Guest kingdombrat Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 18 hours ago, teddyv said: I was reading that essay (here). The way it reads is almost like he's arguing for a regional flood, but the final statement seems to suggest he is advocating a universal flood. "As the antipodes exist, as the earth goes round the sun, and as the Bible continues to be true, in spite of the theologians and inquisitors at Salamanca and at Rome, so will it continue to be true and full of truth, when at length it shall be acknowledged, as it will be, that there is nothing universal about the Noachian Deluge except the disbelief in its universality." It might be the prose of the time that makes it hard to parse. I don't know what Darwin said about the Flood. Certainly modern genetics makes no indication of a population bottleneck in humanity around the traditional date of the Flood. There was a hypothesis of a bottleneck some 10,000 years ago, ascribed to an eruption of lake Toba, but I believe that is no longer supported. I agree that it seems deceptive and you could have several conclusions to what Darwin is stating here. At the time, however, it ruffled my feathers and I have still not forgotten that whenever I hear someone promote Darwin's Theories towards Biological Evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddyv Posted June 1, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 4,265 Content Per Day: 2.90 Reputation: 2,302 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/03/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 1, 2021 Just now, kingdombrat said: I agree that it seems deceptive and you could have several conclusions to what Darwin is stating here. At the time, however, it ruffled my feathers and I have still not forgotten that whenever I hear someone promote Darwin's Theories towards Biological Evolution. Darwin is not stating anything in there. That was written by Thomas Stebbing. But as Marathoner did mention, theory of biological evolution has moved on a long way from the original concepts of Darwin. Genetics could have completely overturned evolutionary theory, but it only strengthened it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted June 2, 2021 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2021 18 hours ago, teddyv said: But as Marathoner did mention, theory of biological evolution has moved on a long way from the original concepts of Darwin. Genetics could have completely overturned evolutionary theory, but it only strengthened it. While Marathoner did mention Mendel, he didn't mention that you would have to break Mendel's Law of Genetics to make Darwinian Evolution work (laws about inheritance). That, and about 12 other scientific principles would have to be broken, some of which are also laws. It's interesting that these principles and laws are swept aside to support the religion called evolution. So no, Darwinian Evolution is still completely unobserved, and a joke. Speaking of jokes, you guys know the story of the princess kissing a frog and the frog turns into a human prince, is a silly fairy tale. But if you insert enough of the magical ingredient called time, it seems evolution supporters believe it could actually happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marathoner Posted June 2, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,305 Content Per Day: 7.11 Reputation: 13,334 Days Won: 99 Joined: 05/24/2020 Status: Online Share Posted June 2, 2021 (edited) On 6/1/2021 at 11:32 AM, teddyv said: Darwin is not stating anything in there. That was written by Thomas Stebbing. But as Marathoner did mention, theory of biological evolution has moved on a long way from the original concepts of Darwin. Genetics could have completely overturned evolutionary theory, but it only strengthened it. Correct, and this is why I abstain from the futile exercise of arguing against ignorance. Modern evolutionary theory is properly referred to as the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution, and Charles Darwin has nothing to do with it. Modern evolutionary theory is based upon the preponderance of genetic evidence. Gregor Mendel didn't have the benefit of electron microscopy and intimate knowledge of the DNA molecule, not to mention awareness of the different iterations of the RNA molecule. Understanding genetic recombination, errors of duplication (imperfect copies of parent chromosomes), and the field of epigenetics were far removed from Darwin and Mendel in space and time. There are a head-swimming array of reasons behind the improper duplication of chromosomes; heat --- a.k.a. radiation --- is but one. Ah, but those who bash against straw men aren't interested in learning. If they were, then they wouldn't continue to assail a man who passed away 120 years ago. Edited June 2, 2021 by Marathoner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marathoner Posted June 2, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,305 Content Per Day: 7.11 Reputation: 13,334 Days Won: 99 Joined: 05/24/2020 Status: Online Share Posted June 2, 2021 (edited) Mendel was ahead of his time but it must be understood that he was limited by what he was able to observe. Trisomy 21 --- Down Syndrome --- would have baffled the fellow. Furthermore, knowledge of variations inherent in Trisomy 21 would have rendered him speechless. Yes, Down Syndrome is properly understood to be a spectrum of genetic abnormality. There are more severe and less severe iterations of Trisomy 21. Two otherwise normative, healthy parents can (and sometimes do) produce offspring afflicted with trisomies. Trisomy refers to three copies of a particular chromosome, and the numerical designation identifies the chromosomal pair affected. Other trisomies: Klinefelter syndrome, a male born with an extra copy of the X chromosome. Triple X syndrome, which affects females. Edwards' syndrome, Trisomy 18. Patau syndrone, Trisomy 13. The reasons behind the occurence of trisomies are too compllicated and nuanced to delve into here. In any case Gregor Mendel studied plants, not humans. Worth keeping in mind. Edited June 2, 2021 by Marathoner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted June 2, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.52 Reputation: 3,524 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2021 37 minutes ago, Marathoner said: Correct, and this is why I abstain from the futile exercise of arguing against ignorance. Modern evolutionary theory is properly referred to as the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution, and Charles Darwin has nothing to do with it. Modern evolutionary theory is based upon the preponderance of genetic evidence. Gregor Mendel didn't have the benefit of electron microscopy and intimate knowledge of the DNA molecule, not to mention awareness of the different iterations of the RNA molecule. Understanding genetic recombination, errors of duplication (imperfect copies of parent chromosomes), and the field of epigenetics were far removed from Darwin and Mendel in space and time. There are a head-swimming array of reasons behind the improper duplication of chromosomes; heat --- a.k.a. radiation --- is but one. Ah, but those who bash against straw men aren't interested in learning. If they were, then they wouldn't continue to assail a man who passed away 120 years ago. Quote Modern evolutionary theory is based upon the preponderance of genetic evidence. No, it's not. It's based on evolutionary interpretations of genetic evidence. Creation scientists have exactly the same evidence, but draw different conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddyv Posted June 2, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 4,265 Content Per Day: 2.90 Reputation: 2,302 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/03/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 2, 2021 18 minutes ago, David1701 said: No, it's not. It's based on evolutionary interpretations of genetic evidence. Creation scientists have exactly the same evidence, but draw different conclusions. Creation scientists start with the conclusion (YEC interpretation), then try to fit the evidence into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted June 2, 2021 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Marathoner said: The reasons behind the occurence of trisomies are too compllicated and nuanced to delve into here. In any case Gregor Mendel studied plants, not humans. Worth keeping in mind. Mendel's observations are correct to this day for humans, too, for the same reasons. You cannot inherit anything from your parents that your parents don't have to offer. It's why you will never see humans with a full rack of antlers or a set of wings, because humans don't have any antler or wing code to offer to their offspring, and there is simply way to introduce that code into their DNA, in nature. Let's say hypothetically that we broke Mendel's law and that you somehow had a giant chunk of DNA code for wings, or antlers, that your parents didn't give you because they didn't have it to give you. You got them by magic, or by a radio active spider bite, or wishful thinking, or something. How would you find a mate to pass along these traits to your offspring? I think we both know that you would be considered sterile and unable to reproduce, because no one else's DNA on Earth could offer matching code, like yours. You could not reproduce. That's the problem, and that's why Mendel's law of genetics is an obstacle for human evolution or pea pods, today. By the way, do you have any examples of beneficial mutations rather than birth defects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted June 2, 2021 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2021 52 minutes ago, teddyv said: Creation scientists start with the conclusion (YEC interpretation), then try to fit the evidence into it. That's called an a priori fallacy. But I see that from evolutionists who have no evidence for their claim, and work backwards discarding what interferes with their theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted June 2, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2021 1 hour ago, David1701 said: Creation scientists have exactly the same evidence, but draw different conclusions. To be precise, YEC scientists have the same access to evidence. However, they work furiously to get around evidence like distant starlight, radiometric dating, biogeography, stratification of fossils, and genetic evidence like endogenous retroviruses - bypassing straightforward conclusions in favor of unsupported conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts