Is Theistic Evolution Tenable?

[George]

This is the 2 episodes he was on Zola Levitt.

Age of the Universe by Gerald Schroeder -- 2 videos when he was on the Zola Levitt program

[The Barbarian]

I was hoping you could explain those apparent misconceptions.   They are pretty basic, and unless I'm missing something, he's got some very basic flaws in his hypotheses.

Could address those?

Here's xkcd's take on the centrifugal force thing:

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/centrifugal_force.png

[omega2xx]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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)

You have torn the goal post down so you canj't miss.  Your nonscientific OPINIONS  aren't fooling anyone, excepet your self.

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.

Thanks for confirming that you have no scientific understanding of mutations.  All they do  is alter a trait the offspring would have gotten without the mutation.  If a mutation affects the skin pigment, The color of the skin is changed, but the species is not.

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.

None of that is true.  You just continue to make up something you hope will reinforce you understanding of evolution.

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

Bigger cells do snot change he species

You continue your usual MO of saying something  but not supporting it.  Saying "it is suggested" confirms what is being said is not proved.

"Strongly supports" also confirms the statement had not been proved.

 

[omega2xx]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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.

That isn't what I ask you to do.  I ask you to post some of he evidence he offered.  I still maintain you do not understand what constitutes evidence and that would verify that you do  or do not understand he term. 
There is really no point in continuing offering spnions as evidence.

 

 

(Barbarian earlier)

Getting all scientists to agree on anything is a challenge.

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

They are not theories, they are proved facts that all scientist will agree on.  I will give you 3 examples

---There is more than one blood type.

---All living things, with a couple of exceptions have DNA.

---Getting the wrong type of blood in a transfusion will kill you.  If you limited it to theories, you are right.

 

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

 

[The Barbarian]

14 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

That isn't what I ask you to do.  I ask you to post some of he evidence he offered.

I don't think you understand what evidence means.   This is the third time I gave you links to the papers that show Wise's is correct.   He cited the following transitional series and fossils as evidence for macroevolutionary theory.  

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Then he supported his claims by citing the papers in which the evidence is presented in detail.   That's how it works.   There's really no point in you denying the fact.

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

They are not theories, they are proved facts that all scientist will agree on.[/quote]

Facts are much easier.  For example, all scientists admit the fact of speciation.   As you learned, even scientists who are YE creationists admit it, because it's an observed fact.   On the other hand, some scientists don't agree with Darwin's theory.    Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood are both YE creationists, and don't accept evolutionary theory, while the do acknowledge the evidence (facts) that supports the theory.  A fact differs from a theory:

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals--some very similar and some very different--exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory

That the Earth's plates move about is a demonstrated fact.   However, there are scientists who disagree with plate tectonics, the theory that best explains the facts.   You've confused facts and theories.   And you've assumed that "theory" means what "hypothesis" actually means.

 

[omega2xx]

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I don't think you understand what evidence means.   This is the third time I gave you links to the papers that show Wise's is correct.   He cited the following transitional series and fossils as evidence for macroevolutionary theory.  

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

"Actually the problem is that you don';t understand what constitutes evidence.  For some reason you seem to think if someone says something you agree with it is evidence. Wise stating a fossil is transitional, does not make it one.  Wise has not produced any evidence and your lack of understanding that is because you don't understand evidence.  That is why I want you to post a statement or two he has made that you consider is evidence. evidence.  Then I will explain to you why it is not.  This "the Bible doesn't say so, is he weakest kind to argument one can offer. The Bible not predicting something is about as silly a  statement as one can make.  If you wan't to make that argument, the Bible doesn't say man evolved from apes.

Then he supported his claims by citing the papers in which the evidence is presented in detail.   That's how it works.   There's really no point in you denying the fact.

Then quote what he presented as evidence.  Here is how real science works.  If you claim stratomorphic is part of a transition series, you tell what it was before it became stratomorphi.  Then you explain the scientific process that allowed the traqnsfomation into a new species. The standard answer is mutatio9nsss, but then you have to explain how a mutatin causes evolution, and that has never been observed.

