disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[The Barbarian]

On 7/17/2019 at 12:59 PM, Hawkins said:

 

An easier way to understand is that ToE doesn't have any mechanism in distinguishing breeding from evolution. ToE is more like a theory assuming the absence of interbreeding. This will inevitably lead to the liger scenario I illustrated, and thus will falsify the theory itself logically (as the theory doesn't have the ability to take interbreeding into account). In a nutshell, the change from tiger to liger is a change subject to interbreeding. It's not a change caused by natural selection which the ToE can only come up with!

Breeding is merely sexual reproduction.   Which (in sexually reproducing populations) can be part of evolution, called recombination. But it's not the only thing that causes evolution.   Mutation is also a major source of evolutionary change.

Whatever causes the population genome to change, is a process of evolution.  Immigration of individuals of the same species from other populations would also qualify, which is why that must be controlled for in doing population genetics with Hardy-Weinberg analyses.

 

 

[Still Alive]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.   Mutation is a change in genes.    Descent with modification is a change in population genome.   Mutation can do that.  So can recombination of alleles.

Descent with modification is the way scientists described things before  they knew about genetics.  Today, it is referred to as "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."

 

I guess I should have been clear. I'm thinking of a mutation of the DNA. i.e. descent with modifications.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Still Alive said:

I guess I should have been clear. I'm thinking of a mutation of the DNA. i.e. descent with modifications.

Mutation is a cause of descent with modification.   However, it would have to be passed on to new generations to actually amount to evolutionary change. 

 

[Still Alive]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Mutation is a cause of descent with modification.   However, it would have to be passed on to new generations to actually amount to evolutionary change. 

 

Yes. That is where I was going with it. I see it as a permanent mutation. i.e. fish with three eyes proceeds to have offspring with three eyes. That sort of thing. Unlike cutting off a fish's fin and all of it's children are born with good fins. 

I think when I was a kid I thought stuff like that got passed on. 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Still Alive said:

Yes. That is where I was going with it. I see it as a permanent mutation. i.e. fish with three eyes proceeds to have offspring with three eyes.[/quote]

Yes, most primitive fish had a third eye, and it was passed on to descendants:

Many of the oldest fossil vertebrates, including ostracoderms, placoderms, crossopterygians, and even early tetrapods, had a socket in the skull that appears to have held a functional third eye. This socket remains as a foramen between the parietal bones even in many living amphibians and reptiles, although it has vanished in birds and mammals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parietal_eye  

There is also the fish caught near an Argentinian nuclear plant...

https://www.zmescience.com/science/biology/three-eyed-fish-argentina-28102011/

 

2 hours ago, Still Alive said:

 

That sort of thing. Unlike cutting off a fish's fin and all of it's children are born with good fins.

Same thing, really.   What matters, is genes. 

I think when I was a kid I thought stuff like that got passed on.

Until Darwin and Mendel, many scientists thought so, too.   Even Darwin was originally open to the idea.    But not after we learned how heredity works.

 

 

[Still Alive]

14 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

 

I think that before darwin most people believed in some kind of creator or God, simply because of what we thought about nature. But Darwinism (as opposed to the modern hypothesis of evolution), though mostly debunked, go us on the road to true atheism taking a foothold. Those that did not want to believe in a creator/God needed another explanation, and he gave it to them.

Of course, the modern hypothesis in no way explains how life started in the first place. They only try to explain what happened to it after it was created. And though they have some compelling hypotheses, at the end of the day, they are only trying to say what theoretically could have happened, not what probably happened.

An example: Future anthropologists could dig up the record of my home in Seattle in the early 80's and deduce from my employment records and the bus schedules, that I took the bus to work. They could pontificate on it endlessly and write long dissertations on all the compelling evidence from other, matching historical records, other cultural findings etc. It would be very convincing.

I drove to work, though.

"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause" - Genesis, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway

The doorhandle for a 2000 Dodge Neon is identical to the door handle of a 2002 Chrysler 300M. But no, the Chrysler did not "evolve" from the Neon. Rather, the two vehicles had the same creator and were created for the same environment and function. And they were efficient.

i.e. the "commonality" in the fossil record is evidence for both evolution and creationism. And for all we know, Genesis 1:3 happens hundreds of millions of years after Genesis 1:1, and there were hundreds of ages before the age that began in Genesis 1:3. And we are digging up the remains from some of them and applying evolution to them.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

I think that before darwin most people believed in some kind of creator or God, simply because of what we thought about nature. But Darwinism (as opposed to the modern hypothesis of evolution), though mostly debunked, go us on the road to true atheism taking a foothold. Those that did not want to believe in a creator/God needed another explanation, and he gave it to them.

Seems unlikely.   Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

Of course, the modern hypothesis in no way explains how life started in the first place. They only try to explain what happened to it after it was created. And though they have some compelling hypotheses, at the end of the day, they are only trying to say what theoretically could have happened, not what probably happened.

Since evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life, and would not be affected by any particular way life began, it's a moot point.   If you like, you can, as Darwin did, assume God did it.

1 hour ago, Still Alive said:

The doorhandle for a 2000 Dodge Neon is identical to the door handle of a 2002 Chrysler 300M. But no, the Chrysler did not "evolve" from the Neon. 

This is the difference between human artifacts and natural things.   We design artifacts; God creates natural things.

 

[Still Alive]

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Seems unlikely.   Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

Sometimes people use a person's hypothesis to support opinions that that person does not share.

[Still Alive]

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Since evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life, and would not be affected by any particular way life began, it's a moot point.   If you like, you can, as Darwin did, assume God did it.

 

I agree, except a lot of "lay-evolutionists" I see pontificating basically use it to explain life itself. It's not moot to them. They actually believe that since we came from a single cell, then it follows that the first signs of life simply came about without a creator. And they just assume that eventually we'll figure out how it happened, just like eventually we "figured out" that we evolved from a single cell. 

[Still Alive]

8 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

This is the difference between human artifacts and natural things.   We design artifacts; God creates natural things.

 

Well, I see a subset of creation to be design. Everything that God created was designed for a purpose(s).

This is why I use the analogy. 

However, God's design is incredibly inefficient. How many sperm or seeds end up producing offspring.