Total Posts:113|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The mountain of evidence for Evolution.

Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've been told about this mountain (also recently referred to as a beach) of evidence for Evolution, and some Evolutionists are frustrated that I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution, in spite of the mountain of evidence. Often, when I ask for samples from the mountain to examine, I'm scoffed at, for whatever reason.

Recently, Quartermass DID post some pieces of evidence that he claimed demonstrated Evolution, in his currently hot thread "The Theory of Evolution." What I wanted to discuss didn't quite fit in with what he was talking about, so I started my own thread based on the first article he cited. I picked it apart easily, because in the last few sentences the author cites a scientist who explains how the case of the lizard wasn't really conclusively enough studied to be a strong argument for Evolution. That's when I was told to look at the other evidence in tandem with that one article. But when asked, those same people refused to give me anything to examine. Not even a Wikipedia link.

So here's your chance. I'm the skeptic, ready to examine evidence, present it now or forever hold your peace.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 11:52:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've been told about this mountain (also recently referred to as a beach) of evidence for Evolution, and some Evolutionists are frustrated that I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution, in spite of the mountain of evidence. Often, when I ask for samples from the mountain to examine, I'm scoffed at, for whatever reason.

Recently, Quartermass DID post some pieces of evidence that he claimed demonstrated Evolution, in his currently hot thread "The Theory of Evolution." What I wanted to discuss didn't quite fit in with what he was talking about, so I started my own thread based on the first article he cited. I picked it apart easily, because in the last few sentences the author cites a scientist who explains how the case of the lizard wasn't really conclusively enough studied to be a strong argument for Evolution. That's when I was told to look at the other evidence in tandem with that one article. But when asked, those same people refused to give me anything to examine. Not even a Wikipedia link.

So here's your chance. I'm the skeptic, ready to examine evidence, present it now or forever hold your peace.

How about this. If you are against evolution and believe creationism,then why did God let Neanderthals die out? Seems Neanderthals after all had cognitive abilities on par with Homo Sapiens at the time. In fact they had bigger brains, so in effect God was killing one of his creations that the earth was made for.

Here is a news feature about the cognitive abilities of Neanderthals.
http://www.nature.com...
and my write up about what this means for creationists
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:43:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

These are good starting points for the evidence.

I could summarise them here but even summarising any one of the key proofs here and do it justice will take more than 8000 words.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 9:40:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution

Perhaps because that isn't part of evolutionary theory? You might start with what certain theories cover.

Not even a Wikipedia link.

Here is a link to an experiment that directly demonstrated evolution. The basic summary is that e coli bacteria can not metabolize citrate. This is one characteristic that separates e.coli from salmonella. In an experiment involving reproducing E. coli over 50,000 generations, a strain evolved that could metabolize citrate. Basically, the e.coli evolved the ability to eat something it previously could not!

The study is much more fascinating than that. Since you can freeze bacteria without killing it, they created copies every so many generations and persevered them. So they could go back x number of generations and reproduce the results, go back even further and prove it took multiple mutations to happen. Now they have even mapped the genomes of the original strains and the mutated strains to isolate the differences that evolved.

The wikipedia link is:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you have a couple of months to really dig in all the source information, the exact processes used, the genomic mapping data, etc is found at:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu...

If you have access a nice lab and demonstrated research credentials he will even send you copies of the bacteria strains for you to perform your own experiments.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 9:57:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've been told about this mountain (also recently referred to as a beach) of evidence for Evolution, and some Evolutionists are frustrated that I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution, in spite of the mountain of evidence. Often, when I ask for samples from the mountain to examine, I'm scoffed at, for whatever reason.

Recently, Quartermass DID post some pieces of evidence that he claimed demonstrated Evolution, in his currently hot thread "The Theory of Evolution." What I wanted to discuss didn't quite fit in with what he was talking about, so I started my own thread based on the first article he cited. I picked it apart easily, because in the last few sentences the author cites a scientist who explains how the case of the lizard wasn't really conclusively enough studied to be a strong argument for Evolution. That's when I was told to look at the other evidence in tandem with that one article. But when asked, those same people refused to give me anything to examine. Not even a Wikipedia link.

So here's your chance. I'm the skeptic, ready to examine evidence, present it now or forever hold your peace.

Look up primitive human beings. There is a clear advancement in human physiology and brain capacity over tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

I'd state some specific pre-Homo Erectus humans, but scientists keep debating which is actually a link in the evolutionary chain, and which is a deformed/child specimen of an already known species.

Regardless of the debate, the correlational evidence for one species evolving into another into another... over predictable timescales shows good reason that modern-day humans must have come from a more primitive species.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 9:56:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Forgive me in advance for imposing myself into the conversation. My contribution assumes that it is neo-darwinism at issue here...

Here is the evidence that would be needed: the appearance of a novel body plan to an existing living organism. Not merely the modification of an existing function, but an entirely new body plan. Moreover, because neo-darwinism admits no teleology, this novel body plan must be brought about by an infusion of novel genetic information and not pre-existing information. The contributors to this thread have faithfully submitted what they believe to be "evidence," but none of this evidence meets these two basic criteria.

For example, Ramshutu offers a wikipedia article citing bacterial resistance as evidence for evolution. but resistance is achieved by destroying existing function, not creating new function. The article also cites "non-functioning" psuedogenes as evidence for evolution. That psudeogenes are non-functional was an uncritical assumption of neo-darwinism. In fact, evidence for function of psuedogenes [1] and other so-called "junk DNA" is being discovered on an almost daily basis.

Ramshutu and others offer evidence for common ancestry as evidence for evolution. But again, if we are talking about neo-darwinism, it must be noted that evidence for common ancestry does not by itself succeed at removing a possible role for teleology. Many (such as Behe) have argued that evolution could have been intelligently and purposefully front loaded.

Floid cites Lenski's impressive study of e-coli bacteria which has been on-going for decades now. This study has encompassed more generations than the entire supposed ape-to-man lineage, and larger populations. Each population that is allowed to survive and reproduce is deliberately chosen. For all this effort, one new trait has evolved: the ability to harness nitrate. This ability was the investigator's target from the beginning and now that it has evolved, it appears that the ability pre-existed. It was simply not expressed until no other option was available. It came at an apparent fitness cost. And, oh yes, the bacteria have always remained bacteria.

This thread was inspired by the claim that Italian wall lizards offered dramatic proof of evolution. A small population of these lizards was introduced into a new environment which became inaccessible to investigators for some three decades. When investigators gained access to this environment, they observed that these lizards had apparently did evolve a completely new body plan. It needs to be pointed out that the process was not observed and that such evolution (as many investigators noted) would be expected to unfold over the course of millions of years. That it was apparently accomplished in a mere 3 decades brings us right back to a "miracle" as it were. As investigations have proceeded, it now appears that this so-called novel body plan may well have been an ability that already existed in these creatures.