Facts are much easier.  For example, all scientists admit the fact of speciation.   As you learned, even scientists who are YE creationists admit it, because it's an observed fact.   On the other hand, some scientists don't agree with Darwin's theory.    Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood are both YE creationists, and don't accept evolutionary theory, while the do acknowledge the evidence (facts) that supports the theory.  A fact differs from a theory:

It seems to  be over you head that spciatiion does not result in a new species.  salamanders remaining salamanders is not evidence of evolution and losing he ability to reporudce is not evidencne of evolution.

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space.

A good example of how evolution must twist a definition to make it fit their senerio.   Theories are not well substantiated explanations.  Something that is well substantiated is a fact. What becomes a scientific law is because it has been proved.  It can  be observed and repeated and works he same way every time

 

Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals--some very similar and some very different--exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

Not true.  Evolution offer no explanation for the origin of life and how a single celled blob had the genes  for the wide variety of life we have on ear
 

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory

That the Earth's plates move about is a demonstrated fact.   However, there are scientists who disagree with plate tectonics, the theory that best explains the facts.   You've confused facts and theories.   And you've assumed that "theory" means what "hypothesis" actually means.

Whether the earths plates move or do not move has nothing to do with evolution.  It certainly has not been proved that they accomplished what they are given credit for.  You are the one confused by the correct definition of theory and facts.  Theories are unproved gussies and facts have been proved.  If you ever come to realize that, you will see that evolution has no proved scientific basis.

Theories and hypothesis both offer a possible explanation as to what happened.  Both a re  guesses and have not been proved.

 

[The Barbarian]

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

"Actually the problem is that you don';t understand what constitutes evidence.  For some reason you seem to think if someone says something you agree with it is evidence.

This is why you keep stumbling over yourself.   Evidence is facts.  Hence, as Wise and other creationists admit, the fact of all these transitional forms and series is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."    Wise didn't find all those fossils himself; he read the papers and checked the data from scientists who did.   That's why I linked you to the evidence.  

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Then quote what he presented as evidence. 

I linked you to almost all of it.  We both know why you never checked the evidence.

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

If you claim stratomorphic is part of a transition series, you tell what it was before it became stratomorphi.

It was always a transitional.   Individuals don't evolve.   Populations do.  

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Then you explain the scientific process that allowed the traqnsfomation into a new species.

Mutation.    As you learned, we occasionally observes such mutations producing new species.   I cited  O. gigas, evolving from O. lamarckaina by a polyploid mutation.

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

The standard answer is mutatio9nsss, but then you have to explain how a mutatin causes evolution

Easy.   Definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time. "   So any mutation in a population is evolution.   If it happens to cause individuals of one population to no longer be able to reproduce with individuals of another population, we have speciation.   And as you know, YE creationist groups like Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research admit the fact of speciation.

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

A good example of how evolution must twist a definition to make it fit their senerio.   Theories are not well substantiated explanations.  Something that is well substantiated is a fact. What becomes a scientific law is because it has been proved.  It can  be observed and repeated and works he same way every time

Lots of errors there.   Yes, theories are well-substantiated explanations.   When a hypothesis is repeatedly confirmed by evidence (facts), then it is considered to be a theory.   Only after it's confirmed, is it a theory.   A law is weaker than a theory; laws are predictions about what will happen under certain conditions.    A theory predicts what will happen, but also explains why it happens.    Hence, Kepler's Laws described how planets move around the Sun, while Newton's theory of gravitation (he called it a theory) not only describes how they move, but explains why.   And in explaining why, he extended the idea to moons, comets, and apples falling from trees.   He had more than a law; he had a theory.

Also, no law or theory in science is proven.   Logical certainty can happen only when we know all the rules and deduce the particulars from the rules.   In science, we observe the particulars, and inductively infer the rules.

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

It seems to  be over you head that spciatiion does not result in a new species. 

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species.

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

That's why it's called "speciation."

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Evolution offer no explanation for the origin of life 

It's not supposed to.  It assumes life began somehow, and explains how it changes over time.   Darwin, for example, just thought that God created the first living things.

