logical thinking depend on how old the Earth and life is.
I do not support YEC and from that background, the claims of the advocates of YEC do not seem to stand critical scrutiny. At the same time, I recognize that the conclusions made by the supporters of YEC are logical if their basic assumptions are valid. Scientific evidence does not give any support for the claim of a young Earth, which makes the conclusions based on this assumption false.
Edit:
If we have a population that experiences a beneficial mutation once in a decade, there will happen 100’000 such mutations within a million year. If the rate of such mutations is once in a century, it still means 10’000 such mutations within a million year. If each of these beneficial mutations gives a small advantage to the novel (mutated) individuals, leading to the increase of these novel types within a population, there will happen a gradual transformation of the offspring, compared to the original population. 100’000 beneficial changes (steps in transformation) is much and may lead to quite big changes in the morphology of the individuals, at least if the surrounding environment is changing. It is very probable that the surrounding environment will change within a million years. In addition, some individuals are likely to travel to other type of environments during this period. Their offspring will look different after a million years.
I know the theory and it is the only one possible without intelligent supervision, but…
The way you phrased it implies that the change can react and improve or at least adapt deliberately.
Nature cannot diagnose, that takes both self-awareness and intelligence. The right change has to occur at the right time, every time. It is the equivalent of running a lottery every time a change is needed or helpful and always getting the right numbers.
The trouble with your analogy is that it involves human invention , adaptability and thought. We know what a 12 volt supply is and means.
It’s a bit connected to the impartiality thread. We cannot help but impose human understanding onto ToE. We are, after all, human. We cannot unlearn what we know or understand.
It is said that “Nature abhors a void” but Mature cannot see a void. A fish cannot see dry and and just grow legs to explore it. A dInosaur can’t be jealous of a pterodactyl and decide to fly better. In fact a Pterodactyl flies remarkably well if the film "War games " is correct.
There is no “logical” reason for birds to exist. if you do not understand what “flight” is.
We understand concepts such as flight, or adapted, or niche,. Nature does not. it cannot. Nature does not have an intelligence. It doesn’t even know what life or death is.
A deadly bacteria is self defeating because eventually it kills off the host needed to survive. (unless humans intervene)
Dear Knor,
thank you for your candid thoughts, however,it is the evolution myth all over again.
It is a very BIG ‘IF’ that you are basing your argument upon.
The reality in the real world is that “beneficial” mutations within a population are vanishingly small, perhaps of the order of one in a million mutations is beneficial.
Thus, to be honest the reality is that the beneficial change that you have faith in would actually take a million times longer to occur, and that is IF the beneficial mutation isn’t completely overwhelmed by the million near neutral and outright deleterious mutations that occur for each rare beneficial.
If any of those deleterious mutations grossly affect structures or systems to an extent that affects the viability of the whole organism to reproduce then they will likely be removed from the population, but if they are only slightly deleterious or near neutral, and are as a consequence invisible to natural selection, because their combined effect does not inhibit reproduction, then they are retained and very, very slowly spread through a population, BUT that is NOT EVOLUTION, again natural selection can only select from what is already present within a genome.
Richard is absolutely correct when he states that there is no direction or goal, the reality is that mutations do occur, often at hotspots on the genome, prone to more single point or multiple nucleotide, deletions, insertions or substitutions.
When such a mutation occurs that confers a benefit, it is usually accompanied by an overall loss of fitness of the individual ; that is, when say, the environmental niche perhaps reverts to the previous conditions, it no longer has any advantage and more often than not ,it is likely it will be less fit than those without that mutation.
Yes mutation can create novel information in the genome, but that information is ad-hoc, it is not planned in any sense as Richard rightly points out, and the odds of it being a beneficial Gain of Function (GoF) change pale into insignificance at the rate of about 1,000,000 to 1.
Thus it is 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.
The new functions that need to be demonstrated as occurring are the amazing processes that came into existence with integrated functions that have brilliant ultra-complex pathways that have all necessary components present at once so that they’re an advantage visible to natural selection or else the new function will not be selected for and likely lost. T
he probability of NEW complex GOF mutations occurring that become fixed in a population is vanishingly small; they have to work before they will be kept.and the number offered as examples by evolutionists are but a mere handful that include homologous recombination, sickle-cell anemia in humans, adaptive immunity and antibiotic resistance in bacteria all of which do NOT meet the necessary criteria to be classified as a a Gain of Function; thus EVOLUTION in the single cell to higher life forms sense, the mechanism that CREATES this increasingly complex specified information is required but there’s no real mechanism for EVOLUTION that does this.
Yes, I know many will object, but that IS THE REALITY.
The faithful believers of evolution will not accept the truth at any cost and will choose to continue to interpret all data WITHIN the evolution paradigm that ensures they remain.
As Biblical Creationist and Marine Biologist Dr Robert W. Carter once eloquently said, "Yes, mutations can occur within living species (kinds), but, no, those mutations cannot be used to explain how those species (kinds) came into existence in the first place. We are talking about two completely separate processes.
The meta-information challenge
We need to get past the naïve idea that we understand the genome because we know the sequence of a linear string of DNA. In fact, all we know is the first dimension out of at least four in which the genome operates:
(1: the one-dimensional, linear string of letters; 2: the two-dimensional interactions of one part of the string with another, directly or through RNA and protein proxies; 3: the three-dimensional spatial structure of the DNA within the nucleus; and 4: changes to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd dimensions over time).
There is a tremendous amount of information packed into that genome that we have not figured out, including multiple simultaneously-overlapping codes. When discussing whether or not mutations can create new information, evolutionists routinely bring up an overly-simplistic view of mutation and then claim to have solved the problem while waving their hand over the real issue: the antagonism between ultra-complexity and random mutation.
If a four-dimensional genome is hard enough to grasp, there is also a huge amount of ‘meta-information’ in the genome. This is information about the information! This is the information that tells the cell how to maintain the information, how to fix it if it breaks, how to copy it, how to interpret what is there, how to use it, when to use it, and how to pass it on to the next generation. This is all coded in that linear string of letters and life could not exist without it. In fact, life was designed from a top-down perspective, apparently with the meta-information coming first. According to a brilliant paper by Alex Williams, for life to exist, organisms require a hierarchy of
comprehensively regulated, information-driven metabolic functions, and
inversely-causal meta-information.
None of these levels can be obtained through natural processes, none can be predicted from the level below, and each is dependent on the level above.
Meta-information is the top level of biological complexity and cannot be explained by naturalistic mechanisms, yet life cannot exist without it.
Putting all other arguments for and against the rise of biological information aside, where did the meta-information, upon which all life depends, come from?
Conclusions
Can mutation create new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘information’. Also, ‘new’ does not necessarily imply ‘better’ or even ‘good’. When evolutionists cite examples of ‘new’ information, they are almost invariably citing evidence of new traits, but these traits are caused by the corruption of existing information. Mutations can create new varieties of old genes, as can be seen in white-coated lab mice, tailless cats, and blue-eyed people. But damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken). Also, not all new traits are caused by mutation! Some come about by unscrambling pre-existing information, some from decompressing packed information, some from turning on and off certain genes.
In all the examples I have seen used to argue against creation, evolution is not helped. There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes. In fact, it looks like all examples of gain-of-function mutations, put in light of the long-term needs of upward evolutionary progress, are exceptions to what is needed, because every example I have seen involves something breaking.
We as creationists have the upper hand here. If we treat this properly, we can score a great victory in our long war for truth. The genome is not what evolution expected. The examples of mutations we have are not of the types required for evolution to advance. Evolution has to explain how the four-dimensional genome, with multiple overlapping codes and chock full of meta-information, came about. Can a mutation create new information? Perhaps, but only in the most limited sense. Can it create the kind of information needed to produce a genome? Absolutely not!"
END OF EXCERPT FROM PAPER BY Marine Biologist Dr Robert W. Carter
Mutations, allopolyploidy, recombination, etc., etc.
What do you want here exactly? Here are some examples of taxa that fit well with evolution and make much less sense without: Myllokunmingiidae, radiodont arthropods, scaphopod-like rostroconchs, intermediate forms between species in the Yorktown Formation and the recent, gorgonopsids, labyrinthodont stem-amniotes, etc., etc.
Yes, by multiplying (number of mutations) x (time/mutation) to get time. Now, these time outputs have very wide error bars much of the time (and should, as the calibration process is very sensitive to small errors and very difficult).
Then why is it that I keep finding evolutionary intermediate taxa?
What exactly are insertions, allopolyploidy, and symbiogenesis, then?
1 in a million is common when we’re dealing with billions of mutations appearing in any given generation.
Those have been demonstrated. Thousands of times.
No, that is wrong. I can observe changes over time in a genus of gastropods from the Miocene to the Recent, with distinct species and intermediates between each one. Those are the same process. Siphocypraea is a good example.
Thanks Jon for your answer. There were some positive details in the answer, like admitting that mutations can create new information. Unfortunately, the answer/excerpt showed a lack of understanding about some details or used terms in a manner that deviates from the way that the terms are used in science-based discussion. Below, some notes to your comment.
In my example, I assumed that there is one beneficial mutation in a decade or a century. The number of mutations that occurs every year in a population is so high that my assumption likely represents less than one case in a million. That means that my estimate of the rate of beneficial mutations was very conservative.
The excerpt uses the word ‘evolution’ in a sense that deviates from the science-based meaning of the word. If the heritable gene pool of a population changes from one generation to future generations, that is biological evolution even if the appearance (phenotype) of the individuals would not change. In my example, I assumed that only one mutation in a decade or a century would change the phenotype of the novel (mutated) individuals enough that it would affect fitness (number of grandchildren relative to the other individuals). IMHO, that is a conservative approach.
Fitness is dependent on the playground, that is the environment where the individuals live. What is beneficial in one environment may be bad for fitness in another environment. If individuals live in different type of environments or the environment changes, the process of natural selection will favor different phenotypes and may therefore lead to directional changes in the phenotype. That is a blind process in the sense that the change does not have a goal, it is just differing fitness of differing phenotypes. An external observer might guess what is the direction of evolution but that is not something inherent to the process, it would just be an educated guess based on the environments and the fitness of different phenotypes in that kind of environments.
Although it is not openly stated, the answer seems to assume that there is some fundamental difference between “microevolution” (small evolutionary changes within a population) and “macroevolution” (evolutionary changes that lead to major differences in the phenotypes). Science-based approach does not recognize a division to “microe” and “macroe” although it is usually assumed that major changes in phenotypes take very long times, millions of years. In theory, such changes might happen much faster but it is unlikely that such changes would happen within tens of thousands of years.
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:
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 EMPIRICALMATHEMATICAL 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’.
Dear Knor,
thank you for your considered reply, it is appreciated!
After reading your reply, it appears to me that you accept evolution theory as a scientific fact and in doing so, you interpret the data within the so called ‘deep time’ evolutionary framework, that you correctly state makes absolutely no distinction between limited changes within a population by natural selection AND the purported massive uphill gross changes that see major differences arise, first within the genotype i.e., the complex specified information content within an organism that codes for those massive changes, (that of necessity in many cases are irreducibly complex and thus it would be expected, more often than not be deleterious until the final gross change is fully operational) and then secondly from that information the changes are organically constructed.
Evolutionary teaching posits that incremental steps confer minor benefits and remain and eventually result in complex structures and processes such as for example, vertebrae, ATP synthase motors, eyes, ears, neurons, wings, feathers etc…
But I can assure you that is nothing more than very wishful thinking, or more accurately blind faith in evolution that is NOT supported by real world empirical evidence; it is a faith position, despite the many contrary claims by the ardent followers of evolution.
Of course there’s a fundamental difference between the real changes that do occur within a population and those changes that are claimed to create the enormous diversity of brilliantly designed beautiful species on Earth from an alleged single celled organism that naturalistically arose from the alleged primordial soup. It is the latter ‘claimed change’ that I am talking about here.
Observed changes within a population always remain within that particular specie.
Natural selection can only ever select from existing information it cannot create novel information.
The necessary novel complex specified information increase required for the BIG changes that have allegedly resulted in the diversity of species on Earth, therefore, cannot rely on natural selection.
I understand you may protest here and plead that it is only ever small incremental changes that drive evolution, but although once many decades ago I would have agreed with you, I now understand how ridiculous that belief was and still is. Yet it is still being taught!
Just as Ernst Haeckel’s forged embryonic drawings were still in textbooks not long ago.
Despite the controversy, textbook authors and teachers of evolutionary theory keep on using these diagrams, or versions of them, in order to convince students of evolutionary truth, even in the 21st century! In 1997, a ‘bomb’ exploded in the face of all those evolutionists who so fondly kept on using this evolutionary ‘icon’, when embryologist (and evolutionist) Dr Michael K. Richardson and his colleagues published a variety of real photographs of the relevant embryos. These drawings of Haeckel were later compared directly to the actual photos, and they were found to be far more different than everybody even thought." END OF EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE.
You may claim that I do not understand evolution, but I assure you I do, likely more than you expect.
I understand it won’t get you a pass at any secular university, nor will it aid getting continuing research grants and it is quite difficult to shed the reigning paradigms assumptions and push through the evolutionary belief framework embedded in biological training, but if you do, I pray the reality will become as clear to you as it is to me.
To correct a false assumption, I do not accept ToE as a fact but as a theory that makes fairly accurate predictions and can explain the observed facts about life. That is a fundamental difference.
