Tricks Theists Play (Part 1)

[Tristen]

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I accept that A model that discards mutation is possible. I just don’t see value in a model that differs from reality....

“I accept that A model that discards mutation is possible. I just don’t see value in a model that differs from reality”

In our conversation, no one has presented a model that “discards mutation”. That idea stems from your odd understanding of the words necessary, required and could. These words deal with logical limitations of the model, not what the model actually claims.

The reason it is important to note that my model doesn't require mutations for diversity is because secular estimates of mutation rates are based on the idea that all diversity is ultimately a result of mutation - but since my model claims most diversity existed at the creation (i.e. apart from mutations), those secular estimations are meaningless from the perspective of my model. Earlier in the conversion, you were trying to apply the secular mutation estimates to my model – an approach which lacks logical consistency.

 

“Why would that not be a logical conclusion? Since you accept Jeanson’s model of heterozygosity + recombination + mutation = level of diversity we now observe, then subtraction of any one of these factors would result in reduction of diversity. I realize that it isn’t simple arithmetic, but it seems like a rather simple conclusion to me”

I didn't claim it's not “logical”. You made a truth claim which is, in my opinion, over-simplistic. If you take out mutations, you take out a lot of diseases that could influence the survival of species. For example, if a predator survives, the prey species might be driven further abroad; thereby providing increased opportunities for diversity to arise. The predators might follow, providing the same opportunities for diversity to them. It's just not something that can be predicted.

 

“Do you think heterozygosity and recombination were essential, but for some reason, mutation was not?”

Do you mean logically “essential” for broad diversity? Because again, this is a question about what is logically possible, not about what actually happened.

 

“I don’t see how this is related to your conclusion that mutations aren’t necessary. To me, the rapid diversification only supports the necessity of mutations”

Except we understand, as a matter of fairly common knowledge, how the breeds were derived. Pups with desired characteristics were interbred over generations until most of the genetic diversity was bred out. The diversity did not come from mutations adding differences to each lineage. The desired characteristics were there at the start of the process.

 

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

But the point is, the scriptures say there were two people, Adam and Chavah (aka Eve), they sinned and died. Their sin is passed down to all after them, save One. That sin required Jesus to come and die in our place. Without a real Adam and a real Chavah, then there is no need of Jesus. That's the issue with a false belief in evolution.

Although many people believe that evolution automatically precludes the existence of Adam and Eve, that is not necessarily the case. This linked article is somewhat long, but what you read there may surprise you.

http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/

[ByFaithAlone]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Although many people believe that evolution automatically precludes the existence of Adam and Eve, that is not necessarily the case. This linked article is somewhat long, but what you read there may surprise you.

http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/

BioLogos is another Christian organization that has many articles related to theistic evolution from historical, scientific and theological perspectives if people want to check that out. Members include Francis Collins, world renown geneticist from the human genome project, theologian and historian NT Wright and many more.   

[one.opinion]

15 hours ago, ByFaithAlone said:

BioLogos is another Christian organization that has many articles related to theistic evolution from historical, scientific and theological perspectives if people want to check that out. Members include Francis Collins, world renown geneticist from the human genome project, theologian and historian NT Wright and many more.   

I was at a BioLogos conference in Houston about 2 years ago. Both Francis Collins and NT Wright were there for the first night. In addition to their many other talents, both are musicians and played a couple of entertaining songs together - it was a great evening! Collins hasn't been able to do anything officially with BioLogos for the last several years due to his position as head of the NIH, but he certainly added a considerable amount of cache to the organization. I'm much more of a scientist than a theologian, but I imagine NT Wright has also added considerable cache in his area of influence.

[Uber Genius]

Lots of good discussion to be had on all sides. 

What would the original audiences understand the text of Gen 1 to mean?

Were Adam And Eve literal of figurative?

Can neodarwinian evolutionary theory account for the enormous creation of information found in the first life ex nihilo?

Can neodarwinian evolution even account for the creation of new body plans?

Once we eliminate rhetorical tricks, bad exegesis, false scientific claims we are still left with a wide range of conclusions it seems.

[Uber Genius]

Very astute observation about the wide range of the term “theory” when applied to the narrow knowledge area of science. We can be much more fine-grained in our assessments it seems. So while all agree with descent with modification we don’t all agree on common ancestry. While all would agree with the data of oscillating evolution within species such as the Galapagos finches beaks that skirts the point that for neodarwinian to be supported one must show directional not oscillating evolution.

There are countless rhetorical tricks. One must do some study of philosophy of science to separate  the religious aspects of evolution from the science.

[Uber Genius]

When I started this topic I suggested that the focus be limited to rhetorical tricks not YEC vs OEC vs NDEvolution.

We find 10s of thousands of conversations on the internet about the latter and next to none about the former.