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

how a single celled blob had the genes  for the wide variety of life we have on ear

It didn't.   Mutation produces new genes.   Useful ones tend to be retained in the population and harmful ones tend to be removed.    Most mutations don't do much of anything.   You have dozens that were not present in either parent.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by The Barbarian

[omega2xx]

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

This is why you keep stumbling over yourself.   Evidence is facts.  Hence, as Wise and other creationists admit, the fact of all these transitional forms and series is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."    Wise didn't find all those fossils himself; he read the papers and checked the data from scientists who did.   That's why I linked you to the evidence.  

I linked you to almost all of it.  We both know why you never checked the evidence.

It was always a transitional.   Individuals don't evolve.   Populations do.  

Mutation.    As you learned, we occasionally observes such mutations producing new species.   I cited  O. gigas, evolving from O. lamarckaina by a polyploid mutation.

Easy.   Definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time. "   So any mutation in a population is evolution.   If it happens to cause individuals of one population to no longer be able to reproduce with individuals of another population, we have speciation.   And as you know, YE creationist groups like Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research admit the fact of speciation.

Lots of errors there.   Yes, theories are well-substantiated explanations.   When a hypothesis is repeatedly confirmed by evidence (facts), then it is considered to be a theory.   Only after it's confirmed, is it a theory.   A law is weaker than a theory; laws are predictions about what will happen under certain conditions.    A theory predicts what will happen, but also explains why it happens.    Hence, Kepler's Laws described how planets move around the Sun, while Newton's theory of gravitation (he called it a theory) not only describes how they move, but explains why.   And in explaining why, he extended the idea to moons, comets, and apples falling from trees.   He had more than a law; he had a theory.

Also, no law or theory in science is proven.   Logical certainty can happen only when we know all the rules and deduce the particulars from the rules.   In science, we observe the particulars, and inductively infer the rules.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species.

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

That's why it's called "speciation."

It's not supposed to.  It assumes life began somehow, and explains how it changes over time.   Darwin, for example, just thought that God created the first living things.

It didn't.   Mutation produces new genes.   Useful ones tend to be retained in the population and harmful ones tend to be removed.    Most mutations don't do much of anything.   You have dozens that were not present in either parent.

Evidently all you can do is parrot the same old false evo taking points.  If you were able to to post anything that was real evidence you would have done it, and this subject would be  closed and now everyone  knows you can't.  Any farther continuing of this subject would be a waste  of time.

Have a nice day

 

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Evidently all you can do is parrot the same old false evo taking points. 

I notice you can't offer factual rebuttals to any of the things I've shown you.   That's a very telling point.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

If you were able to to post anything that was real evidence you would have done it

There's no point in you denying what you have been given.   Eveyone knows it.   The facts Wise cited (and linked to the papers with the data) were made available to you from the start.   Everyone who read it, knows this.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Any farther continuing of this subject would be a waste  of time.

There are perhaps people following the conversation, and while you may deny the facts, they can check the references for themselves.   So you've been very helpful in the process.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Have a nice day

You too.  May God bless and keep you.

 

 

[omega2xx]

On 3/20/2020 at 1:58 PM, The Barbarian said:

I notice you can't offer factual rebuttals to any of the things I've shown you.   That's a very telling point.

There's no point in you denying what you have been given.   Eveyone knows it.   The facts Wise cited (and linked to the papers with the data) were made available to you from the start.   Everyone who read it, knows this.

There are perhaps people following the conversation, and while you may deny the facts, they can check the references for themselves.   So you've been very helpful in the process.

You too.  May God bless and keep you.

Your references didn't not include an facts.  Nothing you have posted contained any verifiable  evidence.  I have given you a very simple task that will prove you understand evidence or don't, and you are unwilling to take 10 minuets to do it, but continue parroting  the same old taking points  evolutionists have relied on for years.

Here it is again:  post the evidence, note the link, that Wise  or any  other evolutionist offer to prove what they say.

I predict you will continue to say their is evidence, but if there is you should post it.  You won't because you don't understand what evidence is.

The ones who are following the debate know you would if you could, but you can't.

 

On 3/20/2020 at 1:58 PM, The Barbarian said: