Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[one.opinion]

11 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I'm dealing with someone who is promoting falsehood, so who is being the "jerk"?

You are dealing with someone who has a different opinion than you.

I preach Jesus Christ, His atoning death, and His triumphant resurrection. You are attempting to add "Oh, and you also need to believe that God created everything 6,000 years ago in 144 hours and that physical death never occurred before the Fall". This addition to the Gospel should not be. You are attempting to corrupt the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[David1701]

57 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You are dealing with someone who has a different opinion than you.

Just as JWs and Mormons have different opinions from me; although, what I'm talking about is not opinion at all, but believing what the Bible clearly states.

Quote

I preach Jesus Christ, His atoning death, and His triumphant resurrection. You are attempting to add "Oh, and you also need to believe that God created everything 6,000 years ago in 144 hours and that physical death never occurred before the Fall". This addition to the Gospel should not be. You are attempting to corrupt the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Believing what the Bible says about creation and the origin of sin, death, disease and suffering is not "attempting to corrupt the Gospel of Jesus Christ"!

You should not be teaching against what is clearly stated in Genesis 1-3.  Claims of "interpretation" are a smoke screen; you don't want to believe it.

[Revelation Man]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Just showing why creationist rationalizations for data from radioisotope testing don't work.

 

And you missed the WHOLE POINT that dates don't matter. God imparted His Spirit in us at a set point in time, and you nor all the so called scientists in the world have any way of measuring that, and the fact that you couldn't comprehend that or pretended not to understand my point, either way, defeats anything you say about the situation, you have ZERO ARGUMENT from that point on. PERIOD.

I was asked this question below, by a student and I got him to put it on Quora so he could get a good grouping on answers, but this below was my answer. I wanted to bridge the 6 day Creationist, which I think are in error, and the evolutionists whom I also see as in error. This has been my understanding for a while, I just put a little extra work into forming it into a small blog. 

And by the way,  I believe in a 13.7 Billion year old Universe, my blog on this seeks to bring two gulfs together. 

Do you believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old according to science, or 6000 years old according to the Bible?

I as a 30 year Christian try to think outside the box of normality. Is the universe 6000 years old? Is the universe 13.7 billion years old? Do these two questions clash or is there a translation barrier !! This is how I think. I try to bring both poles of thought towards each other starting with the facts. We know the universe has to be over 6000 years old because we see light from stars that are millions of light years away, so we would have to be naive to think the universe is 6000 years old.

Onward to what Genesis says about creation, does it really say the universe or earth is 6000 years old? I don’t think it does, I think its a mistranslation of a primitive language that had only around 4000 words at the time Genesis was written, whereas the English language has 500,000 words. So many of the Hebrew words were used in multiple ways. For instance the original meaning of the Hebrew word YOWM (Day) means “to be hot” and there are at least 50 other meanings listed in strong’s concordance’s lexicon of Hebrew words. A year, a month, a period of time, chronicles, evening and morning (Beginning and end), age, perpetually, long, some time, whole, X required season, continually etc. etc., well you get the point.

YOWM or “To be hot”, what would this mean and why was it used since God is supposed to have given Moses the first five books of the Torah. Well when the universe was spoken into existence by God, it took 400 million years for the first stars to form. So the first Day (to be hot) was the Evening (Darkness, 400 million years of darkness) and the Morning ( The stars started forming) and the first day was a “period of time” and in my opinion it lasted from 13.7 Billion BC until 4.5 Billion BC (9.2 Billion years) when the Sun & Earth were formed. So lets take a second and look at the Bible and the WMAP research and see if this matches.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void(NOT THERE YET); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Water REFLECTS Light.....ZING, what a novel idea, Praise God, Amen)

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 

Now look below at the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) which launched in 2001 and won many awards, they mapped the whole universe out. Below as we see, you had Quantum Fluctuations which I contend is God, then you had Inflation, followed by Afterglow, followed by 400 MILLION YEARS of Darkness !! Just like the bible says in verse 2, and there was Darkness on the Face of the Deep !! Gods word is perfect, it is us who are confused. DARK AGES Mapped out by the WMAP, followed by what? The first stars forming at the 400 million year mark. Verse three says what? and God said “Let there be light” God is right again. We are looking at Creation from Gods POV in Genesis, no man was there of course and with God he is not subject to time, he created time for us via this universe, but He is eternal and thus was never created. Remember the verse, a thousand years is like a day and a day like unto a thousand years unto God. In other words God lives in the past, present and future all at the same time.

So we had the Big Bang, followed by Inflation, followed by Cosmic Microwave background where after 375,000 years loose electrons cool enough to combine with protons. The Universe becomes Transparent to Light. The Microwave background begins to shine. Then the dark ages/clouds of dark hydrogen gas cool and coalesce.

The first stars appear….Gas Clouds collapse, the fusion of Stars begin, the first of which appears at about 400 million years after the big bang. So, when the bible says Darkness was on the face of the deep, God knew exactly what was happening in the very beginning !! The more we look for the answers, the more that science and the bible will converge, if both sides with differing viewpoints would only take their blinders off.

The second day (period of time) of course would be from the Earth & the Suns formation until the grasses and trees came forth on the Third day (period of time) then on the Fourth day it seems God Set the Seasons or placed the Moon in its perfect orbit where our seasons are not strange, but orderly, I know the moon and earth are supposed to have collided, the earth gained and the moon became our satellite. Anyway, that set the seasons, times, years etc. etc. Mind you, all of these ideas are rudimentary observations. A theory of how the things God says in His Holy Word and Science can both be factual. They are not meant to imply everything went down just so and  so and in like manner, the dates of course are guesstimates, I wasn’t there. Its just an example of how God created the universe over a 13.7 million year period before He rested 6000 or so odd years ago.

On the Fifth day God created the Sea animals/birds and what not, were the Dinos created here or with the land animals? The fifth day lasted 300 million to 400 million years or so. On the Sixth Day around 300–350 Million BC God created the Land Animals. During this period of time the Dinosaurs became extinct about 65-70 Million years ago. Then during this “TIME PERIOD” (6TH DAY) God decided to create man 6000 or so years ago. Some might protest that men have been around much longer, but I offer this up, where is the data? Men are record keepers and we don’t have proof of men going back further. Now as per “MEN” being observed by scientists to have been around X Number of years, I never said Animal like men weren’t around, I stated Human Beings were created 6000 years ago, when God placed His spirit in us and thus we are immortal in that our souls can not die. We were at that point in time “Created in Gods Image”. The other fossils and bones mean nothing, because Scientists have no way of testing for God imparting His spirit into mankind and creating “Human Beings” with powerful intellects.

On the Seventh Day God rested, which only means He ceased Creating the Heavens/Earth/Mankind/Animals. So when we see stars and galaxies created today, it was ordered forth 13.7 Billion years ago. So its not necessarily either or. We need to start looking at things with an open mind, be we an atheist or a Christian.

P.S. Just something to think about. Einstein’s theory of relativity is in the very first verse of the bible, relatively speaking…LOL.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (TIME) God created the heaven(SPACE) and the earth(MATTER).

P.S. upon further studies, as a pointed out a little above, I understood what the verse meant by God "Moved on the face of the Waters", light comes unto us in beams, without it being reflected, we would have no earth filled with light. Our Atmospheric Bio-dome traps the moisture/water thus creating light on the whole world via reflexivity of said light. This is why the bible speaks of the Waters just before God says, "Let there be light". Everything with God and His Holy Word is always in perfect order. Amen. 

Now, if you want to believe that some creature wandered out of a morbid soup, and just so happened to be programmed with a DNA Code that makes Microsoft code look like child's play, be my guest, but in the end, you will lose that argument, because God will get the last word on these understandings. He alone is the Creator of all things. Amen.

[Tristen]

On 8/30/2020 at 10:09 PM, The Barbarian said:

And many, many genes,  And all the basic energy chemistry, most of the enzymes, mitochondria, etc.   Same cell architecture, tubules, active transport molecules,... (very long list)

 You have more in common with a daisy, than things by which you differ.

...

“And many, many genes, And all the basic energy chemistry, most of the enzymes, mitochondria, etc. Same cell architecture, tubules, active transport molecules,... (very long list)”

Until I see the research, these are all pointless assertions. I need to know how we are assessing similarity vs difference.

For example, how are we making that assessment regarding “genes”. How similar does a gene have to be to qualify as a similarity? Does it have to be identical, or is it simply a matter of having the same function in both species (i.e. homologous) – or somewhere in between? What if we both have the same gene, but different variations of that gene between species? What if they each have different copy numbers of the gene, or the gene is found at a different location on the chromosome, or on a different chromosome – are they counted as differences or similarities?

I think I could make a very good case that our physiology and anatomy is very different – far more than we are similar. Your claims of similarity seem to be confined to the molecular. There are obvious similarities (which is why the cells are identified as eukaryotic in both species), but also very notable differences in “cell architecture” (e.g. size, wall, large vacuole, inter-cellular connective tissue etc.), and the various types of cells and their specialised organelles, and their immune responses etc.

 

“you just didn't read carefully. You have more in common with a daisy than things by which you differ. You and a daisy are more alike than you are different”

Maybe I “didn't read carefully” – or perhaps your wording was imprecise such that your statement could be read multiple ways.

 

“Scientists can compare the DNA of different organisms to see how closely they are related”

No they can't. They can “compare the DNA of different organisms” to see how similar they are to each other. Those are the observed facts. They can subsequently (i.e. subsequent to observation) interpret those similarities as indicative of relatedness; given the starting assumption that all life is related via a common ancestor.

You have to learn to distinguish between the facts (the empirical) and their interpretation (the theoretical). It is a fact that all living organisms share the same information system. That could mean a) that everything is related, and received that information via inheritance, or 2) God used the same information system to create all life (e.g. independently by kinds) with the ability to adapt to the environment He created us to inhabit.

 

“They know this shows relatedness, since they have checked this with organisms of known descent”

They “know” it can reflect relatedness. However, based on a relative few observations over decades, they then infer that this assumption applies for every organism that has ever existed for literally billions of years. That magnitude of assumption is only ever permitted in science when the secular story requires it.

 

“It turns out that plants and animals are pretty closely related compared to most living things”

You mean “compared to” microbes?

Well that is certainly one interpretation. But it is not an observation. The very same genetic facts fit neatly into the Biblical description of the origin of life.

 

Your provided picture is merely a graphic representation of your preferred interpretation.

 

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

Until I see the research, these are all pointless assertions. I need to know how we are assessing similarity vs difference.

You don't even know that, but you feel competent to comment on the data?   You're like the guy who doesn't know what spark plugs are, who wants to give advice to his mechanic.

Here's the kind of thing you'd have to know to understand:

https://d2vlcm61l7u1fs.cloudfront.net/media%2Fcc6%2Fcc60fc3c-980c-4090-b158-9923d98c3a00%2FphpO8OaYh.png

This is the analysis of genes for cytochrome C. It's a critical gene for live on earth, required for oxidative phosphorylation (the way all living things use chemical energy).    Notice that the gene has constant regions where it doesn't change much, and other regions where it varies somewhat, depending on the organism.   If you look carefully, you'll see the same evolutionary relationships first noticed by Linnaeus, documented in the changes.   Humans and chimps,being very closely related have exactly the same amino acid sequences.   Rhesus monkeys, being a little more distantly related to us and chimps, has one amino acid difference.   But look at the sequence for sunflowers.   It's a lot more different.   But if you go to molds, you'll see that they differ from us and chimps by even more amino acids.   The chart above reflects many, many such common genes as well as genes that have been lose or produced by different lines over time.   And this is only a tiny part of what you'd have to learn to intelligently discuss the issue.  

Scientists aren't lying to you; they just know a whole lot more about it than you do.

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think I could make a very good case that our physiology and anatomy is very different – far more than we are similar.

Turns out, not.   Notice that even though there are differences in cytochrome c between hominids and sunflowers, there's far more in common than there are differences.   You see, the molecule still has to work, so there are critical regions that can't change much, if at all.    Most enzymes that work in sunflowers will work in your body.

“Scientists can compare the DNA of different organisms to see how closely they are related”

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

No they can't.

They can and do.   They know it works, because they can check organisms of known descent.   It always shows the same result.

Those are known facts.    So scientists know that genetic relatedness indicates common descent   It turns out that plants and animals are pretty closely related compared to most living things.

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

You mean “compared to” microbes?

To protists, bacteria, archae, etc.   Most living things are microbes, in terms of number of species, sheer numbers, biomass, and  genetic diversity.

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

Well that is certainly one interpretation.

It's an inference based on the fact.   No other inference works.  That's just the way it is.   I know some creationists have said that God made genes and homologies to look as though it was all the result of common descent, just to test our faith.   But my God is not dishonest.  So that excuse won't fly with me.

 

[Tristen]

14 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You don't even know that, but you feel competent to comment on the data?   ...

 

“ Until I see the research, these are all pointless assertions. I need to know how we are assessing similarity vs difference.

You don't even know that, but you feel competent to comment on the data? You're like the guy who doesn't know what spark plugs are, who wants to give advice to his mechanic.

Here's the kind of thing you'd have to know to understand:

https://d2vlcm61l7u1fs.cloudfront.net/media%2Fcc6%2Fcc60fc3c-980c-4090-b158-9923d98c3a00%2FphpO8OaYh.png

This is the analysis of genes for cytochrome C”

So let's assess your accusation of my ineptitude.

Firstly, you claim that there are “many, many genes” shared between humans and daises – such that the two organisms are more alike than they are different. I had the utter gal to ask you to back up your claim by pointing me to the comparative research. You provide a single image, presumably from a comparative study (but no way to know – no reference), of a single protein (i.e. not even a gene - And ironically, no daisies in the comparison). Then you proceed to insinuate my ignorance to cover up the fact that you are unable to support your initial claim.

I could understand if you initially said something without due diligence, and then, having realised your error, let the issue go. But the fact that you tried to cover your error by insulting my knowledge demonstrates a lack of integrity – and not for the first time in this conversation.

 

“Notice that the gene has constant regions where it doesn't change much, and other regions where it varies somewhat, depending on the organism”

Right – God gave every creature that respires a version of this protein; including slightly different versions of the protein to different creatures to account for their individual needs.

So in your comparative analysis, does this protein count as a similarity – because they all produce a cyt C protein, or are the differences between almost every species counted in the 'differences' column? Also, the fact that the sequences are different sizes – does that count as a 'difference'? Maybe if you actually take some time to think about what I'm saying, you'll realise that the whole 'differences versus similarities' claim is absurdly subjective.

 

“If you look carefully, you'll see the same evolutionary relationships first noticed by Linnaeus, documented in the changes”

This is where you depart from the facts and indulge interpretation. All the table shows is a comparison between amino acid sequences. It does not speak to “evolutionary relationships” until you read that into the data. The data itself only speaks to similarities and differences of the amino acid sequences for one protein between the tested species.

 

“Humans and chimps,being very closely related have exactly the same amino acid sequences. Rhesus monkeys, being a little more distantly related to us and chimps, has one amino acid difference. But look at the sequence for sunflowers. It's a lot more different. But if you go to molds, you'll see that they differ from us and chimps by even more amino acids”

So again, you are assuming relatedness from the outset, then interpreting similarity (fact 1) to mean closer relatedness and differences (fact 2) to mean more distantly related.

If you don't assume relatedness from the outset, then all you have is the facts – i.e. similarities and differences.

If you assume the Biblical account of creation from the outset, then the same facts can be interpreted in the light of design – i.e. God gave all respiring creatures a version of the cyt C gene; making slight alterations to each to account for their slightly different needs.

 

“The chart above reflects many, many such common genes as well as genes that have been lose or produced by different lines over time”

As a Biblical creationist, I would expect most genes related to basic cellular functions to be highly 'conserved' across life. Why would we expect God to have to reinvent a new gene that performs the same function in multiple kinds of creatures. That would be inefficient (and would also imply that God's original design could be improved upon). Your claim that they “have been lose or produced by different lines over time” is not an observation, but an interpretation.

 

“And this is only a tiny part of what you'd have to learn to intelligently discuss the issue”

I have a research PhD specialising in genomics. I think I'll be OK.

Perhaps you should consider your own extensive use of fallacy and intellectual dishonesty before you start making insinuations about the intellectual capacities of others.

 

“Scientists aren't lying to you; they just know a whole lot more about it than you do”

Do they know more than me? Many probably do, but I am certainly capable of understanding the research – when provided. Perhaps if you were to produce more rational arguments rather than fallacies (e.g. Strawman, Innuendo), you'd be more convincing.

I'm not accusing “scientists” of “lying” – I'm accusing you of “lying”; an integrity issue amplified by your subsequent attempts at misdirection.

 

“ “Scientists can compare the DNA of different organisms to see how closely they are related”

22 hours ago, Tristen said: No they can't.

They can and do. They know it works, because they can check organisms of known descent. It always shows the same result”

So after I said, “No they can't”, I provided a logical argument demonstrating that extending your claim to deep history goes beyond the observations (and therefore beyond what can be claimed as a fact). Your response was to ignore my argument and simply restate your initial claim.

 

“Those are known facts. So scientists know that genetic relatedness indicates common descent”

There is no such fact as “genetic relatedness”. You mean genetic similarity?

By these observations, they only “know” that genetic similarity can sometimes “indicate” common descent over a short term (except, of course, when that similarity occurs as the result of “convergent evolution” ). They can not “know” how far that assumption holds beyond the observations. And certainly not over magnitudes of the claimed millions-to-billions of years.

 

“It turns out that plants and animals are pretty closely related compared to most living things”

More accurately; “It turns out that plants and animals” have more in common with each other, than we both do with microbes – which is not surprising to anyone. Claims about how we are “related” go beyond the facts.

 

“It's an inference based on the fact. No other inference works. That's just the way it is”

And why don't the inferences I provided, based on the same facts, work?

 

“I know some creationists have said that God made genes and homologies to look as though it was all the result of common descent, just to test our faith. But my God is not dishonest. So that excuse won't fly with me”

Why are we talking about what they said, and not what I've said?

 

[JohnR7]

On 8/30/2020 at 12:53 PM, David1701 said:

His claim was that Eve is the mother of us all spiritually, but not physically.

Science has their Adam and Eve. They just did not live at the same time. All of evolutionary theory is based on common ancestor. Also Science has their Edens. They call this a biodiverse ecology system. Science uses all of these Bible words and terms for a reason. 

[JohnR7]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

Firstly, you claim that there are “many, many genes” shared between humans and daises

When I was a kid they asked us to: "please don't eat the daisies". This is not really a part of our food chain. We are to eat spinach and broccoli. This is a promotion for plants to become animals. Just as it is doing the animal a favor to eat them and allow them to work their way up the food chain to become humans. 

[JohnR7]

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

So scientists know that genetic relatedness indicates common descent 

Science knows how to weaponize a virus to create world pandomia. Three cheers for science. 

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

Firstly, you claim that there are “many, many genes” shared between humans and daises – such that the two organisms are more alike than they are different. I had the utter gal to ask you to back up your claim by pointing me to the comparative research. You provide a single image, presumably from a comparative study (but no way to know – no reference), of a single protein (i.e. not even a gene - And ironically, no daisies in the comparison). Then you proceed to insinuate my ignorance to cover up the fact that you are unable to support your initial claim.

Sunflowers, like daisies, are flowering plants.   Just showing you one fact.   And of course, genes code for proteins.   I thought you knew.   So each amino acid in that sequence has a specific codon in the gene that specifies it.   There are some amino acids that are coded for by more than once codon, but no codon that codes for more than one amion acid.   How is it that a PhD in genomics doesn't know this?

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not accusing “scientists” of “lying” – I'm accusing you of “lying”; an integrity issue amplified by your subsequent attempts at misdirection.

It's not surprising; creationists frequently engage in accusations of dishonesty as a means of misdirection.   I never say anything I don't believe to be true herein.   And you probably should avoid such accusations.   I won't report you,but others might.

Scientists can compare the DNA of different organisms to see how closely they are related.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

No they can't.

They can and do. They know it works, because they can check organisms of known descent. It always shows the same result.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

So after I said, “No they can't”, I provided a logical argument demonstrating that extending your claim to deep history goes beyond the observations (and therefore beyond what can be claimed as a fact). 

Sorry, that excuse won't work, either.  That would be to say that we can't know anything we didn't directly observe.   That logical fallacy is easily removed by citing examples that we can.  We can look at DNA of animals of known descent and we quickly find that it does indeed show descent.    And yes, we can show that there's nothing magical about knowing descent in advance.  We can do blind studies that show the same thing, even though scientists didn't have that knowledge in advance.

It's analogous to the argument that while we know erosion can wear down a small hill (because people were around it to watch it happen), erosion can't wear down mountains because no one ever saw that happen.    One would have to be very, very invested in denying erosion to deny the fact that erosion does wear down mountains, even though "deep history goes beyond the observations."

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

By these observations, they only “know” that genetic similarity can sometimes “indicate” common descent over a short term (except, of course, when that similarity occurs as the result of “convergent evolution” ). They can not “know” how far that assumption holds beyond the observations. And certainly not over magnitudes of the claimed millions-to-billions of years.

That's an interesting belief.  While convergent evolution can explain analogous organs, it couldn't explain analogous proteins.    Occasionally a mutation may result in an amino acid or two in a protein being the same in two distantly-related populations.    But as you learned from the cytochrome C case, the large number of amino acids in proteins assures that it doesn't give misleading results.  

You're confusing convergent phenotypes with genomes.    For example, there are "marsupial moles" that superficially look very, very much like placental moles.   But the analogous structures turn out to be very different in detail,and their genes are more like those of kangaroos than they are like placentals, much less like insectivores.

Even "errors" in genomes don't work like that.  Humans and Guinea pigs both have a damaged vitamin C gene, and must get vitamin C from their diet.  But the damage is not the same in both organisms.   The homology in function loss, does not involve the same mutation of the gene.

Phenotypes are not the same as genotypes.   I would have thought a PhD in genomics would know that.   Every other biologist does.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

“It turns out that plants and animals” have more in common with each other, than we both do with microbes – which is not surprising to anyone. Claims about how we are “related” go beyond the facts.

It comes down to evidence.   That's why scientists accept common descent; it fits the evidence.