Is Theistic Evolution Tenable?

[The Barbarian]

On 3/5/2020 at 12:50 PM, Uber Genius said:

That is not Collin's point at all. It is that on evolution we would expect more accumulation of mutations in the non-coding regions and Would predict ancestors with similar "junk DNA" in these regions as oppossed to the genes. So humans would look much more like say chimpanzees and mice than birds or fish. 

Yes, that's the case.  For example, the GULO gene is "broken" in various mammals which get sufficient vitamin C from diet, and therefore don't need it.   But the specific mutation that broke it in primates is the same in all cases, while in other mammals like Guinea pigs, the mutation is different.   The odds of that happening by chance are so tiny as to be essentially impossible.

 

[The Barbarian]

On 3/5/2020 at 1:11 PM, Uber Genius said:

I do think it is so now? Absolutely!

do you think it has changed just because of one conference in the UK where they engaged the serious challenges of the Darwinian inference? Please...

It's not one conference.   I've seen plenty of lively disagreement on many, many things in science.   Getting all scientists to agree on anything is a challenge.

Would you like to see some examples?

 

[George]

@The Barbarian  Have you ever seen any of the materials posted by Gerald Schroeder as he discusses how the universe could appear to be 15.5 billion years old, and at the same time be realistically 6,000 years old?  

If you are truly seeking the truth ... perhaps spend an hour watching some of his materials will give you an understanding of how these things can be?

God bless,

George

[omega2xx]

On 3/2/2020 at 9:43 PM, one.opinion said:

I'd be willing to bet you already agree with certain non-literal aspects of Genesis 1-3. For example, Eve was obviously not the "mother" of all living - evidence shows that this must be taken figuratively.

What  evidence shows Eve being the mother of all  living must be taken literally?   Sometime the literal truth is presented  in figurative language, but that doesn't keep it from being literally true.  Eve was the mother of the first life born naturally., and all natural life  is related to her.

Even Jesus' genealogy traces his origin back to her and Adam(Luke 3:38)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

It's not one conference.   I've seen plenty of lively disagreement on many, many things in science.   Getting all scientists to agree on anything is a challenge.

Would you like to see some examples?

 

Science has proved many things on which they all agree.  Would you  like to see some examples?

BTW a few weeks ago I ask you to post some evidence Wise presented in some of his writings, and to date you have not responded.  Have you finally figured out what real evidence is  and now know he did not offer any? oor are you just unable to find any?

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes, that's the case.  For example, the GULO gene is "broken" in various mammals which get sufficient vitamin C from diet, and therefore don't need it.   But the specific mutation that broke it in primates is the same in all cases, while in other mammals like Guinea pigs, the mutation is different.   The odds of that happening by chance are so tiny as to be essentially impossible.

 

Mutations can't be the mechanism for change of species and you can't offer any evidence they can be.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

Yes, that's the case.  For example, the GULO gene is "broken" in various mammals which get sufficient vitamin C from diet, and therefore don't need it.   But the specific mutation that broke it in primates is the same in all cases, while in other mammals like Guinea pigs, the mutation is different.   The odds of that happening by chance are so tiny as to be essentially impossible.

(sound of goalposts being frantically repositioned)

5 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Mutations can't be the mechanism for change of species and you can't offer any evidence they can be.

Sure they can.   Mutations are just changes in the genome of a population.   So if we look at some documented speciations, we see that the difference is a change in genome.

The mutation that produced the species O. gigas from O. lamarkania (a polyploidy event) was directly observed.   It produced a new species which breeds true among it's own kind, but is unable to breed with the species from which it evolved.

The origin of Oenothera gigas.-GATES22 has investigated the relation of the number of chromosomes in Oenothera gigas to its size. This mutant from 0. Lamarckiana has double the number of chromosomes (28) possessed by the parent form and by the other mutants examined. In every tissue examined, the cells of the mutant are conspicuously larger than those of the parent form, and the nuclei of the pollen mother cells during synapsis are about twice as large. The author suggests that increase in the size of nuclei and cells, consequent upon or coincident with the doubling of the chromosome number, and change in the rela- tive dimensions of the cells in some cases, will account for all the differences between the two species. There is no evidence of the r resence of new or additional unit characters in 0. gigas. It is concluded that the facts strongly support the view of the independence and genetic continuity of the chromosomes, whatever may be their role in heredity. It is suggested as most probable that the double number of chromosomes in 0. gigas originated soon after fertilization, by the fail- ure of a nucleus to complete its division after the chromosomes had divided.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/330189

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, omega2xx said:

BTW a few weeks ago I ask you to post some evidence Wise presented in some of his writings, and to date you have not responded.

