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

[The Barbarian]

47 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Sorry, but that is all the propaganda. 

As you see, it's the truth.    Do I have to show you each one in detail?

The fake accusations don't stand up when we look at the facts.   As we've discussed earlier, the origin of life isn't part of evolutionary theory.   But Miller/Urey's prediction that amino acids could form in pre-life conditions has been verified:

Scientists confirmed in 1971 that the Murchison meteorite contained amino acids, primarily glycine, and that those organic compounds likely came from outer space (SN: 3/20/71, p. 195). In the decades since, amino acids and other chemical precursors to life have been uncovered in other fallen space rocks. Recent discoveries include compounds called nucleobases and sugars that are key components of DNA and RNA. The amino acid glycine even has been spotted in outer space in the atmosphere of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/50-years-ago-scientists-first-glimpse-amino-acids-outer-space

Turns out, much more than mere amino acids form in the absence of life.

As you see from the photographs, the features of embryos drawn by Haeckel are real.   

Regarding information increasing in a population, it's been observed and documented in simulations and in real populations:

The alleles received at a given generation are conditional upon the previous generation. Knowledge of this conditional probability law allows us to track the evolution of the allele entropies and mutual information values from one generation to the next. We apply these laws to numerical computer simulations and to real data (Stryphnodendron adstringens). We find that, due to the genetic sampling process, in the absence of new mutations the mutual information increases between generations toward a maximum value.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1512/1512.02324.pdf

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Starise]

23 minutes ago, Renskedejonge said:

I haven't read everything in this thread but if a Neanderthal is another kind of human, so what? I once read that they were cannibals. All of a sudden they were all gone, mated with normal humans. I may be wrong, but that sounds like nephilim to me.

They are just human. Nothing from anywhere else.

The nephilim were not fully human.

[Sparks]

45 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

As you see, it's the truth.    Do I have to show you each one in detail?

The fake accusations don't stand up when we look at the facts.   As we've discussed earlier, the origin of life isn't part of evolutionary theory.   But Miller/Urey's prediction that amino acids could form in pre-life conditions has been verified:

Scientists confirmed in 1971 that the Murchison meteorite contained amino acids, primarily glycine, and that those organic compounds likely came from outer space (SN: 3/20/71, p. 195). In the decades since, amino acids and other chemical precursors to life have been uncovered in other fallen space rocks. Recent discoveries include compounds called nucleobases and sugars that are key components of DNA and RNA. The amino acid glycine even has been spotted in outer space in the atmosphere of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/50-years-ago-scientists-first-glimpse-amino-acids-outer-space

Turns out, much more than mere amino acids form in the absence of life.

As you see from the photographs, the features of embryos drawn by Haeckel are real.   

Regarding information increasing in a population, it's been observed and documented in simulations and in real populations:

The alleles received at a given generation are conditional upon the previous generation. Knowledge of this conditional probability law allows us to track the evolution of the allele entropies and mutual information values from one generation to the next. We apply these laws to numerical computer simulations and to real data (Stryphnodendron adstringens). We find that, due to the genetic sampling process, in the absence of new mutations the mutual information increases between generations toward a maximum value.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1512/1512.02324.pdf

 

Well, there is a lot of evolution propaganda out there, and retractions on papers (hope you checked the one you posted).  There is one real type of evolution called microevolution, but the other types are fake.

[The Barbarian]

11 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Well, there is a lot of evolution propaganda out there, and retractions on papers (hope you checked the one you posted).

Sorry.  Both are well-documented and their results have been reproduced.  No chance of a retraction.  

Even many creationists now admit the fact of macroevolution (evolution of new species).   Would you like me to show you?

 

[Sparks]

20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry.  Both are well-documented and their results have been reproduced.  No chance of a retraction.  

Even many creationists now admit the fact of macroevolution (evolution of new species).   Would you like me to show you?

 

I know you believe this, but I don't know why you believe it.  There is no chance we are here due to evolution. 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

I know you believe this, but I don't know why you believe it. 

Evidence.   Reality and God are not incompatible.   

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

There is no chance we are here due to evolution. 

We are here because God wanted us to be here.  Evolution is just the most efficient way to do it in a physical universe.

That's why engineers have started to copy God's method; evolutionary processes work better than design for complex processes.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/genetic-algorithm

[Sparks]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Evidence.   Reality and God are not incompatible.   

We are here because God wanted us to be here.  Evolution is just the most efficient way to do it in a physical universe.

That's why engineers have started to copy God's method; evolutionary processes work better than design for complex processes.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/genetic-algorithm

I mean no offense, but it appears you misinterpret the evidence.  For a moment, put down the cut/paste mouse button and look around you. 

What evidence do you see for Darwinian Evolution?  None.  You have never seen one kind of animal produce any other kind of animal, though after trillions of years some should have ripened up by now.  So, if all the fossils did it, why did it stop happening?

[The Barbarian]

4 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I mean no offense, but it appears you misinterpret the evidence. 

I notice that people who don't know much about the evidence, tend to be the ones who misinterpret it.   As you see, even YE creationists who are familiar with the evidence admit that it supports macroevolution.

5 minutes ago, Sparks said:

What evidence do you see for Darwinian Evolution?

Changes in allele frequencies in populations over time.  

Evolution of new traits in response to environments.   

As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise says, the many transitional fossil series such as reptile-to-mammal fossils.

Genetics, showing common descent.

Observed cases of speciation.

Stuff like that.

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You have never seen one kind of animal produce any other kind of animal

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.    But as your fellow creationists admit, the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" and "there is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it."

Your argument is essentially that a man can walk 100 meters, but he can't walk 100 kilometers.

9 minutes ago, Sparks said:

So, if all the fossils did it, why did it stop happening?

It didn't.   We see it happening today.  Like those lizards that evolved a new digestive organ in a few decades.    Like new species evolving from old ones.  

 

[Sparks]

11 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I notice that people who don't know much about the evidence, tend to be the ones who misinterpret it.   As you see, even YE creationists who are familiar with the evidence admit that it supports macroevolution.

Changes in allele frequencies in populations over time.  

Evolution of new traits in response to environments.   

As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise says, the many transitional fossil series such as reptile-to-mammal fossils.

Genetics, showing common descent.

Observed cases of speciation.

Stuff like that.

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.    But as your fellow creationists admit, the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" and "there is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it."

Your argument is essentially that a man can walk 100 meters, but he can't walk 100 kilometers.

It didn't.   We see it happening today.  Like those lizards that evolved a new digestive organ in a few decades.    Like new species evolving from old ones.  

 

We don't see kinds producing other kinds, at all, today.  And to suggest it is happening slowly over trillions of years to is merely to obfuscate the failed evolution theory.  To say so would be to ignore the problems of Irreducible Complexity.  

What I see is that evolutionists mistake speciation for new kinds.  You know the 1,400+ species of bats are still bats.  They won't ever become anything else except bats, and that is their limitations.  God mentioned that you know, that animals come from their own kind. 

This means a zebra, and a donkey, an ass, mules, horses and more that can reproduce together are the same kind, and came from the same kind of common ancestor ... a horse.  Horses will never produce another kind, such as a whale or a corn stalk no matter how much time you give to the problem, but I hope you know your theory would have to work that way if it worked, at all.  Kinds would have to reproduce new kinds that were fully functional, at birth, plus a spouse to reproduce with or the line would die off immediately.

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Sparks said:

We don't see kinds producing other kinds, at all, today.

We see it constantly.    Once I watched a man bicycling from Florida to Alaska.    I met him in Missouri, and only watched him go a few hundred yards into the rest stop where I was.    In the same manner, we see all sorts of kinds becoming other kinds today.   Would you like some examples?

8 hours ago, Sparks said:

And to suggest it is happening slowly over trillions of years to is merely to obfuscate the failed evolution theory. 

No one says "trillions of years."   But as you know your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood admits:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Dr. Wood can work in his field, because he understands that theories are only provisionally true.   So long as they work, we use them.    He openly prefers his reading of Genesis to the theory, but he recognizes that the theory is highly successful in predicting nature.

8 hours ago, Sparks said:

What I see is that evolutionists mistake speciation for new kinds.

"Kinds" in the sense you use it, is a religious belief.  Hence, the Bible referring to bats and birds as the same kind.    They saw whales and fish as the same kind, too.   Because they classified things functionally, rather than by biology.   Consequently, "kinds" has no meaning in terms of science.   The scriptural "bird kind" is pretty much any animal with a backbone that flies.   Pterosaurs, if they existed in Biblical times, would have been classified in "bird kind", too.

Most creationist organizations now admit the fact that macroevolution produces new species, genera, and sometimes families.    They just don't want to call it "evolution."  But as you learned, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.  Microevolution is evolution that does not produce new taxa.   Macroevolution is speciation. 

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

Horses will never produce another kind, such as a whale or a corn stalk

If they did, Darwin's theory would be refuted.    We're back to the issue of people who object to evolution, generally don't know what it is.

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

God mentioned that you know, that animals come from their own kind. 

No, that's man's revision of God's word.    He merely says that the Earth brought forth living things according to their kind. (not kinds) Creationists just don't like the way He does it.

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

I hope you know your theory would have to work that way if it worked, at all.

No.   The fossil record shows gradual change over time.   This is why evolution can't do all things.   The only evolution that is possible is where each increment of change does not harm the organism.   You would, for example, think that it might be impossible for turtles to evolve from primitive anapsids.    But they did.  And the fossils show how.   Would you like to talk about that?

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

Kinds would have to reproduce new kinds that were fully functional, at birth, plus a spouse to reproduce with or the line would die off immediately.

No, that's a misunderstanding of the way evolution works.   Those lizards we mentioned earlier, evolved a cecal valve over a few decades.   But the transitional forms were still able to reproduce with others of their population.    Now, the population has no lizards without the valve.   Because they depend more on plant material for food, a fermentation chamber is a competitive advantage.    And so it became universal in the population.

This is why we see no transitional forms that can't reproduce with others in the population.   Their genes would be lost to future generations.   Probably happens a lot.  You only see the successful ones.