Theological Problems with God-guided Evolution

[The Barbarian]

5 minutes ago, B-B said:

If this article which AiG has written is riddled with error, I'll be grateful if you could bring these errors to my attention. 

AiG seems to have the notion that natural selection is a tautology.  "Those most fit for a specific environment, tend to survive long enough to leave offspring."   As the philosopher of science, Karl Popper admitted after studying the problem, it's is not a tautology and one can make predictions based natural selection to test it.

The Grants, in the Galapagos for example, were able to test it and found it correct.

In Newtonian mechanics, a body orbiting the Sun moves at a velocity proportional to its distance from the sun.   A creationist would probably not call that a tautology, even though the reasoning would be the same.

"If an organism survives when others do not, it is fit."

"If a body is orbiting farther from the sun than another body, it is moving slower."

Weirdly, the article admits evolutionary change in moths when the colors of the trees on which they rest changed, but claims it is not evolution, since they are still moths.   As you know, evolution occurs within species.   Only a new species involves macroevolution.

"One of the great achievements of modern science is the discovery of how it is possible for animals of the same species to show an immense range of variation without changing into completely different kinds of animals. "

Humans and other apes, for example.  We are still mammals, still primates, still apes.   But one wonders how much change AiG would demand for macroevolution.   How foolish.

Lots more.   Why not put forward the argument you think is most solid in that article and we'll save some time?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

4 minutes ago, Sparks said:

People often mistake micro for macro, though.

Your mistake was to not know what "macroevolution" means.   I left you the scientific definition.  As you see, speciation is macroevolution, and changes within a species are microevolution.

 

[B-B]

48 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

 

Humans and other apes, for example.  We are still mammals, still primates, still apes.

I'm really not sure what you mean here? ?

48 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by B-B

[B-B]

"Almost all biology textbooks give the example of the peppered moth as observable evidence of natural selection. Peppered moths of the species Biston betularia range in color from mostly white with a peppering of black specks to nearly all black. At one time, it is claimed, the lighter colored moths of this species were the most numerous because they blended in with the light-colored bark of the trees they favored, and thus, were nearly invisible to their bird predators. Several years ago, air pollution caused the bark of these trees to darken, exposing the lighter moths to the birds. It is assumed that the birds ate the more visible white variety, leaving behind mostly the darker variety of the species, which lay hidden on the soot-darkened trees. To the evolutionist, this is observable evidence of evolution in action! But while the peppered moths may be an example of natural selection, they do not show the evolution of a fundamentally new kind of animal, or even a new species of moth".

 

This is what the AiG article Author states about the moth with respect to evolution @The Barbarian

Edited December 8, 2021 by B-B

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Your mistake was to not know what "macroevolution" means.   I left you the scientific definition.  As you see, speciation is macroevolution, and changes within a species are microevolution.

 

I know what it means, and I know you have never seen it.  Never has anyone else on the planet.  It's what makes Darwinian Evolution a religion of faith.

If you want this religion, you are welcome to it.

[AandW_Rootbeer]

14 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's a common misconception, but it's very false.  Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance.

 

 

No, his theory on [observed Adaption] was not by chance.

Nice try to make Darwin look like he is working in line with Scripture.

You should try stand up comedy next!

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, B-B said:

This is what the AiG article Author states about the moth with respect to evolution 

Yes.  Because he doesn't know what evolution  is, he denies the fact.   Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.  Natural selection is an agency of that chance.  And that's precisely what we see in the case of the peppered moth.   

The environment changed, and natural selection caused the change in alleles in the population.  

No one said this was an entirely new species.    AiG just pretended that they did.   It's why you need to fact-check those guys; they will intentionally lie to you.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I know what it means

You've repeatedly demonstrated to us that you don't.  

Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/macroevolution

 

[The Barbarian]

That's a common misconception, but it's very false.  Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance.

3 minutes ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

No, his theory on [observed Adaption] was not by chance.

It's just a fact.   He discovered why it isn't a matter of chance.  

3 minutes ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

Nice try to make Darwin look like he is working in line with Scripture.

No one here, so far as I know, said that.  You might be thinking of another message board or maybe you didn't read carefully.   Scripture takes no stand at all on evolution.

 

[Sparks]

2 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You've repeatedly demonstrated to us that you don't.  

Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/macroevolution

 

Defining something is not the same as having seen something.  When you see a cat give birth to a dog, let me know.  You will have seen it.  Until then, just keep re-posting our definition.