Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[Guest kingdombrat]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Hi Sparks,

Thought you might find this interesting.

According to (evolutionist) zoologist Kerkut GA (1960) “Implications of Evolution”

"There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of Evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six of these assumptions and only consider the seventh.

These are as follows.

(1) The assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

The other assumptions all follow from the second one.

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock and so on.

For the initial purposes of this discussion on Evolution I shall consider that the supporters of the theory of Evolution hold that all these seven assumptions are valid, and that these assumptions form the "General Theory of Evolution."

The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume that a certain series of events has occurred in the past. Thus it may be possible to mimic some of these events under present-day conditions, this does not mean that these events must therefore have taken place in the past. All that it shows is that it is possible for such a change to take place. Thus to change a present-day reptile into a mammal, though of great interest, would not show the way in which the mammals did arise. Unfortunately we cannot bring about this change; instead we have to depend upon limited circumstantial evidence for our assumptions, and it is now my intention to discuss the nature of this evidence." (pages 6-7)

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand, there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." (page 157)

 

Spontaneous Generation? 

[The Barbarian]

Spontaneous generation was an 18th century idea that things like mice and worms could be produced by rotting organic matter.   Kerkut confused that with abiogenesis, the theory that the earth brought forth living things.

 

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

22 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I've heard it claimed that Adam and Eve weren't the first two people; supposedly it was two other people with the same names.

(assertion that Darwinian theory has never been verified)

No, that's wrong, too.   There are many, many examples.  

• A well-fitted population in a constant environment should be kept from changing very much because of natural selection.  (Darwin)
• There must have been at one time, transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. (Huxley)
• There must have been at one time, fish with functional legs.  ( Gray)
• Overuse of Penicillin will lead to evolution of resistance in bacteria (Alexander Flemming)
• Mitochondria in eukaryotic cells evolved by endosymbiosis. (Margulas)   Jeon later documented an observed example of evolved endosymbiosis.

 

Actually, many creationist organizations admit the evolution of new species, genera, and even families of organisms.

 

Are you referencing the Mitochondrial Eve here?

[Guest kingdombrat]

22 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Flew is actually a deist.    And Collins is a Christian who accepts the fact of evolution.   Indeed, there are some rational IDers who are not creationists, who also accept the fact of evolution.   Would you like to hear about some of them?

 

Sure!

[Guest kingdombrat]

22 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Remember, Darwinian evolution includes microevolution (variation within a species) and macroevolution (evolution of new species).

In fact, in the case of ring species, the extinction of a local population of the species could retroactively turn microevolution into macroevolution.   Would you like to see why?

 

 

 

Please explain:

[Sparks]

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There are some professional creationists who have a dishonest motive for conflating the terms, but most creationists really don't know what biological evolution is.

I think you mean evolutionists are dishonest. 

I wish I had time to address the half-dozen posts of yours that suddenly appeared, but suffice it to say that I disagree with most all of it.  Especially that 'change' is your definition of evolution.  That's a pretty low bar. "Change" can also mean devolution. 

I can appreciate that you think you have seen macroevolution, but let me assure you that you have not.  No one has.  Every time someone says they have seen macroevolution, about two seconds of research has revealed it was actually microevolution that they witnessed.  That includes Lensky and his citrate experiment.  It's a common mistake.  It does not help that some sites like wikipedia have re-defined macroevolution to effectively mean, "more time."  That's not what it means.

Have a great day!

[The Barbarian]

There are some professional creationists who have a dishonest motive for conflating the terms, but most creationists really don't know what biological evolution is.

29 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I think you mean evolutionists are dishonest. 

No, scientists are quite aware of what biological evolution is, and will explain it for you.

30 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Especially that 'change' is your definition of evolution. 

evolution (n.)

1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).

Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/evolution

So we have fashions "evolving", stars "evolving", public opinion "evolving", and so on.   Darwin was right to be skeptical of the term, preferring "descent with modification" which is an accurate description of the process.  Likewise, after the rediscovery of genetics, "change in allele frequency in a population over time" is an accurate description.   Both of those terms are scientifically valid.   But as you know "evolution" having numerous meanings, obfuscates the issue.

36 minutes ago, Sparks said:

"Change" can also mean devolution.

Since "evolution" means change, "devolution" would mean "no change."    There's already a scientific term for that; "stasis."   Darwin, as you know, predicted that a well-fitted population in a constant envirionment would be kept from changing much , due to natural selection.   

People confused about what evolution is, thought it might mean "progress" and therefore "devolution" would be "reversing progress."   Those people were a short-lived New Age band, not scientists.

39 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I can appreciate that you think you have seen macroevolution, but let me assure you that you have not.

Sorry, the evidence is more compelling than your denial.    It's just an observed fact.   Even many creationist organizations accept the fact of new species, genera, and families evolving from old ones.    Remember the difference between microevolution (variation within a species) and macroevolution, (variation that produces new species).

42 minutes ago, Sparks said:

That includes Lensky and his citrate experiment.

That's microevolution, unless the bacterial became a new species.   Which is tricky.  Having a degree in bacteriology, I can show you that it's really hard to apply the idea to asexually-reproducing prokaryotes.    Bergey's manual today is much, much different than the 1978 edition I have.

,

[The Barbarian]

In fact, in the case of ring species, the extinction of a local population of the species could retroactively turn microevolution into macroevolution.   Would you like to see why?

1 hour ago, kingdombrat said:

Please explain:

A ring species is a species composed of a number of populations adjacent to each other.   Populations directly adjoining each other are interfertile, but those distant from each other are not interfertile.  

An example are leopard frogs in North America.   While adjoining populations can interbreed, those in the far north can't interbreed with those in the far south.    But so long as all the populations are in existence, genes can freely move through the population of all leopard frogs.  

After the ice age, frogs moved north, but the shorter summers required mutations that shortened development time.    And that, in the extreme north and south frogs is now sufficiently different that they can't produce offspring.    If the middle populations were to go extinct, this single species would then be two different species.

Remember, a species is a interfertile population of organisms.

 

 

 

 

,

[The Barbarian]

(assertion that Darwinian theory has never been verified)

No, that's wrong, too.   There are many, many examples.  

• A well-fitted population in a constant environment should be kept from changing very much because of natural selection.  (Darwin)
• There must have been at one time, transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. (Huxley)
• There must have been at one time, fish with functional legs.  ( Gray)
• Overuse of Penicillin will lead to evolution of resistance in bacteria (Alexander Flemming)
• Mitochondria in eukaryotic cells evolved by endosymbiosis. (Margulas)   Jeon later documented an observed example of evolved endosymbiosis.

3 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Are you referencing the Mitochondrial Eve here?

No.   "Mitochondrial Eve" came to be long after the original Eve.

 

[Sparks]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There are some professional creationists who have a dishonest motive for conflating the terms, but most creationists really don't know what biological evolution is.

I had said evolutionists are dishonest. 

Earnest Haekle recapitulation theories are still taught as truth today, though his fraud was exposed back in 1860.  Horse evolution, proven false, still appears in museums today.  "Whale legs," proven false are for reproduction, but still taught as vestigial.   Archaeopteryx, faked.  Lucy faked.  Nebraska man, faked.  Piltdown man, faked.  We get our 'depression genes' from Neanderthal, faked. 

There are endless lies about evolution, but why so many for such an honest field of 'science?'

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's microevolution, unless the bacterial became a new species.

Macroevolution is above species to create a new kind, which has never been seen.

Lensky mistakenly claimed macroevolution when his e. coli would suddenly grow on citrate.  But it was microevolution he had observed.