I gave a link to many, many papers Wise cited as evidence for macroevolutionary theory.   You failed to check even one of them.    Do you think no one noticed?   Here's some of them, including some creationist publications.

Gingerich, P. D., 1994. The whales of Tethys. Natural History, 103(4):86– 88.

Gould, S. J., 1994. Hooking leviathan by its past. Natural History,103(5):9–15

Zimmer, C., 1995. Back to the sea. Discover, 16(l):82–84

Zimmer, C., 1995. Coming onto the land. Discover, 16(6): 118–127

Wise, K. P., 1994. Australopithecus ramidus and the fossil record. CENTech. J., 8(2): 160–165

Wise, K. P., 1990. Baraminology: A young-earth creation biosystematic method. In:Proceedings of the Second International Conference onCreationism, R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks (eds), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Vol. 2, pp. 345–360

Wise, K. P., 1991. Practical baraminology. CEN Tech. J., 6(2): 122–137

Wise, K. P., 1992. Creation polycladism: A young-earth creation theory of biogenesis. In:Proceedings of the 1992 Twin-Cities CreationConference, Twin-Cities Creation Science Association, Genesis Institute, and Northwestern College, Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota, pp. 204–210.

Wise, K. P., 1994. Origin of life's major groups. In:The CreationHypothesis, J. P. Moreland (ed.), InterVarsity Press, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, pp. 211–234

Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J. R., Humphreys, D. R., Snelling, A. A., Vardiman, L. and Wise, K. P., 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global Flood model of earth history. In:Proceedings of the Third InternationalConference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 609–621.

Stewart, W. N. and Rothwell, G. W., 1993. Paleobotany and the Evolutionof Plants, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,England, pp. 114-115.

Gould, S. J., 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Natureof History, Norton, New York, pp. 321–323

Carroll, R. L., 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Freeman, New York, p. 467

Carroll, ibid, p. 473.

Hopson, J. A., 1994. Synapsid evolution and the radiation of non-eutherian mammals. In:Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Porthero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 190–219.

Ostrom, J. H., 1994. On the origin of birds and of avian flight. In:MajorFeatures of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 160–177.

Thomson, K. S., 1994. The origin of the tetrapods. In:Major Featuresof Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 85–107.

Ahlberg, P. E. and Milner, A. R., 1994. The origin and early diversification of tetrapods. Nature, 368:507–514.

There's really no point in you denying them.   You were, several times linked to these, and you declined to check any of them.

(Barbarian earlier)

Getting all scientists to agree on anything is a challenge.

5 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Science has proved many things on which they all agree.  Would you  like to see some examples?

Show me your list of scientific theories on which there is complete agreement by all scientists, and your evidence for this.

 

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Sometime the literal truth is presented  in figurative language, but that doesn't keep it from being literally true.

Yes.   This was the argument used by St. Augustine when he showed that the "days" of Genesis were figurative.    But as he pointed out, the fact that the days were figurative does not mean that Genesis is not literally true.   In fact, he titled his work (English translation) The Literal Meaning of Genesis  that is, it meant what it said, even if it said it figuratively.

 

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, George said:

Have you ever seen any of the materials posted by Gerald Schroeder as he discusses how the universe could appear to be 15.5 billion years old, and at the same time be realistically 6,000 years old?  

Shroeder has a lot of odd beliefs, if I'm hearing him correctly.   He seems to be asserting that:

mass is equivalent to weight

velocity is proportional to kinetic energy

masers emit atoms

to mention a few.    His notion that centrifugal force is a real, and not fictional force, is based on a misunderstanding, I think.

If you could show me your understanding of his arguments, I'd be grateful.