Biological evolution (as defined by biologists) has been observed within the last century and based on the observations, it can be treated as a fact.
ToE extrapolates the observations made within the last 100+ years and uses them to explain other biological observations, current and past. The extrapolations and theoretical work are not facts. ToE has gained pretty universal support among scientists because it has made more accurate predictions than alternative explanations. Although ToE is a theory (not a fact), it is the best available one. I am open to any other explanations that can explain the observations as well as ToE. Because I am a believer, I am also open to explanations rising from the biblical scriptures, provided that they can produce verifiable predictions about the biological reality and explain the observations as well as ToE. YEC does not fulfill these criteria, not from the scientific or the theological viewpoints. That is why I have abandoned YEC.
Dear Troy,
thanks for your thoughts, they are appreciated!
Yes, I love those Scriptures that you quoted, they are old friends that I have known since I was a child, and now still, seven decades later.
I believe the Bible consists of many forms of writing, and to me at least, each different form is clear, thus when the Scripture is clearly historical narrative, it is clear that it can be understood literally as written, when it is poetic, other truths are revealed, when it is prophetic, events in the future from when it was written are revealed, and so on…
I agree with your thoughts right up to:
I honestly do not follow the reasoning here. Adam may be a word for earth, but Adam was clearly a real historical man who was directly created by God and who walked with God in the garden.
Thus, as I do not understand what it is that you believe here, hence, I must ask you, do you believe that Adam and Eve were the very first people from whom all other people are descended?
I really don’t know why many on this site keep pushing the point that the Bible is not about scientific revelation or the like, and of course I absolutely agree, though I do not understand why this strange statement is so often reinforced as if anybody is claiming that it is? Frankly, it’s a little weird.
I believe that Genesis explains why we need the Gospel of Jesus substitutionary death on that Roman Cross as our Kinsman Redeemer, (because we are all related, i.e., all mankind), to pay the debt that we owe our perfectly righteous and just Lord God for the sins that we have all personally committed. The wages of sin is death.
The rebellion of Adam meant that God put a curse on creation when Adam’s sin resulted in death entering what was until then an innocent perfectly good creation where all animals ate green plants for food, there was no bloodshed, no death prior to the fall, which is why I see theistic evolution as a false teaching as it does appear to put eons of death and suffering before the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden.
That concept is anathema to me as it makes God out to be an incompetent Creator that uses eons of cruelty and suffering just to get to the point of man arising in the story and God doesn’t operate that way, He is kind,and Loving, and Righteous and Just from what we are told in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible.
And equally as important evolution is NOT consistent with how our Creator creates.
We are shown not only in Genesis that God speaks a command and it is so; but also as the Gospels of the New Testament teach us exactly the same creative method, Jesus commands and immediately it is so, the water changed immediately to wine, the loaves and fishes immediately materialised to feed 5,000 people with 12 baskets left over, the terrible storm of wind and waves immediately went calm at the command of our Gracious Loving Lord and Saviour Jesus etc…
Please note that I am not casting any aspersions on those who are theistic evolutionists, but in good conscience, I must boldly state as clearly as I possibly can that theistic evolution is a false teaching that’s misleading many.
There are parts of what you have written that I know are true, such as the Last supper, do this in remembrance of me, we eat the bread and the wine as Jesus flesh and blood, AND Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his *death, I understand and agree, however the deeptime, evolution belief is a modern pseudo scientific belief that is not found anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, thus it is a False Teaching.
Dear Knor,
it is the application of the evolution paradigm with its associate assumptions that ensures that predictions made are self reinforcing. It is not a product of the data per se.
I believe God created the creation as described in Genesis, thus for me at least, evolution, (and I have studied it, in considerable depth), is not only not necessary, but in fact after much thought and deliberation, I have concluded that it is actually an impossibility.
Sure, if you want a naturalistic atheist philosophy based explanation for the diversity of species, that is, basically that God is excluded as an explanation, then evolution is your go to, as there really is no other pseudo science, semi plausible mechanism out there, BUT, if you want to know the truth, then the only true explanation is as literally stated in Genesis, God created and it was so, immediately!
The choice is yours to make as it is mine.
I have made my choice, and I’ll trust God any day over the fallible theories of fallen man that are purposefully designed to deny even His existence, let alone be logical or real.
Isn’t it ironic, that I abandoned my belief in evolution because of the many unscientific ‘just so’ assumptions I was forced to swallow when I started digging a little deeper into the theory and hit a brick wall of denial without good reason, denial at any cost, and even after it was plainly obvious the theory was utterly ridiculous.