For a long time it was believed that life is chemical based. We now know that life is information based. An abstract, information based explanation for a physical phenomenon is very different than a physical, chemical explanation. The goal posts have been moved significantly for neo-darwinism, but it's champions remain apparently oblivious. Suddenly, it is 4th down and very long for neo-darwinism; impossibly long, I would say!

[1] http://www.nature.com...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 11:24:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 9:56:53 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Forgive me in advance for imposing myself into the conversation. My contribution assumes that it is neo-darwinism at issue here...

Here is the evidence that would be needed: the appearance of a novel body plan to an existing living organism. Not merely the modification of an existing function, but an entirely new body plan. Moreover, because neo-darwinism admits no teleology, this novel body plan must be brought about by an infusion of novel genetic information and not pre-existing information. The contributors to this thread have faithfully submitted what they believe to be "evidence," but none of this evidence meets these two basic criteria.

For example, Ramshutu offers a wikipedia article citing bacterial resistance as evidence for evolution. but resistance is achieved by destroying existing function, not creating new function. The article also cites "non-functioning" psuedogenes as evidence for evolution. That psudeogenes are non-functional was an uncritical assumption of neo-darwinism. In fact, evidence for function of psuedogenes [1] and other so-called "junk DNA" is being discovered on an almost daily basis.

Ramshutu and others offer evidence for common ancestry as evidence for evolution. But again, if we are talking about neo-darwinism, it must be noted that evidence for common ancestry does not by itself succeed at removing a possible role for teleology. Many (such as Behe) have argued that evolution could have been intelligently and purposefully front loaded.

Floid cites Lenski's impressive study of e-coli bacteria which has been on-going for decades now. This study has encompassed more generations than the entire supposed ape-to-man lineage, and larger populations. Each population that is allowed to survive and reproduce is deliberately chosen. For all this effort, one new trait has evolved: the ability to harness nitrate. This ability was the investigator's target from the beginning and now that it has evolved, it appears that the ability pre-existed. It was simply not expressed until no other option was available. It came at an apparent fitness cost. And, oh yes, the bacteria have always remained bacteria.

This thread was inspired by the claim that Italian wall lizards offered dramatic proof of evolution. A small population of these lizards was introduced into a new environment which became inaccessible to investigators for some three decades. When investigators gained access to this environment, they observed that these lizards had apparently did evolve a completely new body plan. It needs to be pointed out that the process was not observed and that such evolution (as many investigators noted) would be expected to unfold over the course of millions of years. That it was apparently accomplished in a mere 3 decades brings us right back to a "miracle" as it were. As investigations have proceeded, it now appears that this so-called novel body plan may well have been an ability that already existed in these creatures.

For a long time it was believed that life is chemical based. We now know that life is information based. An abstract, information based explanation for a physical phenomenon is very different than a physical, chemical explanation. The goal posts have been moved significantly for neo-darwinism, but it's champions remain apparently oblivious. Suddenly, it is 4th down and very long for neo-darwinism; impossibly long, I would say!

[1] http://www.nature.com...

I think you need to clarify your position with respect to Neo-Darwinisim. Many evolutionary biologists who are strong "Darwinian" evolution believers use this term Neo-Darwinism. So what do you mean exactly. Let me elaborate below.

You are talking about the introduction of a body plan from nothing here. Well Of course that is not how evolution works, things well evolve. You have a leg, then the leg gets shorter or longer for a specific task and then through natural selection a new body plan evolves.

Just give us the truth, because evolution is fact. I think the evidence in this thread shows that. However if you believe there is a creator in the mix, you need to bring your proof.
Morgana42
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 1:04:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution,

Well, for starters, there is NO such thing as biological non-life. Biology is the study of life.

When someone says they've looked at the evidence for the FACT of evolution and then says they don't believe in it, what I hear is someone saying is that they don't understand it, because if you understood the science, you wouldn't be doubting it. OR, that person is being purposefully obtuse because they can't handle the fact that their "faith" has been disproven.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 7:28:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 9:56:53 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Floid cites Lenski's impressive study of e-coli bacteria which has been on-going for decades now. This study has encompassed more generations than the entire supposed ape-to-man lineage, and larger populations.

I am not so sure on your numbers here. Larger populations perhaps, but the citrate mutation was seen at generation 30,000. If we assume a human/ape generation every 20 years this is only 600,000 years.

Each population that is allowed to survive and reproduce is deliberately chosen. For all this effort, one new trait has evolved: the ability to harness nitrate.

You have two completely false statements here.

1.) The experiment started with 12 copies of the same strain of e. coli each allowed to reproduce completely independent. Natural selection decides which individual bacteria in these strains survive...

2.) Quite a few traits have been observed. The increase in cell size, a 33% increase in reproduction rate, change in shape, etc.

This ability was the investigator's target from the beginning and now that it has evolved,

This is also a completely false statement. Citrate was included to help with something to do with iron in the growth medium. The ability to metabolize citrate was noticed because of a population growth. But the study itself was a more generic study on evolution.

it appears that the ability pre-existed. It was simply not expressed until no other option was available. It came at an apparent fitness cost.

This is also false. The original strain could not live in the environment the new strain can.

And, oh yes, the bacteria have always remained bacteria.

This is the real crux of the argument. It is evidence, just not enough evidence. This is why it is pointless to argue with creationist. If you are just going to cherry pick your standards for accepting scientific theories then go ahead, but don't try to have a scientific debate about it.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 7:09:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 9:56:53 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Forgive me in advance for imposing myself into the conversation. My contribution assumes that it is neo-darwinism at issue here...

Here is the evidence that would be needed: the appearance of a novel body plan to an existing living organism. Not merely the modification of an existing function, but an entirely new body plan.

Firstly, why? Why is this the only acceptable evidence. If all existing body plan and organ changes can be explained via specific mutations, and significant body plan mutations can be observed; why do thse not count until we have seen an entire new body plan come about. Why is a massive pattern of evidence explaining body plan that can be demonstrated through the consequence of genetic and evolutionary processes not evidence; whereas direct observation is the only evidence. Why is this requirement only present for evolution out of all the aspects of the real world when proof can be provided without direct observation?

The reason I say these, is the former can come about in our lifetime, but significant body plan changes takes geological time; and this is most often used as an example of where someone is trying to give the impression of being reasonable, but can relax knowing it would never be possible to provide such evidence for thousands of years.

Secondly, my issue is, that normally when "we need evidence of...." is invoked, it is normally invoked in such an ambiguous way that no possible evidence that could ever be provided would match the requirements. For example, in the above definition, I could find a snake that has 8 appendages each similar to a tail and each of which function as a sort of arm/leg causing the snake to behave like a spider; yet this could be argued to be a "modification of an existing function".

Until you can find a clear, objective and unabiguous definition of how I can determine the example matches your requirement that is not open to interpretation, there is no point providing anything.

Moreover, because neo-darwinism admits no teleology, this novel body plan must be brought about by an infusion of novel genetic information and not pre-existing information. The contributors to this thread have faithfully submitted what they believe to be "evidence," but none of this evidence meets these two basic criteria.

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, not New-darwinism, btw. Slightly more accurate.

Firstly, define information given my above statement. More importantly, please explain how your definition of "information" is consistent with Evolution.

The reason I say this second part is that fundamentally evolution can ONLY work with information that is already present. It can modify directly, delete or create duplicates of genes. The term "new information" is really artifical, as I can take an existing gene, mutate it; have the old, working gene and the new novel gene and have created a new feature with no new "information".

For the purposes of evolution the ONLY requirement is for new feature or functions to be added without any affect or removal of existing features.

The "information" argument, is a very subtle semantic straw man. It is saying that to explain new features, new genes need to come into existance (true, and well evidenced), but that somehow, it CAN'T make any use of existing genes that are already there (through duplication). Which is not a requirement, as evolution and new features works quite happily without such a requirement.

For example, Ramshutu offers a wikipedia article citing bacterial resistance as evidence for evolution. but resistance is achieved by destroying existing function, not creating new function. The article also cites "non-functioning" psuedogenes as evidence for evolution. That psudeogenes are non-functional was an uncritical assumption of neo-darwinism. In fact, evidence for function of psuedogenes [1] and other so-called "junk DNA" is being discovered on an almost daily basis.

There are numerous examples of Gene Duplication allowing new features to be added without destroying the old ones; anti-freeze in fish, snake venome, and more.

Ramshutu and others offer evidence for common ancestry as evidence for evolution. But again, if we are talking about neo-darwinism, it must be noted that evidence for common ancestry does not by itself succeed at removing a possible role for teleology. Many (such as Behe) have argued that evolution could have been intelligently and purposefully front loaded.

Evolutionly and science for that matter only states what has happened, and the principles by which it happened.

It posits neither positive, nor negative proof of God, a Creator, or an intelligent entity. Simply limits the ways in which they may have acted.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:21:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 11:52:24 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've been told about this mountain (also recently referred to as a beach) of evidence for Evolution, and some Evolutionists are frustrated that I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution, in spite of the mountain of evidence. Often, when I ask for samples from the mountain to examine, I'm scoffed at, for whatever reason.

Recently, Quartermass DID post some pieces of evidence that he claimed demonstrated Evolution, in his currently hot thread "The Theory of Evolution." What I wanted to discuss didn't quite fit in with what he was talking about, so I started my own thread based on the first article he cited. I picked it apart easily, because in the last few sentences the author cites a scientist who explains how the case of the lizard wasn't really conclusively enough studied to be a strong argument for Evolution. That's when I was told to look at the other evidence in tandem with that one article. But when asked, those same people refused to give me anything to examine. Not even a Wikipedia link.

So here's your chance. I'm the skeptic, ready to examine evidence, present it now or forever hold your peace.

How about this. If you are against evolution and believe creationism,then why did God let Neanderthals die out? Seems Neanderthals after all had cognitive abilities on par with Homo Sapiens at the time. In fact they had bigger brains, so in effect God was killing one of his creations that the earth was made for.

Here is a news feature about the cognitive abilities of Neanderthals.
http://www.nature.com...
and my write up about what this means for creationists
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...

I'm going to try to go through these responses in the order they're posted. If they're totally ridiculous and insulting, I may not answer them.

iamanathiestandthisiswhy:

Read your blog about Neanderthals, and I'd like to point out that the Biblical interpretation of the evidence puts them not in a dead end of human evolution, but classifies them as 100% humans. Man reproduces after his kind, and there are no natural hybrid human-apes, and humans were created distinct from the animals, and the animals distinct from eachother.

I've watched Nature documentaries and read about the evidence of how smart they really seem to have been, and how widespread their genetic legacy seems to be among the population living today, and how their features are not ape-like, but a unique mix of "modern" human features. God let the Neanderthals die out because they are humans, and "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Heb. 9:27. God will let all of us die out, too. We are not immortal, and this is because the wages of our sin is death. Neanderthals were imperfect humans, so all of them died, too. As to why they are gone as a people group, I don't know and neither does anyone else. Did they really get wiped out, or were they culturally absorbed? I am as of yet unaware of any great Neanderthal killing fields. You don't know, and neither do I or any other scientist why they are gone as a group. We only know why the individuals are gone.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:31:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 12:43:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

These are good starting points for the evidence.

I could summarise them here but even summarising any one of the key proofs here and do it justice will take more than 8000 words.

While I appreciate the actual presentation of evidence, these are very broad reaching articles, and if you cannot defend them in 8000 words, I don't see how it would be fair to expect me to respond in less than 8000 words. Please choose something more specific from these or other articles that can be discussed within this format.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:38:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hi atheist. thanks for responding to my post. Allow me to unpack your claims and challenges:

You say that evolution is a fact. I can agree with that depending on exactly what we mean when we use the word. If we simply mean that organisms change over time, then I have no problem with your claim. However the entire TOE has gotten its legs from Darwin's claim that all of life's diverse organisms have evolved from one or a few common ancestors. I think it is pretty clear that I was addressing the spirit of this claim.

You are right to demand my precise definition of neo-darwinism. Frankly, I'm not completely sure there is one. I know that my formal education as well as a myriad of leading spokespersons (such as Dawkins, the retired Eugenie Scott, Michael Schermer, etc) are very clear that neo-darwinism embraces the tenets of Darwinism under the rubric of sola natural processes. Again, I use the term in what strikes me as an honest spirit.

I think I have allowed the champions of the theory to define what they mean and based on criteria clearly established by them and not me, I find it very reasonable to to expect emperical evidence for novel body plans that have arisen due to an infusion of new information. You are correct to point out that novel body plans from nothing does not happen. I see that as a problem for darwinists, not for me.

As far as "proof" for a Creator, I will give you a pass on your semantic slip and simply say this: the claim that the most sophisticated and advanced information storage and processing system we have ever encountered is the result of intelligent agency is not only a reasonable and logical claim, it is vastly more likely to be true than the claim that the most sophisticated and advanced information storage and processing system we have ever encountered is the result of unguided natural processes. The latter claim is unreasonable and illogical. Indeed, it is utter nonsense. Meanwhile, the former claim is supported by the entire history of emperical evidence, without a single exception.

I think that's a decent start!
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:26:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 9:40:09 AM, Floid wrote:
I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution

Perhaps because that isn't part of evolutionary theory? You might start with what certain theories cover.


I didn't word that very well. To be more accurate, I do not believe in the Big Bang, natural abiogenisis, or Inter-species evolution. What we're dealing with here I guess will be inter-species/phyla/order evolution. And since the goal-posts of what is contained within a specific species, whether narrowing or broadening, happens on a regular basis with new discoveries, to be perfectly clear, Fish do not become amphibians, only other breeds of it's specific ancestral fish, reptiles do not become birds, only other breeds of it's specific ancestral reptile, etc. If God made a Wolf, Triceratops and a T-rex on the same day of creation, the triceratops' progeny will never be anything other than triceratops varieties, and the T-rex progeny will never be anything but a T-rex variety, and the Wolf progeny will never be anything but a Wolf variety, whether it be a chihuahua, great dane, or coyote. If God made a catfish and a shark and a seahorse on the same day of creation....you get the point.

Not even a Wikipedia link.

Here is a link to an experiment that directly demonstrated evolution. The basic summary is that e coli bacteria can not metabolize citrate. This is one characteristic that separates e.coli from salmonella. In an experiment involving reproducing E. coli over 50,000 generations, a strain evolved that could metabolize citrate. Basically, the e.coli evolved the ability to eat something it previously could not!

Sincere thanks for contributing.
It directly demonstrates evolution, from one variety of E. coli to another. Without sarcasm, it is a fascinating experiment, but until the E. coli becomes a Paramecium or algae or something else, the detrimental mutations are far outpacing the beneficial or neutral mutations. According to the article, out of 'hundreds of millions of mutations," only a few hundred are beneficial or neutral.

This experiment backs up Romans 8:19-23
"For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, [Adam who sinned]in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.


The study is much more fascinating than that. Since you can freeze bacteria without killing it, they created copies every so many generations and persevered them. So they could go back x number of generations and reproduce the results, go back even further and prove it took multiple mutations to happen. Now they have even mapped the genomes of the original strains and the mutated strains to isolate the differences that evolved.

The wikipedia link is:
http://en.wikipedia.org...


If you have a couple of months to really dig in all the source information, the exact processes used, the genomic mapping data, etc is found at:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu...

If you have access a nice lab and demonstrated research credentials he will even send you copies of the bacteria strains for you to perform your own experiments.

Sometimes I wish I HAD gone into some field of science as a vocation, rather than what I do now. That does sound fun.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 6:29:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:21:04 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:52:24 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've been told about this mountain (also recently referred to as a beach) of evidence for Evolution, and some Evolutionists are frustrated that I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution, in spite of the mountain of evidence. Often, when I ask for samples from the mountain to examine, I'm scoffed at, for whatever reason.

Recently, Quartermass DID post some pieces of evidence that he claimed demonstrated Evolution, in his currently hot thread "The Theory of Evolution." What I wanted to discuss didn't quite fit in with what he was talking about, so I started my own thread based on the first article he cited. I picked it apart easily, because in the last few sentences the author cites a scientist who explains how the case of the lizard wasn't really conclusively enough studied to be a strong argument for Evolution. That's when I was told to look at the other evidence in tandem with that one article. But when asked, those same people refused to give me anything to examine. Not even a Wikipedia link.

So here's your chance. I'm the skeptic, ready to examine evidence, present it now or forever hold your peace.

How about this. If you are against evolution and believe creationism,then why did God let Neanderthals die out? Seems Neanderthals after all had cognitive abilities on par with Homo Sapiens at the time. In fact they had bigger brains, so in effect God was killing one of his creations that the earth was made for.

Here is a news feature about the cognitive abilities of Neanderthals.
http://www.nature.com...
and my write up about what this means for creationists
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...

I'm going to try to go through these responses in the order they're posted. If they're totally ridiculous and insulting, I may not answer them.

iamanathiestandthisiswhy:

Read your blog about Neanderthals, and I'd like to point out that the Biblical interpretation of the evidence puts them not in a dead end of human evolution, but classifies them as 100% humans. Man reproduces after his kind, and there are no natural hybrid human-apes, and humans were created distinct from the animals, and the animals distinct from eachother.

You say there are no human-ape hybrids. I would like to know what you define the various Australopithecus fossils as then. They are certainly not homo sapiens and they are certainly not ape.

I've watched Nature documentaries and read about the evidence of how smart they really seem to have been, and how widespread their genetic legacy seems to be among the population living today, and how their features are not ape-like, but a unique mix of "modern" human features. God let the Neanderthals die out because they are humans, and "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Heb. 9:27. God will let all of us die out, too. We are not immortal, and this is because the wages of our sin is death. Neanderthals were imperfect humans, so all of them died, too. As to why they are gone as a people group, I don't know and neither does anyone else. Did they really get wiped out, or were they culturally absorbed? I am as of yet unaware of any great Neanderthal killing fields. You don't know, and neither do I or any other scientist why they are gone as a group. We only know why the individuals are gone.

The problem is that you have given the Bible as evidence for the eradication of the Neanderthals. So now you need to prove the bible was inspired by God, in other words you need to prove god.

Also, how do you know Neanderthals were imperfect humans?

BTW Yes there are no Neanderthal killing fields, but not everyone dies in killing fields.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 6:53:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:31:56 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/8/2013 12:43:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

These are good starting points for the evidence.

I could summarise them here but even summarising any one of the key proofs here and do it justice will take more than 8000 words.

While I appreciate the actual presentation of evidence, these are very broad reaching articles, and if you cannot defend them in 8000 words, I don't see how it would be fair to expect me to respond in less than 8000 words. Please choose something more specific from these or other articles that can be discussed within this format.

Firstly, you asked for evidence. Stating that whenever you ask for them, you are scoffed at, implying that there is not really any evidence: "not even a Wikipedia link".

Can I surmise from this statement that you concede the original claim that there is actually presentable evidence, and from your follow on here, a lot of broad reaching articles, explanations and details about such evidence?

Now, despite you sounding incredulous at the time about the existance of "mountains of evidence", you now complain that it is not fair that there is a mountain of evidence?

Now, I could pick something very specific, but this is really a tactic that is used quite often. Without compelling an extensive evidence in every sphere of biology, without taking into account all facets from molecular biology to taxonomy, to phylogeny, and with only 8000 words it is not possibly to really do justice to how well supported, and how complete evolution is a theory that derives and explains the biodiversity in the natural world.

If you want to be honest and explain Exactly where you want this thread to go, I can do that, and will do that once you have also agreed that there is actually mountains of evidence that can be presented for evolution; whether you necessarily agree with the interpretation or not.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 7:30:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've been told about this mountain (also recently referred to as a beach) of evidence for Evolution, and some Evolutionists are frustrated that I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution, in spite of the mountain of evidence. Often, when I ask for samples from the mountain to examine, I'm scoffed at, for whatever reason.

We have witnessed species evolve in order to survive. We have witnessed genetic codes mutate. We have induced genetic mutations in the lab. If we know genes mutate, and why they mutate, and we know that these mutations can be inherited, it is only logical that these mutations will cause evolution.
The rate at which species evolve depends on 3 factors;
1.) the rate of reproduction
2.) the rate at which new mutations are created
3.) the rate at which genes (new and old) are eliminated from the population

The more children that can be fathered/mothered in a given time frame, and the earlier the age of sexual maturity, the faster the mutated genes will spread.

