Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

No, it is that simple.

God didn't get in any way cryptic or write it in any words that makes you stop and think "what does this mean", it is as straight forward as can be.  

If you were right, all Christians would agree about everything in scripture.   And they disagree about every thing therein, except the message He actually gave us.    And that message has nothing to do with the mechanics of creation, the age of the Earth, or other incidentals.   What He intended for us to learn is very clear.   But not those other things.

6 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

It's an error for you to assume that I believe my understanding of Gods Word is infallible because  when someone comes in, in direct opposition to what is so clearly WRITTEN,  I discern.    

So you think your discernment is infallible.   Perhaps if you were not so certain of your own infallibility, you could have a more meaningful discussion.

6 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I'm pleased you accept that He did create them each according to their kind.   It would be even better if you didn't disapprove of the way He did it.

 

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Did you read the link I gave to answersingenesis?  That gave a brief explanation of biblical interpretation of this issue.

The AiG article is a hypothesis, not an explanation. And this hypothesis is contrary to the plain reading of scripture.

[The Barbarian]

On 8/28/2020 at 3:21 AM, Tristen said:

Initially, you claimed that creationists taught 'fixity of species' until recently – which I contested.

As you see, Answers in Genesis admits that much.

And as you learned, speciation tends to be gradual and in most cases, the observation of speciation occurs over a long period of time as in the observation of speciation from D. miranda.   But occasionally, it can happen in one generation and require only a specific moment in time rather than a gradual process, as in O. gigas from O. lamarckana.

An intermediate case just happened recently:

A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

While on expedition on the Daphne Major island, Peter and B. Rosemary Grant, biologists at Princeton University, noticed the presence of a non-native interloper, Geospiza conirostris.

It's also known as the large cactus finch, and is native to other Galapagos islands, namely Española, Genovesa, Darwin, and Wolf.

As one of the larger species of Darwin's finches, and with a different song than the three native Daphne Major species, the newcomer - a male - stood out.

"We didn't see him fly in from over the sea, but we noticed him shortly after he arrived. He was so different from the other birds that we knew he did not hatch from an egg on Daphne Major," Peter Grant said.

But then it mated with two females of one of those native species, Geospiza fortis, the medium ground finch. And the mating produced offspring.

Mating between different species that results in offspring isn't that unusual - famous examples include mules, the product of mating between a male donkey and a mare. There are also ligers, a cross between a male lion and female tiger.

The birds had a different song from G. fortis, as well as different beak size and shape, and these are what the finches use to attract mates. Reproductively, the new species was completely isolated, and had to mate within its own kind to survive.

But it was an uphill battle. During droughts on the island in 2002-2003, when the new lineage was in its fourth generation, all but two of the birds died.

Then they rallied.

"When the rains came again, the brother and sister mated with each other and produced 26 offspring," Rosemary Grant said in an interview last year.

"All but nine survived to breed - a son bred with his mother, a daughter with her father, and the rest of the offspring with each other - producing a terrifically inbred lineage."

Because the hybrid finches were bigger than the native populations, they were able to access previously unexploited food choices, and survive. At the Grants' most recent visit to the island in 2012, they counted 23 individuals and 8 breeding pairs of the birds.

https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

It is, as far as I know, the first directly observed case of vertebrate speciation.   As you learned earlier, insect and plant speciatsion have been directly observed.

On 8/28/2020 at 3:21 AM, Tristen said:

How is this a “test” of my “belief”? Where did I claim that you couldn't find “any transitional forms” for “major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected”? Why are you so desperate to Strawman my position?

As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise points out, transitional series are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. "    The fact that we have all these predicted transitionals where they were predicted to be, is a major problem for creationism, as Wise honestly admits.   He points out that the fossil record of whales is a particularly difficult issue, since they seem to contradict a YE interpretation of God's creation of living things.   Even worse for creationists, there are no transitional forms where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any, which is strong evidence that transitionals are indeed the fossil record of evolution of higher taxa.

On 8/28/2020 at 3:21 AM, Tristen said:

Carl Linnaeus (who invented the classification system we use in biology) proposed that new species formed from their created ancestor before “Darwin” was even born. So the concept of speciation from an ancestor group is not Darwin's idea.

No one said it was.  By Darwin's time, most scientists realized that new taxa must have evolved from earlier taxa.  Darwin's great discovery was why it happened.

On 8/28/2020 at 3:21 AM, Tristen said:

Surely if your impression were true, you would be able to find an abundance of older creationist literature (i.e. from a time before we supposedly saw the light of Darwin) arguing for 'fixity of species'.

I only note that even Answers in Genesis admits the fact.   

 

[David1701]

43 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The AiG article is a hypothesis, not an explanation. And this hypothesis is contrary to the plain reading of scripture.

So you say.  I disagree.

Edited August 29, 2020 by David1701

[one.opinion]

31 minutes ago, David1701 said:

So you say.  I disagree.

Here is a really easy way to tell - pretend you don’t know a thing about the Bible. Then read the last few verses of Genesis 4 and the first few of Genesis 5 (I don’t have the text in front of me right now). I trust it will be readily apparent what the plain reading of the passage indicates.

[Revelation Man]

On 7/28/2020 at 9:55 AM, one.opinion said:

Hello All,

My recent discussion activity here has been primarily focused on theology - frankly, because I believe it is more important than science. Don't get me wrong, as a Biology Professor, I believe science is extremely important, but I believe it pales in comparison to the importance of our spiritual lives right now and for eternity.

There have been several discussions recently that have suggested that a discussion on science would be a good idea. I'm going to call out a few people here that I believe could be interested in such a discussion - @David1701 @theElect777 @Tristan @The Barbarian @Deadworm @teddyv

Here is a capture of a comment on another thread.

1. Genetic diversity in the modern human population

Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute wrote about the genetic variability issue in a blog post recently.

https://anngauger.blog/2019/11/25/not-a-simple-question/

AJ Roberts of Reasons to Believe had a similar post, as well.

https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/theorems-theology/read/theorems-theology/2020/01/16/mosaic-eve-mother-of-all-(part-1)

The bottom line is this. The best modeling we have available for the age of a single ancestral pair is about 500,000 years ago. Obviously, this isn't consistent with a view of Genesis that holds to a single pair (Adam and Eve) as sole progenitors of humanity about 6,000-10,000 years ago. Some faithful Christians in science prefer a view of an Adam and Eve at a much more distant time in the past, and others suggest the possibility of Adam and Eve as a single, specially-created pair in that 6-10 kya timeframe, but amid other biological humans.

2. Radiometric dating

Some types of radiometric dating (like 14C) can be checked with other dating methods like ice cores, lake varves, and others. 

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf

Other isotopes with much longer half-lives that are used for things like dating rock samples (potassium/argon, rubidium/strontium, etc) can be verified against one another. Remember that ICR spend about $2 million on the RATE project and arrived at the conclusion that radioactive decay rates must have been orders of magnitude in the past, but without evidence to support this hypothesis. (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm)

 

The creation is a much more complex issue than many assume. Its not a six day event, of course, its a "6 period event", the first day lasted 9.2 billion years etc. etc. The 6th day started about 300-350 million years ago and ended with the Creation of man/mankind. We are now living in the 7th day of rest, where we see stars still forming, which means God's rest is about Him not continuing the creation process, His orders from 13.2 billion years ago have gone forth and the universe is still expanding as per His orders. 

As per the human race, I find most people miss the most important clue of all. Human Beings were only created in 'God's Image" 6000 or so years ago, you know, the ole "Let us create man in our image, and in our likeness" verse. The rest of history on men is irrelevant, they were only animals until this point where God imparted His Spirit in us. I therefore am not related to any being which came before that impartation. So, man has been around only 6000 years, like God stated, its not relevant to me what happened before that, because just as Dinos had no everlasting soul, neither did any created being prior to God creating Adam and Eve, the rest is really irrelevant. 

By the way, on the Fourth Day God did not create the Sun, He created the Seasons, the Earth and Moon had a violent collision, which created our Seasons. We gained a satellite that God used to give us orderly seasons, where life on earth would be possible. The one verse that proves mankind was not "EVOLVED" shows God ACTING 6000 or so years ago to impart His Spirit creating a New Creature never before seen on earth, one He gave Dominion over the earth unto. So, before that, Gods creation is irrelevant as per to where we came from, we came from God, directly, our Spirit was from God, thus we are eternal beings.

[David1701]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Here is a really easy way to tell - pretend you don’t know a thing about the Bible. Then read the last few verses of Genesis 4 and the first few of Genesis 5 (I don’t have the text in front of me right now). I trust it will be readily apparent what the plain reading of the passage indicates.

Oh, great - pretend that I don't know the wider context, yes that should help. 

Eve is the mother of all living.  Cain had a wife; therefore, his wife was one of the unnamed children that Adam and Eve had.

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Oh, great - pretend that I don't know the wider context, yes that should help. 

Eve is the mother of all living.  Cain had a wife; therefore, his wife was one of the unnamed children that Adam and Eve had.

Eve cannot be the literal mother of all living, so it must we are forced to interpret exactly what that means. You and I both have areas in which we believe the “plain reading” isn’t the best approach to interpretation. I just happen to admit it 

[David1701]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Eve cannot be the literal mother of all living, so it must we are forced to interpret exactly what that means. You and I both have areas in which we believe the “plain reading” isn’t the best approach to interpretation. I just happen to admit it 

The "mother of all living" obviously refers to being the original human mother, from whom every human (apart from Adam) is descended.  This is not difficult.

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

2. Radiometric dating

Some types of radiometric dating (like 14C) can be checked with other dating methods like ice cores, lake varves, and others. 

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf

Other isotopes with much longer half-lives that are used for things like dating rock samples (potassium/argon, rubidium/strontium, etc) can be verified against one another. Remember that ICR spend about $2 million on the RATE project and arrived at the conclusion that radioactive decay rates must have been orders of magnitude in the past, but without evidence to support this hypothesis. (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm)

The RATE project concluded that the only way to fit the evidence to their particular interpretation of scripture, is to have radioactive decay happen at a much, much higher rate in the past.   The greatest difficulty with that assumption, comes not from geology or biology, but from physics.

Problems with Accelerated Radioactive Decay

1. In DeYoung's discussion of how accelerated decay can solve the age issue, he presents a simple example (pg 42). An important point in this mechanism is that it requires that all isotopes have their decay rates accelerated by the exact same numerical factor, for all types of decay if it is to mimic the behavior of assumed constant decay rates.
2. Using Humphrey's model for accelerated radioactive decay (pg 357-364), we can show that for a given difference in pion mass, the change in alpha-decay rate will not be the same for all elements or all isotopes of the same elements.

   In this graph, we plot the ratio of decay rates for different parent isotopes (Sm-147, Th-232, U-235, U-238) with a changing pion mass. The vertical line at a pion mass 0.749325 times the current value accelerates the U-238 decay rate by a factor of 750,000.0, the amount of acceleration Humphreys requires. We see that with this pion mass, Sm-147 experiences a rate increase of only 28,200, less than 4 percent of the required value. This means that for a given sample, the Sm-147 ages should be significantly less than U-238 ages. https://crankastronomy.org/rate/index.html There's more; including some comments on basic errors in the RATE document.   Another problem is the fact that greatly accelerated rates of decay would fry all living things on Earth. And there's the problem of uranium deposits.  If the rate of decay was much greater in the past, they would have markedly decayed to show this.  We know this, because there was at least one site where enough radioactive isotope was concentrated naturally for this to happen with the observed rates of decay: A fossil natural nuclear fission reactor is a uranium deposit where self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions have occurred. This can be examined by analysis of isotope ratios. The conditions under which a natural nuclear reactor could exist had been predicted in 1956 by Paul Kazuo Kuroda.[1] The phenomenon was discovered in 1972 in Oklo, Gabon by French physicist Francis Perrin under conditions very similar to what was predicted. Oklo is the only known location for this in the world and consists of 16 sites at which self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions are thought to have taken place approximately 1.7 billion years ago, and ran for a few hundred thousand years, averaging probably less than 100 kW of thermal power during that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor