The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[Buzzard3]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Why did our society decide to trade off on a bag of magic beans? Or was it slowly forced on us?

"that serpent of old called the Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world" - Rev 12:9

[Buzzard3]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

As I see it-To debate on those sites you need thick skin

Ya got that right.  There's not nearly as many atheist sites as there used to be, say, ten years ago, but they all had one thing in common - once they found out you're Christian, the wolves surround you and hurl the foulest insults in your direction.  I was offended at first, but after a while it all became water off a duck's back, so to speak.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

It is far more logical to say, yes we have ample evidence for God in pretty much everything we observe, or maybe to put it another way, we have intelligent design based on observations. One doesn't really need  deep investigation to figure that out. The more we investigate the more apparent it becomes.

I agree, but the most common excuse atheists use to dismiss God is, "There's no evidence that God exists."   Well, ya coulda fooled me!

As Romans 1 says, "They are without excuse."

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Animals coming from slime over billions of years. The real onus is heavily on them, but they would have us think it's on us.

Atheists believe that, given the right environmental conditions, life can pop into existence anywhere.  This superstitious myth begets another myth - that life exists on other planets - a myth that may open the door to a latter-day Antichrist deception.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I guess different people have different reasons for why they leave Christianity and I think it would be dismissive of me to guess what I think all of those reasons are without knowing any of them. I see many of them as those seeds which fell on ground with shallow soil and never grew deep roots, so when something else came along they wilted. The only plants that grow are the ones plugged into the true vine.

Yes, unfortunately some Christians are atheists-in-waiting.   If you really want to believe in God, you'll find a way.

 

 

1 hour ago, Starise said:

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Buzzard3

[Buzzard3]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

The atheist movement has systematically attempted to tear down anything we believe in based on truths we know to be

That deconstruction has been in progress for centuries ... since the so-called Enlightenment.   It's Human Reasoning v. God ... we know who wins that contest.

Satan and his demons are using atheism in an attempt to destroy belief in God.  That's what gave birth to Communism, for example.

1 hour ago, Starise said:

The idea that truly logical people will fall into the atheist camp is yet another ploy often used. 

Dismissing the existence of God as a primitive superstition doesn't strike me as logical.  

Edited September 14, 2023 by Buzzard3

[Tristen]

On 9/11/2023 at 11:24 PM, Starise said:

I also get they have been heavily indoctrinated. It is not my intent to use anything confusing, so going forward if you catch me in it and need to clarify, it will be much appreciated

I hope you understand that I'm not trying to "catch" you out in anything. I sincerely believe that the best we can do in any debate, is to use terminology in a clear, consistent and logical manner. Whether or not a debate opponent can (or is even willing to) see through their indoctrination is beyond your control.

The term "species" is (generally) used to group organisms that currently interbreed.

The term "kind" is adopted from the Bible - to (specifically) group organisms that are related through their shared, created ancestors. "Kind" is therefore a broader category than "species" - that can (and frequently does) include more than one "species" per "kind".

 

On 9/11/2023 at 11:24 PM, Starise said:

To me it seems such a simple thing someone has compounded.

It's somewhat complicated because we are trying to compare the stages of unrelated classification systems with each other. The Linnaean classification system also has broader categories that can include multiple "species" (genus, family, order, class etc.). So conceptually, the idea of higher categories (related groups above extant breeding behavior) is something both systems share.

Another complication is that "kinds" is specific to the Biblical paradigm. Therefore, those holding the secular narrative have an extra layer of indoctrination to overcome before they can even begin to give fair consideration to the logic of "kinds". We've already encountered that bias in this thread.

 

On 9/11/2023 at 11:24 PM, Starise said:

Kind produce after same kinds

But remember - the people you are debating with don't necessarily understand or accept the concept of "kinds". The first hurdle is to therefore clearly define what we mean by "kinds" (and to specify that what we mean by "kinds" is different to what we/they mean by "species").

 

On 9/11/2023 at 11:24 PM, Starise said:

however there is small variation in those kinds depending on environments and breeding over time, which is the result of programming in their genetics/DNA. There, have I complicated it yet again?

I don't think you've "complicated it", but I think you have left some things ambiguous - that could be tightened using more precise terminology.

If we start from an ancestor population with high genetic diversity - through genetic isolation of offspring, followed by Natural Selection (environmental pressures selecting both for and against the successful propagation of certain genes), leading to speciation (divergence of descendants into separate "species") over generations - so that the isolated group no longer interbreeds with the original group (or other related, speciated groups).

Both sides of the debate subscribe to this pathway of progression. Only that, the secular narrative would include the addition of novel genetic information along the way. But that is unnecessary if we assume the ancestors possessed high genetic diversity.

 

On 9/11/2023 at 11:24 PM, Starise said:

And don't you think possibly, as I believe you have alluded to, it is also used as a tactic at times? I see these terminologies spread too widely in some cases.One term seems to leverage an entirely different idea, so my argument here is we simply keep it simple when referring to these things.

Yes. The fallacy is called Equivocation. I would guesstimate 99% of the scientific observations for "evolution", are in-fact, observations of Natural Selection driving changes to allele frequencies. Biblical creationism has never had any problem with Natural Selection driving changes to allele frequencies. Therefore, such evidence does not logically counter creationism. Yet, the frequent implication is that such evidence also supports other concepts under the umbrella of "evolution" (such as Common Ancestry - which does conflict with Biblical creationism).

There is also the problem that many would rather "win" the debate, rather than use the debate to come to a better mutual understanding of the arguments - even if that means departing from logic and manners to show how rhetorically "clever" they supposedly are.

 

On 9/11/2023 at 11:24 PM, Starise said:

I certainly agree with your premise, and proof that there is no proof, at least in the scientific realm and maybe from your vantage point.

It's simply a matter of logic (and critical reasoning) that there can be no "proof" in "the scientific realm" (apart from mathematical proofs - which are a different concept). 

 

On 9/11/2023 at 11:24 PM, Starise said:

My indications are we have ample evidence to falsify certain claims which hold no serious merit when scrutinized either scientifically, or under scriptures.

One side of the debate certainly exaggerates confidence in their position far beyond what is justified by either the evidence, or by the methods utilized.

Nevertheless, at the objective heart of the matter is the existence of the facts - and both sides interpreting the facts to support their own presuppositions.

It is not logically possible to "falsify" any claim of the distant past - because there is no way to perform an experiment in the past which could determine what actually did, or did not, happen. So long as the facts can be made consistent with the model/story/paradigm/narrative, then the model is technically rational (equally so with any other model that is made consistent with the facts).

 

[Starise]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I hope you understand that I'm not trying to "catch" you out in anything. I sincerely believe that the best we can do in any debate, is to use terminology in a clear, consistent and logical manner. Whether or not a debate opponent can (or is even willing to) see through their indoctrination is beyond your control.

The term "species" is (generally) used to group organisms that currently interbreed.

The term "kind" is adopted from the Bible - to (specifically) group organisms that are related through their shared, created ancestors. "Kind" is therefore a broader category than "species" - that can (and frequently does) include more than one "species" per "kind".

No worries, hopefully you know my intention was to invite assistance from anyone with a backround in these things who can add more understanding to them.

Let me ask you this, how would you describe the ideas as put forth by evolutionists that say men came from apes using the above terms, or would you use other terms? If so, which terms would they be? And how would you counter those claims using terms that won't muddy the waters? 

Type>kind>species> We can say a given species is one type of an animal. We can say a Kind is also a type. Species are in categories with plenty of subcategories

I realize categorization is important in these discussions, obviously. If we look at these things from the top down in order of complexity,  "kind" would be one of the uppermost strata of categories.  I did mistakenly refer to species as if I were referring to a kind.

I believe the correct model sees  variation within the partitions of that kind. 

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

It's somewhat complicated because we are trying to compare the stages of unrelated classification systems with each other. The Linnaean classification system also has broader categories that can include multiple "species" (genus, family, order, class etc.). So conceptually, the idea of higher categories (related groups above extant breeding behavior) is something both systems share.

Another complication is that "kinds" is specific to the Biblical paradigm. Therefore, those holding the secular narrative have an extra layer of indoctrination to overcome before they can even begin to give fair consideration to the logic of "kinds". We've already encountered that bias in this thread.

Yes, I have seen that.

 

 

[Starise]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

If we start from an ancestor population with high genetic diversity - through genetic isolation of offspring, followed by Natural Selection (environmental pressures selecting both for and against the successful propagation of certain genes), leading to speciation (divergence of descendants into separate "species") over generations - so that the isolated group no longer interbreeds with the original group (or other related, speciated groups).

Both sides of the debate subscribe to this pathway of progression. Only that, the secular narrative would include the addition of novel genetic information along the way. But that is unnecessary if we assume the ancestors possessed high genetic diversity.

I would only add that "novel genetic information" seems an understatement. What do you mean in this context by "high genetic diversity"?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yet, the frequent implication is that such evidence also supports other concepts under the umbrella of "evolution" (such as Common Ancestry - which does conflict with Biblical creationism).

Exactly.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

One side of the debate certainly exaggerates confidence in their position far beyond what is justified by either the evidence, or by the methods utilized.

Nevertheless, at the objective heart of the matter is the existence of the facts - and both sides interpreting the facts to support their own presuppositions.

It is not logically possible to "falsify" any claim of the distant past - because there is no way to perform an experiment in the past which could determine what actually did, or did not, happen. So long as the facts can be made consistent with the model/story/paradigm/narrative, then the model is technically rational (equally so with any other model that is made consistent with the facts).

Maybe a better term here would be to "discredit". Intead of building on a vew they support, one attempts to discredit the other. That's what I mean't by "falsify".

[Tristen]

On 9/10/2023 at 7:15 AM, The Barbarian said:

So tell us if birds and extinct dinosaurs are one kind or two kinds, and the anatomical or whatever evidence you used to make that determination.

Sorry, I didn't see your posts earlier.

Both "birds" and "dinosaurs" are each comprised of multiple "kinds".

As an example, Psittaciformes birds (parrots, budgerigars, lorikeets etc. etc.) represent many, and varied, "species" of "birds". Nevertheless, this Order of birds is readily distinguishable from other birds in both morphology and molecular analysis. It has been notoriously difficult to determine how they are (presumably) related to other birds.

"Our various phylogenies produced no consistent placement of outgroups as sister to the parrots, reinforcing the idea that they have no close sister relationship with modern birds" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727385/pdf/msn160.pdf)

Psittaciformes would therefore be considered a good candidate for a bird "kind".

 

On 9/10/2023 at 7:15 AM, The Barbarian said:

As Darwin predicted, we find many, many transitional forms between species so that it's very hard sometimes to define exactly what a species is.

The "transitional forms" issue is not a problem - because they don't exist in the sense that "Darwin" envisioned them - i.e. "a finely graduated organic chain".

Modern candidates for "transitional" fossils usually share a few notable features with an assumed ancestor, and a few notable features with an assumed descendant - and are therefore plopped in between them and labelled "transitional". But that is not what "Darwin" meant when he used the term.

 

On 9/10/2023 at 7:15 AM, The Barbarian said:

 In some circumstances we have clines or ring species so that at one end of a range, it's two species, but in other places, it isn't.

Yep - agreed.

 

On 9/10/2023 at 7:15 AM, The Barbarian said:

So "kinds" would be in a similar position, if there were transitional forms between kinds.

According to the paradigm, a creature either belongs to a particular "kind", or it belongs to another "kind", or we don't know to which "kind" it belongs. "Transitional" represents an interpretation of a fact - not the fact itself.

Assigning creatures to "kinds" has the same logical limitations as, for example, assigning creatures to Families or Orders. We can not go back in time to determine how (or if) certain creatures are related. We can only make inferences about the past based on the available data.

The ambiguity with the use of "species" is a different problem.

 

On 9/10/2023 at 7:15 AM, The Barbarian said:

Would you consider felids and canids to be two different kinds?

I'm not readily familiar with the data - but anecdotally, yes. Certainly, the ability to hybridize species of cats (e.g. Ligers etc.) is a very strong indicator that they are related (and therefore belong to the same "kind"). I also have a vague memory of a suggestion that Sabre-tooth tigers may belong to a different "kind" from extant cats.

 

I'll try and get to your other posts soon.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Both "birds" and "dinosaurs" are each comprised of multiple "kinds".

So tell us how to distinguish dinosaurs from birds.   What anatomical features are found in birds that are not found in dinosaurs?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Psittaciformes would therefore be considered a good candidate for a bird "kind".

Do you believe the Bible's statement that bats are birds?    Do you think that herons comprise a number of kinds as the Bible says?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

The "transitional forms" issue is not a problem - because they don't exist in the sense that "Darwin" envisioned them - i.e. "a finely graduated organic chain".

Well, let's ask a YE creationist who is familiar with the evidence on fossils:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Notice, Dr. Wise actually presents evidence for his finding.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Modern candidates for "transitional" fossils usually share a few notable features with an assumed ancestor, and a few notable features with an assumed descendant - and are therefore plopped in between them and labelled "transitional". But that is not what "Darwin" meant when he used the term.

Dr. Wise documents otherwise, and he actually has a doctorate in paleontology.   He still prefers his reading of scripture to the evidence, but he's honest enough to admit the fact.

What's more impressive than the huge number of transitionals and graduated organic chains of transitionals documented by Dr. Wise, is the fact that there are no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.    No feathered mammals, no whales with gills.  

And modern biochemical and genetic analyses make this even more certain.    For example T. rex heme turns out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of modern reptiles.  

Archosaurs differ from other reptiles by having scutes, particular scales that can be induced to form feathers.  Scutes are found on dinosaurs, crocodiles, and birds.    It's been known for a while that genetic manipulation can turn bird scutes to primitive feathers, but recently that was also found to be the case for crocodiles:

Scientists turn alligator scales into primitive ‘feathers’

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/aligator-scale-feathers-043242/

Birds are unusual in that they have a respiratory system that relies on pneumatized bones and a one-way ventilation system that makes them much more efficient than other animals in breathing low oxygen levels.   But in the past few years, it has been found that at least some dinosaurs had the same system.   

Can you name even one major trait in birds that is not found in dinosaurs?

 

[The Barbarian]

14 hours ago, Tristen said:

Both sides of the debate subscribe to this pathway of progression. Only that, the secular narrative would include the addition of novel genetic information along the way. But that is unnecessary if we assume the ancestors possessed high genetic diversity.

Let's look at that.   By creationist belief, all felids are descended from one (sometimes two or three) pairs of "cat kind" on the Ark.   Taking the extreme case, there would be at most, twelve alleles for each gene locus in those cats.    Yet there are hundreds of alleles for those gene loci now.    All of the rest had to have evolved by mutation and natural selection.

If you're familiar with the mathematics of information, you know that every new mutation in a population increases information in that population.   If you haven't looked at that, we an discuss a simple case to see how the numbers work.

 

[Tristen]

On 9/10/2023 at 7:21 AM, The Barbarian said:

Since Neanderthals and Denisovans commonly interbred with anatomically modern humans, most physical anthropologists acknowledge that they are subspecies (biological races) of a single species

I actually made this very point in the next sentence to the one you quoted. The modern creationist perspective has always suggested that the "Homo" Genus is comprised of descendants of Adam - and therefore fully human (with the noted exception of Homo habilis which is likely comprised of fragments from both ape and human fossils).

 

NEXT POST

On 9/10/2023 at 7:45 AM, The Barbarian said:

Also, "species" and higher scientific taxa are related to genetic and homologous relationships, while, "kinds" refers to other grouping, not necessarily matching up to common descent or scientific classifications.

That is correct. We cannot assume that a category in one classification system lines up directly with categories in another classification system. The categories exist for different purposes.

 

On 9/10/2023 at 7:45 AM, The Barbarian said:

For example, the Bible lists the clean and unclean species within bird kind:

Leviticus 11:13 These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,^[a] the vulture, the black vulture, ¹⁴ the red kite, any kind of black kite, ¹⁵ any kind of raven, ¹⁶ the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, ¹⁷ the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, ¹⁸ the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, ¹⁹ the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Notice kites, ravens, hawks, and herons are listed as composing "kinds."