The more mutations that occur during a given time frame, the less likely the older genes will be passed on, thus the faster the species will change.

The more mutations that are eliminated in a given time frame, the less likely the newer genes will be passed on, thus the slower the species will change. The more older genes that are eliminated in a given time frame, the less likely the older genes will be passed on, thus the faster the species will change. Even without this 3rd factor evolution can still occur, only with a greater genetic diversity within the population. This third factor is what guides evolutionary change to suit the environment (that and epigenetic factors).
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 7:32:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Neanderthals did not die out, they interbred with other species, or rather races. Just like currently there are whites, blacks, yellows, etc., all similar yet with differences. Back then the races couldn't migrate as well and as fast as we can now, so groups in one area stayed there for a very long time, in isolation, and developed even more differences from other groups than can presently be seen with humans from different locations. They evolved according to the conditions present in a certain area. Apparently they eventually began mixing more strongly with others, for whatever reasons.
And there weren't just neanderthals either, there were other races as well.
The result of that interbreeding is what we now call humans.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

A mountain of evidence for evolution... and none for absolutely every and any "god" and creationism.
Misperception and miscomprehension, you see the effect but not what creates it, and so are liable to misinterpretation.

Life, in general, has pretty much just one driving goal - survival. In order to survive, change must occur within life, with life, because the conditions life resides in change, and if they change and life does not follow... should be logical enough.
This change is evolution. Those weak and not as efficient die, the rest continue. And life itself creates factors that must be adapted through change. Life drives itself as well.

If some "god" created us and everything, frozen in regards to change then we would be destined for extinction, because the world around us does change, and if we don't with it then we die. If some "god" created us, as scripture says, then every fossil and bone ever dug up would reflect the features we presently possess, yet that is not true. As well we have in our DNA remnants of those so-called extinct species like "neanderthals", meaning we did not look like we do now, meaning we changed, meaning we evolved, to survive. We are not created, not designed, we weren't like we are now a long time ago when fur covered our bodies. There is evidence everywhere, especially presently with all the science and experiments and dug up bones... everyone with working eyes can see it, and if someone cannot understand what it is they see for what it really is then they have serious problems behind their eyes.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 9:52:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 2:26:48 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/8/2013 9:40:09 AM, Floid wrote:
I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution

Perhaps because that isn't part of evolutionary theory? You might start with what certain theories cover.


I didn't word that very well. To be more accurate, I do not believe in the Big Bang, natural abiogenisis, or Inter-species evolution. What we're dealing with here I guess will be inter-species/phyla/order evolution.

So you would dismiss it as coincidence that we have been able to synthesize ribonucleotides and amino acids using chemicals that we have previously predicted to be present on primordial Earth? The ribonucleotide synthesis experiment was fairly recent --in fact, I think it happened this year. I know you have heard of the Miller-Urey experiment. Would you dismiss it as mere coincidence that phospholipids are able to assemble themselves into a bilayer cell membrane on their own? What would your reaction be if I told you that experiments have been conducted where yeast have evolved rudimentary multicellularity functionality, as well as experiments where aerobic bacteria evolved the ability to share resources when put in an unstirred solution, so that it was possible for said micro organisms to live directly underneath the surface instead of having to be on the surface in order to receive any oxygen? The evidence for abiogenesis and the step between single-felled and multicellular organisms is rising, and scientists are very close to synthesizing protocells in a laboratory using only precursors that would be available on primordial Earth.

And since the goal-posts of what is contained within a specific species, whether narrowing or broadening, happens on a regular basis with new discoveries, to be perfectly clear, Fish do not become amphibians, only other breeds of it's specific ancestral fish, reptiles do not become birds, only other breeds of it's specific ancestral reptile, etc. If God made a Wolf, Triceratops and a T-rex on the same day of creation, the triceratops' progeny will never be anything other than triceratops varieties, and the T-rex progeny will never be anything but a T-rex variety, and the Wolf progeny will never be anything but a Wolf variety, whether it be a chihuahua, great dane, or coyote. If God made a catfish and a shark and a seahorse on the same day of creation....you get the point.

Evolution states that organisms diversify over time. Nobody is saying that modern reptiles would become birds, it is only ever said that, at some point, they had a common ancestor. With the definition of species being entirely subjective, it is safe to say that anything proving or demonstrating divergence beyond a certain point is sufficient evidence for evolution.

Not even a Wikipedia link.

Here is a link to an experiment that directly demonstrated evolution. The basic summary is that e coli bacteria can not metabolize citrate. This is one characteristic that separates e.coli from salmonella. In an experiment involving reproducing E. coli over 50,000 generations, a strain evolved that could metabolize citrate. Basically, the e.coli evolved the ability to eat something it previously could not!

Sincere thanks for contributing.
It directly demonstrates evolution, from one variety of E. coli to another. Without sarcasm, it is a fascinating experiment, but until the E. coli becomes a Paramecium or algae or something else, the detrimental mutations are far outpacing the beneficial or neutral mutations. According to the article, out of 'hundreds of millions of mutations," only a few hundred are beneficial or neutral.

If this were true, then all humans would not be very well off, considering how humans have an average of 100 or so differences (mutations) from their parents. From the fact that not all of us have some horrible, debilitating genetic disease, we can infer that the vast majority of mutations do absolutely nothing. Also, nobody is saying that we expect sideways evolution from E. coli to Paramecium. I expect this to be the last time you use this misrepresentation.

This experiment backs up Romans 8:19-23
"For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, [Adam who sinned]in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

You might want to explain that for those of us who don't judge the validity of statements by the amount of flowery language included.

The study is much more fascinating than that. Since you can freeze bacteria without killing it, they created copies every so many generations and persevered them. So they could go back x number of generations and reproduce the results, go back even further and prove it took multiple mutations to happen. Now they have even mapped the genomes of the original strains and the mutated strains to isolate the differences that evolved.

The wikipedia link is:
http://en.wikipedia.org...


If you have a couple of months to really dig in all the source information, the exact processes used, the genomic mapping data, etc is found at:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu...

If you have access a nice lab and demonstrated research credentials he will even send you copies of the bacteria strains for you to perform your own experiments.

Sometimes I wish I HAD gone into some field of science as a vocation, rather than what I do now. That does sound fun.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 12:45:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There isn't a f***ing mountain of evidence.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 5:33:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 9:57:15 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've been told about this mountain (also recently referred to as a beach) of evidence for Evolution, and some Evolutionists are frustrated that I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution, in spite of the mountain of evidence. Often, when I ask for samples from the mountain to examine, I'm scoffed at, for whatever reason.

Recently, Quartermass DID post some pieces of evidence that he claimed demonstrated Evolution, in his currently hot thread "The Theory of Evolution." What I wanted to discuss didn't quite fit in with what he was talking about, so I started my own thread based on the first article he cited. I picked it apart easily, because in the last few sentences the author cites a scientist who explains how the case of the lizard wasn't really conclusively enough studied to be a strong argument for Evolution. That's when I was told to look at the other evidence in tandem with that one article. But when asked, those same people refused to give me anything to examine. Not even a Wikipedia link.

So here's your chance. I'm the skeptic, ready to examine evidence, present it now or forever hold your peace.

Look up primitive human beings. There is a clear advancement in human physiology and brain capacity over tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

I'd state some specific pre-Homo Erectus humans, but scientists keep debating which is actually a link in the evolutionary chain, and which is a deformed/child specimen of an already known species.

Regardless of the debate, the correlational evidence for one species evolving into another into another... over predictable timescales shows good reason that modern-day humans must have come from a more primitive species.

You'll have to present a more substantial case than "the evidence is out there, look it up," or simply stating "science already proved it" in order to get a serious response.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 5:39:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 5:33:57 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/8/2013 9:57:15 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've been told about this mountain (also recently referred to as a beach) of evidence for Evolution, and some Evolutionists are frustrated that I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution, in spite of the mountain of evidence. Often, when I ask for samples from the mountain to examine, I'm scoffed at, for whatever reason.

Recently, Quartermass DID post some pieces of evidence that he claimed demonstrated Evolution, in his currently hot thread "The Theory of Evolution." What I wanted to discuss didn't quite fit in with what he was talking about, so I started my own thread based on the first article he cited. I picked it apart easily, because in the last few sentences the author cites a scientist who explains how the case of the lizard wasn't really conclusively enough studied to be a strong argument for Evolution. That's when I was told to look at the other evidence in tandem with that one article. But when asked, those same people refused to give me anything to examine. Not even a Wikipedia link.

So here's your chance. I'm the skeptic, ready to examine evidence, present it now or forever hold your peace.

Look up primitive human beings. There is a clear advancement in human physiology and brain capacity over tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

I'd state some specific pre-Homo Erectus humans, but scientists keep debating which is actually a link in the evolutionary chain, and which is a deformed/child specimen of an already known species.

Regardless of the debate, the correlational evidence for one species evolving into another into another... over predictable timescales shows good reason that modern-day humans must have come from a more primitive species.

You'll have to present a more substantial case than "the evidence is out there, look it up," or simply stating "science already proved it" in order to get a serious response.

As I said, the specifics of the theory of evolution are constantly being debated about, so I can't trust myself to cite specifics. All I can say for sure is that if you look up the characteristics of pre-modern humans, you can see how over time, brain capacity increased, bipedalism became more advanced (by way of where the spine meets the skull), and probably various other things that are outside my realm of knowledge.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 5:41:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 1:04:27 AM, Morgana42 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I don't believe in biological non-life to life non-Theistic Evolution,

Well, for starters, there is NO such thing as biological non-life. Biology is the study of life.
A very badly worded sentence, on my part. I do not believe life spontaneously occurred from non-life through natural processes billions of years ago and slowly advanced to the cockroach and us.

When someone says they've looked at the evidence for the FACT of evolution and then says they don't believe in it, what I hear is someone saying is that they don't understand it, because if you understood the science, you wouldn't be doubting it. OR, that person is being purposefully obtuse because they can't handle the fact that their "faith" has been disproven.

Who said evolution is a FACT then said they didn't believe in it? If you can disprove my faith, please present the argument. It sounds intriguing.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 5:50:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 6:53:05 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:31:56 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/8/2013 12:43:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

These are good starting points for the evidence.

I could summarise them here but even summarising any one of the key proofs here and do it justice will take more than 8000 words.

While I appreciate the actual presentation of evidence, these are very broad reaching articles, and if you cannot defend them in 8000 words, I don't see how it would be fair to expect me to respond in less than 8000 words. Please choose something more specific from these or other articles that can be discussed within this format.

Firstly, you asked for evidence. Stating that whenever you ask for them, you are scoffed at, implying that there is not really any evidence: "not even a Wikipedia link".

Can I surmise from this statement that you concede the original claim that there is actually presentable evidence, and from your follow on here, a lot of broad reaching articles, explanations and details about such evidence?

Now, despite you sounding incredulous at the time about the existance of "mountains of evidence", you now complain that it is not fair that there is a mountain of evidence?

Now, I could pick something very specific, but this is really a tactic that is used quite often. Without compelling an extensive evidence in every sphere of biology, without taking into account all facets from molecular biology to taxonomy, to phylogeny, and with only 8000 words it is not possibly to really do justice to how well supported, and how complete evolution is a theory that derives and explains the biodiversity in the natural world.

If you want to be honest and explain Exactly where you want this thread to go, I can do that, and will do that once you have also agreed that there is actually mountains of evidence that can be presented for evolution; whether you necessarily agree with the interpretation or not.

I just want something discussable within this format. If you give me so much you don't think you can discuss in this format, do not expect a response in the very same format you refuse to discuss in.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 7:30:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:

So here's your chance. I'm the skeptic, ready to examine evidence, present it now or forever hold your peace.

I just stumbled upon this video.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 7:34:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 6:29:20 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:21:04 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:52:24 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've been told about this mountain (also recently referred to as a beach) of evidence for Evolution, and...

How about this. If you are against evolution and believe creationism,then why did God let Neanderthals die out? Seems Neanderthals after all had cognitive abilities on par with Homo Sapiens at the time. In fact they had bigger brains, so in effect God was killing one of his creations that the earth was made for.

Here is a news feature about the cognitive abilities of Neanderthals.
http://www.nature.com...
and my write up about what this means for creationists
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...

I'm going to try to go through these responses in the order they're posted. If they're totally ridiculous and insulting, I may not answer them.

iamanathiestandthisiswhy:

Read your blog about Neanderthals, and I'd like to point out that the Biblical interpretation of the evidence puts them not in a dead end of human evolution, but classifies them as 100% humans. Man reproduces after his kind, and there are no natural hybrid human-apes, and humans were created distinct from the animals, and the animals distinct from eachother.

You say there are no human-ape hybrids. I would like to know what you define the various Australopithecus fossils as then. They are certainly not homo sapiens and they are certainly not ape.

How do you know this? How am I supposed to know this? The Australopithecus remains I have seen are all pretty fragmented. How do you know what you know about this based on what evidence there is?


I've watched Nature documentaries and read about the evidence of how smart they really seem to have been, and how widespread their genetic legacy seems to be among the population living today, and how their features are not ape-like, but a unique mix of "modern" human features. God let the Neanderthals die out because they are humans, and "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Heb. 9:27. God will let all of us die out, too. We are not immortal, and this is because the wages of our sin is death. Neanderthals were imperfect humans, so all of them died, too. As to why they are gone as a people group, I don't know and neither does anyone else. Did they really get wiped out, or were they culturally absorbed? I am as of yet unaware of any great Neanderthal killing fields. You don't know, and neither do I or any other scientist why they are gone as a group. We only know why the individuals are gone.

The problem is that you have given the Bible as evidence for the eradication of the Neanderthals.

No, I haven't given the Bible as evidence for their eradication. I know the Neanderthals are gone because we don't have them anymore, the same way you know they're gone. The reason I brought up the Bible is because you provided the link to your own blog where you ask the question yourself,

"Then I ask myself why would god have allowed one of his creations, that is very similar to humans, to die? This is an important question to ask, as we often have our religious beliefs because we feel we are more advanced (privileged) than other species. But if there was another species that also was developing these abilities then why were they allowed to disappear?"

In your blog you mix your own Evolutionary beliefs with what you think are Christian beliefs, and label them as Christan thought. In the same hypothetical where God exists, you also include Evolution as real. This is a hybrid position, and misrepresentative of the Bible and the way Bible believing Christians think. While you correctly understand that the Bible puts humans in a more privileged position than other creatures, you also seem to believe that Christians hold that Neanderthals were a "developing species," and something other than human. They certainly weren't animals. The only real difference between us and them seems to have been appearance.
http://www.icr.org...

So now you need to prove the bible was inspired by God, in other words you need to prove god.

Well, I didn't do what you said I did that made you say that, but...Ok, do you want to do that on another thread, or in a debate format?

Also, how do you know Neanderthals were imperfect humans?
Well they're humans, and there are no perfect humans, so what else would they have been?


You also state the root for our religious beliefs are a feeling of superiority, which is false. While it might be true for some folks in some religions, is the religion of "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned"every one"to his own way;"
and
""God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Submit yourselves therefore to God...Be wretched and mourn and weep...Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you."
really a religion of superiority?

BTW Yes there are no Neanderthal killing fields, but not everyone dies in killing fields.

Neanderthals from thousands of years ago are all dead, as. All the other humans died off from back then too, because we don't live that long. You implied in your blog that not only did the individual Neanderthals we find die off, but God allowed their entire civilization to die off. While true, their civilization is gone, we really don't know what happened to them. There was interbreeding with other humans, so it seems, from genetics. Did they become culturally absorbed into other peoples as the Egyptians and Edomites were absorbed into Hellenism? Or were they slain in a series of battles with other tribes, or were they wiped out by a plague? No one knows. The only answer I can give is why all humans will die. And that's what I did.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 7:41:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That aforementioned video is part of a 26 video long list about the evidence for evolution.

http://www.youtube.com...
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 10:39:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 5:50:51 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:53:05 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:31:56 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/8/2013 12:43:52 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

These are good starting points for the evidence.

I could summarise them here but even summarising any one of the key proofs here and do it justice will take more than 8000 words.

While I appreciate the actual presentation of evidence, these are very broad reaching articles, and if you cannot defend them in 8000 words, I don't see how it would be fair to expect me to respond in less than 8000 words. Please choose something more specific from these or other articles that can be discussed within this format.

Firstly, you asked for evidence. Stating that whenever you ask for them, you are scoffed at, implying that there is not really any evidence: "not even a Wikipedia link".

Can I surmise from this statement that you concede the original claim that there is actually presentable evidence, and from your follow on here, a lot of broad reaching articles, explanations and details about such evidence?

Now, despite you sounding incredulous at the time about the existance of "mountains of evidence", you now complain that it is not fair that there is a mountain of evidence?

Now, I could pick something very specific, but this is really a tactic that is used quite often. Without compelling an extensive evidence in every sphere of biology, without taking into account all facets from molecular biology to taxonomy, to phylogeny, and with only 8000 words it is not possibly to really do justice to how well supported, and how complete evolution is a theory that derives and explains the biodiversity in the natural world.

If you want to be honest and explain Exactly where you want this thread to go, I can do that, and will do that once you have also agreed that there is actually mountains of evidence that can be presented for evolution; whether you necessarily agree with the interpretation or not.

I just want something discussable within this format. If you give me so much you don't think you can discuss in this format, do not expect a response in the very same format you refuse to discuss in.

So is that a concession of your opening point in this thread? That contrary to what you are saying, there IS actually a mountain of evidence that can be presented for evolution (whether you necessarily agree with the conclusions or not?)

Moreover, I would like to also point out, that I at no point "refused" to discuss anything. I simply pointed out that a summary of evidence takes more than eight thousand words. When pressed i also pointed out that i object to dishonest attempts, and dishonest argument tactics used by many creationsts. Considering your opening statement, and indeed the suggestion that I am somehow "refusing" to discuss them are two examples that fit into the very same criteria I was simply asking you to ask your question in a not-dishonest way.

As the initial question was misleading, you have not admitted that the initial premise is incorrect (which as stated, it obviously is), and you have deliberately tried to paint me as if I am somehow "refusing" discussion when I'm not, I am simply trying to ascertain whether you are genuinely interested in a discussion, or simply want someone to direct unsupported and baseless statements, failed interpretations and non-scientific ramblings at.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 11:12:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 7:28:09 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/8/2013 9:56:53 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Floid cites Lenski's impressive study of e-coli bacteria which has been on-going for decades now. This study has encompassed more generations than the entire supposed ape-to-man lineage, and larger populations.

I am not so sure on your numbers here. Larger populations perhaps, but the citrate mutation was seen at generation 30,000. If we assume a human/ape generation every 20 years this is only 600,000 years.


Each population that is allowed to survive and reproduce is deliberately chosen. For all this effort, one new trait has evolved: the ability to harness nitrate.

You have two completely false statements here.

1.) The experiment started with 12 copies of the same strain of e. coli each allowed to reproduce completely independent. Natural selection decides which individual bacteria in these strains survive...

2.) Quite a few traits have been observed. The increase in cell size, a 33% increase in reproduction rate, change in shape, etc.


This ability was the investigator's target from the beginning and now that it has evolved,

This is also a completely false statement. Citrate was included to help with something to do with iron in the growth medium. The ability to metabolize citrate was noticed because of a population growth. But the study itself was a more generic study on evolution.


it appears that the ability pre-existed. It was simply not expressed until no other option was available. It came at an apparent fitness cost.

This is also false. The original strain could not live in the environment the new strain can.


And, oh yes, the bacteria have always remained bacteria.

This is the real crux of the argument. It is evidence, just not enough evidence. This is why it is pointless to argue with creationist. If you are just going to cherry pick your standards for accepting scientific theories then go ahead, but don't try to have a scientific debate about it.

Hi Floid. Thanks for reading and responding to my post. I need to set the record straight on several things that you have said in your reply:

1. "This is the real crux of the argument. It is evidence, just not enough evidence. This is why it is pointless to argue with a creationist. If you are just going to cherry pick your standards for accepting scientific theories then go ahead, but don't try to have a scientific debate about it"

I have to wonder what you mean by "cherry picking my evidence." Recall that I opened my post by pointing out that what is needed to provide evidence for darwinian evolution is the appearance of an entirely novel body plan to an existing organism. I then go on to point out that in the case of Lenski's bacteria, more than 50,000 generations later, the bacteria remain bacteria. It is a modest expectation for a theory that claims to give rise to entirely new phyla to produce a new body plan. Evolution has completely underachieved here and it is telling that its champions must tout the results as a major achievement.

You uncharitably accuse me of 4 lies. In pointing out what is either dishonesty or ignorance on your part, I will decline to return the insult.

2. "Several traits have been observed. The increase in cell size, a 33% increase in reproduction rate, change in shape, etc."

My exact observation was that one new trait has evolved. I am 6'0. One of my sons is 6'6. His larger size is not a new trait. Neither is larger cell size or increase in reproduction rate. My claim is true.

3. You call my claim that the ability to digest citrate was the investigator's target from the beginning "a completely false statement"

Really? Read what the experimenters themselves say:

They have since evolved in a glucose limited medium that also contains citrate...
A citrate using variant finally evolved in one population...
the long delayed and unique evolution of this function...
[1] (emphases mine).

Initial conditions matter. If the glucose (the normal energy source) is limited and citrate is present, how is this not an environment that encourages the exploration of citrate? The experimenters themselves refer to the mutation as "long delayed," and note that it "finally evolved." My claim is true.

4. You call my claim that "it appears that the ability pre-existed," false. Wild e-coli does have the ability to digest citrate. In 2012, the investigators themselves, writing in Nature, traced the mutation to a promoter gene that already exists in the e-coli. My claim is true.

I do confess one slip: my notes on the Lenski experiment were from memory and unfortunately my memory did fail me on one point: there was no preferential population selection. Thank you for pointing that out. Nonetheless, the crux, as you point out, is that the bacteria are in fact, still bacteria.

[1] http://www.pnas.org...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 11:46:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 7:34:56 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:29:20 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:21:04 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:52:24 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:21:19 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've been told about this mountain (also recently referred to as a beach) of evidence for Evolution, and...

How about this. If you are against evolution and believe creationism,then why did God let Neanderthals die out? Seems Neanderthals after all had cognitive abilities on par with Homo Sapiens at the time. In fact they had bigger brains, so in effect God was killing one of his creations that the earth was made for.

Here is a news feature about the cognitive abilities of Neanderthals.
http://www.nature.com...
and my write up about what this means for creationists
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...

I'm going to try to go through these responses in the order they're posted. If they're totally ridiculous and insulting, I may not answer them.

iamanathiestandthisiswhy:

Read your blog about Neanderthals, and I'd like to point out that the Biblical interpretation of the evidence puts them not in a dead end of human evolution, but classifies them as 100% humans. Man reproduces after his kind, and there are no natural hybrid human-apes, and humans were created distinct from the animals, and the animals distinct from eachother.

You say there are no human-ape hybrids. I would like to know what you define the various Australopithecus fossils as then. They are certainly not homo sapiens and they are certainly not ape.

How do you know this? How am I supposed to know this? The Australopithecus remains I have seen are all pretty fragmented. How do you know what you know about this based on what evidence there is?

You look at the remains of various individuals and build a picture of what the species may have looked like. Here is a link to two fossils of Australopithecus Sediba.
http://www.sciencemag.org...

Also Lucy is a good skeleton of Australoppithecus Afarensis.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So yes, they are not complete but when you have a 100 10% skeletons you essentially have 10 full skeletons. If they can be radio dated to the same time (or better still same location) then we can be sure they are the same species.



I've watched Nature documentaries and read about the evidence of how smart they really seem to have been, and how widespread their genetic legacy seems to be among the population living today, and how their features are not ape-like, but a unique mix of "modern" human features. God let the Neanderthals die out because they are humans, and "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Heb. 9:27. God will let all of us die out, too. We are not immortal, and this is because the wages of our sin is death. Neanderthals were imperfect humans, so all of them died, too. As to why they are gone as a people group, I don't know and neither does anyone else. Did they really get wiped out, or were they culturally absorbed? I am as of yet unaware of any great Neanderthal killing fields. You don't know, and neither do I or any other scientist why they are gone as a group. We only know why the individuals are gone.

The problem is that you have given the Bible as evidence for the eradication of the Neanderthals.

No, I haven't given the Bible as evidence for their eradication. I know the Neanderthals are gone because we don't have them anymore, the same way you know they're gone. The reason I brought up the Bible is because you provided the link to your own blog where you ask the question yourself,

True, but what abut the quote form Hebrews. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Heb. 9:27

"Then I ask myself why would god have allowed one of his creations, that is very similar to humans, to die? This is an important question to ask, as we often have our religious beliefs because we feel we are more advanced (privileged) than other species. But if there was another species that also was developing these abilities then why were they allowed to disappear?"

In your blog you mix your own Evolutionary beliefs with what you think are Christian beliefs, and label them as Christan thought. In the same hypothetical where God exists, you also include Evolution as real. This is a hybrid position, and misrepresentative of the Bible and the way Bible believing Christians think. While you correctly understand that the Bible puts humans in a more privileged position than other creatures, you also seem to believe that Christians hold that Neanderthals were a "developing species," and something other than human. They certainly weren't animals. The only real difference between us and them seems to have been appearance.
http://www.icr.org...

Yes you are right, and so why did god kill his creation?

So now you need to prove the bible was inspired by God, in other words you need to prove god.

Well, I didn't do what you said I did that made you say that, but...Ok, do you want to do that on another thread, or in a debate format?

Also, how do you know Neanderthals were imperfect humans?
Well they're humans, and there are no perfect humans, so what else would they have been?

No they are not and yes they are, as they share a common ancestor with humans. But, they branched off so they are humans if you accept that we have a common ancestor that was human. However if you reject the idea of a common ancestor as human then they are not human.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...


You also state the root for our religious beliefs are a feeling of superiority, which is false. While it might be true for some folks in some religions, is the religion of "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned"every one"to his own way;"
and
""God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Submit yourselves therefore to God...Be wretched and mourn and weep...Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you."
really a religion of superiority?

BTW Yes there are no Neanderthal killing fields, but not everyone dies in killing fields.

Neanderthals from thousands of years ago are all dead, as. All the other humans died off from back then too, because we don't live that long. You implied in your blog that not only did the individual Neanderthals we find die off, but God allowed their entire civilization to die off. While true, their civilization is gone, we really don't know what happened to them. There was interbreeding with other humans, so it seems, from genetics. Did they become culturally absorbed into other peoples as the Egyptians and Edomites were absorbed into Hellenism? Or were they slain in a series of battles with other tribes, or were they wiped out by a plague? No one knows. The only answer I can give is why all humans will die. And that's what I did.

My point is, if God loves his creation as much as scriptures say he does. Why did he let them die? The logical conclusion is that if God exists, then he does not love his creation, as he let a whole branch of them die off. But this then is a contradiction to the scriptures, so we have to conclude God does not exist or the scriptures are wrong.

I will happily debate you on one of these topics.