Theistic Evolution

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Darwin's theory remains safely unobserved. 

Which of the four points of Darwin's theory do you think have not been observed?
 

More are born than can live.

Each organism is slightly different than its parents.

Some of these difference affect the likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce.

The good ones tend to be preserved and the bad ones tend to be elminated, and this eventually leads to new species.  (Hence the title of the book)

Which of those do you think has not been observed?

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

You have redefined evolution theory to the point that a Chocolate Sunday meets the criteria of evolution theory.

I don't see how a chocolate sundae fits into Darwin's four points.   Can you show us that?

3 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

God wasn't part of it

Just as God wasn't part of Newton's theory of gravitation.    Even though Newton and Darwin thought God was the creator of all things.

Remember why?   Science can't consider the supernatural.  But Darwin and Newton could and did.

 

[Sparks]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I don't see how a chocolate sundae fits into Darwin's four points.   Can you show us that?

Well, there is no us, as usual.  

But yes, the Sunday will melt, which is changes over time.  That is all it takes to be evolution theory these days, is changes over time. 

[Sparks]

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No, that's a religious belief.   Just like Newton's religious belief about God creating gravity.    But it wasn't part of either theory.

You said Darwin's theory was not about the origin of life.  I showed you he did mention it in his book.  That is his theory.  It's as theoretical as the rest of evolution theory, which is also his guess.

If you want to say that all the garbage in that book was religion, I guess I could buy that.

[The Barbarian]

6 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You said Darwin's theory was not about the origin of life.

Well, let's take a look.    The four points of Darwin's theory...

More are born than can live.

Each organism is slightly different than its parents.

Some of these difference affect the likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce.

The good ones tend to be preserved and the bad ones tend to be elminated, and this eventually leads to new species.  (Hence the title of the book)

Which of those do you think is about the origin of life?

BTW, you were going to show us how a chocolate sundae is about Darwin's theory.

10 minutes ago, Sparks said:

That is all it takes to be evolution theory these days, is changes over time. 

No, you forgot again.   Changes in allele frequency in a population.    Chocolate sundaes are not populations and they don't have alleles. 

Although in the general sense, evolution is about change, biological evolution is more precisely defined.    If this confuses you, why not use Darwin's term: "descent with modification?"

[The Barbarian]

11 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You said Darwin's theory was not about the origin of life.  I showed you he did mention it in his book.

He mentioned Ireland in his book, too.   But Darwin's theory isn't about Ireland, either.

Newton mentioned the plague in his book, but gravitational theory isn't about plague.

And a belief in God is not "theorectical."   At least it isn't for a Christian.    I can't believe that you'd seriously make such a claim.

 

[Sparks]

3 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

He mentioned Ireland in his book, too.   But Darwin's theory isn't about Ireland, either.

Newton mentioned the plague in his book, but gravitational theory isn't about plague.

And a belief in God is not "theorectical."   At least it isn't for a Christian.    I can't believe that you'd seriously make such a claim.

You said he didn't have theory on life, but I posted it. 

[Sparks]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, you forgot again.   Changes in allele frequency in a population.    Chocolate sundaes are not populations and they don't have alleles.

There are plenty of alleles in there.  Notice the sliver of banana? 

Claiming a Chocolate Sunday changes over time is even better than regular evolution theory, because you can actually see it happen.  No need for trillions of years to pass, and you can avoid all the guessing.

You know I am kidding, but evolution theory is just as dumb as the Chocolate Sunday example.  You have to bend scripture, make up events, fake fossils, and 'interpret' every other thing to make evolution theory seem to be happening.

[The Barbarian]

No, you forgot again.   Changes in allele frequency in a population.    Chocolate sundaes are not populations and they don't have alleles.

11 hours ago, Sparks said:

There are plenty of alleles in there.

 No point in denial.    Whoever told you that foolishness had no idea of anything about biology.

11 hours ago, Sparks said:

You know I am kidding

Many YE creationists actually believe that stuff.    You have to bend scripture, make up events, deny fossils, and 'interpret' every other thing to make creationism to seem reasonable.

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected  macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

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

I gave you a link to a creationist site discussing baramin (creationist theory of kinds).   Go and learn about it.  You'd be able to make some meaningful contributions here if you knew what it was all about.

 

[The Barbarian]

11 hours ago, Sparks said:

You said he didn't have theory on life, but I posted it. 

He had a religious belief about the origin of life.    Religious beliefs are not theories.

Learn about it here:

Criteria for a Theory

In order for an explanation of the natural world to be a theory, it meets certain criteria:

• A theory is falsifiable. At some point, a theory withstands testing and experimentation using the scientific method.
• A theory is supported by lots of independent evidence.
• A theory explains existing experimental results and predicts outcomes of new experiments at least as well as other theories.

https://sciencenotes.org/scientific-theory-definition-and-examples/

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps this would help you learn more about the YE approach to evolutionary change, by actual YE biologists:

A SURVEY OF CENOZOIC MAMMAL BARAMINS

ABSTRACT
To expand the sample of statistical baraminology studies, we identified 80 datasets sampled from 29 mammalian orders, from which we performed 82 separate analyses. We analyzed each dataset with standard statistical baraminology techniques: baraminic distance correlation (BDC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). We evaluated the BDC and MDS results from each character set for potential continuity and discontinuity. We found evidence of holobaramins in 57 of the 82 analyses (69.5%). Of the remaining character sets, three showed evidence of monobaramins and 22 (26.8%) were inconclusive. These results are consistent with previous efforts to test the discontinuity hypothesis, which found that a majority of character sets showed evidence of holobaramins. Tentative holobaramins represent 57 taxonomic groups, many of which have not been previously analyzed by statistical baraminology. Together with previously identified holobaramins, this study increases the number of putative mammal holobaramins to 64.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=icc_proceedings

Wouldn't hurt to look...