There is no single "bird kind" in creationist thinking. This passage alludes to multiple "kinds" within the broader "bird" grouping. God created many "kinds" of "birds".

 

On 9/10/2023 at 7:45 AM, The Barbarian said:

But bats are classified by the Bible as birds

More accurately, "bats" were grouped together with the other 'flying creatures' (Hb. 'oph'). Using the modern English word "bird" would be an appropriate translation of 'oph' most of the time (though it is also used of flying insects). However, given the inclusion of "bats" on the list, in this instance, the term "bird" is slightly over-specific on this occasion.

 

On 9/10/2023 at 7:45 AM, The Barbarian said:

All lizards are classified as a single "kind" in Leviticus

I could not find this.

 

On 9/10/2023 at 7:45 AM, The Barbarian said:

The point being that "kinds" in the sense we see the term in the Bible are a religious/function sort of classification that has only incidental relationship to taxonomy, common descent, or genetics.

Firstly, I disagree that your logic pans out.

Genesis is clear that organisms were created by "kinds", to reproduce after their own "kinds". The fact that God later declares some of the "kinds" to be clean or unclean for human consumption does not logically undermine the concept of discreetly created "kinds". That is, the classification is not used in a purely "religious/functional" manner.

And secondly, even if creationists were being presumptuous in the borrowing of "kinds" from the Bible, that would not logically undermine the concept derived from Genesis - i.e. that God made different groups of organisms independently of each other.

 

NEXT POST

On 9/10/2023 at 9:23 AM, The Barbarian said:

On 9/10/2023 at 8:25 AM, Tristen said:

I would firstly assume they don't know what "gene splicing" means (perhaps they mean chromosomal fusion). I would secondly ask to examine their evidence and arguments for such a claim.

On 9/10/2023 at 9:23 AM, The Barbarian said:

 

Yes, it's a chromosome fusion.    Not only does one human chromosome line up precisely with two chimpanzee chromosomes, there are, in the fused human chromosome, the identifiable remains of an extra centromere, and telomeres, precisely where they were predicted to be, based on the hypothesis of a chromosome fusion.

I find a couple of things interesting about this response.

The first thing I find interesting is that, in my advice to @Starise, I suggested asking for evidence to be provided. If we look at the image in your post, you did not provide any evidence, but rather a stylized representation of the evidence; an illustration of what the researchers claim to have found.

I understand why this is done. In older, chromosome staining methods, it is near-impossible to get chromosomes to line up in the desired manner. And even if we get a clear, straight chromosome, it is not possible to determine from this method exactly what is exactly where in the chromosome. In other words, if you showed the actual photographs, the people you are trying to convince might be skeptical that it all lines up as neatly as you'd like.

The second thing I find interesting is that, your best evidence is from an old, imprecise method. We live in a world where DNA sequencing is cheap. Sequencing tells us exactly what is exactly where in the chromosome. Not only that, but the sequencing has been done - and the data is freely available.

My cynical guess is because the last time they had a good look at the sequence data (2002), they were surprised by how little it resembled a telomere fusion site - referring to the site as "degenerate telomeric arrays". This means, the supposed telomere fusion site had undergone such a high mutation rate since the alleged fusion, that the site no longer resembled a telomere fusion site - even asking, "why are the arrays at the fusion site so degenerate" (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.full.pdf).

The most recent sequence analysis I have found (2011) was from creationists (https://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-2), who, unsurprisingly, also found that the supposed telomere fusion site does not look like a telomere fusion site.

Therefore, given the more accurate sequence data, we are left with a fact that the putative telomere fusion site does not resemble a telomere fusion site.

Interpretation 1: This is indeed a telomere fusion site, but it does not look like a telomere fusion site because it is so thoroughly mutated.

Interpretation 2: The site does not look like a telomere fusion site because it is not a telomere fusion site.

Either way, this is certainly not the strong, knockout-punch argument perceived by those defending the secular narrative.