Evolution: Non-Denial Denial?

[pogi]

Well you guys, it has been fun. 

I am out. 

When someone can show me the following, PM me.  Otherwise I think I need to retire from this site for a while.  I am way less productive when I am on it. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Show me empirical evidence that demonstrates that natural selection has ever caused one class to evolve into another class.  If you cannot, then it is not a scientific theory as Popper points out.  He said it is “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”

Now, show me empirical evidence that demonstrates that genes are not "biased" or "predisposed" [for a "given novel function"].  If you cannot, again, it is not a scientific theory as there is no empirical evidence to support it - only auxiliary assumptions which have not been falsified. 

 

Edited March 29, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Well you guys, it has been fun. 

I am out. 

When someone can show me the following, PM me.  Otherwise I think I need to retire from this site for a while.  I am way less productive when I am on it. 

 

SEE

SEE https://www.boundless.com/biology/textbooks/boundless-biology-textbook/seed-plants-26/evolution-of-seed-plants-158/evolution-of-angiosperms-620-11841/

[snowflake]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Interesting. I assume you´re using the King James version. Tell me, was the sun created, (Gen.1: 3-5) on the first day Or,  (Gen. 1: 14-19) on the fourth day?

Day 4 was the sun, plants on day 3.

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Day 4 was the sun, plants on day 3.

So plants lived before there was sunlight to power them?

[snowflake]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So plants lived before there was sunlight to power them?

Plants can survive fine for one day without sunlight, no?

[thesometimesaint]

22 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Plants can survive fine for one day without sunlight, no?

2 Peter 3:8
King James Bible
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Show me a plant that can live a thousand years without sunlight.

[bcuzbcuz]

11 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Day 4 was the sun, plants on day 3.

But I wasn't asking about day 3, nor about plants.

Read Genesis 1:verses 3 through 5 again. It talks about "light", the light being called day.  Although the word "sun" is not used, is not sun implied?

Day 2 is firmament and waters,

Day three, as you stated, is plants: herbs,  grasses, trees, seeds.

Day 4. Verses 14-19. Oops. Light; again. Sun isn't mentioned here either but the light rules the day. Can sun be implied?

So back to my question. Was the sun created on day 1 or day 4?

Genesis also has two distinctly different stories about Noah. Did he takes animals two by two, or did he take sevens of the clean animals (or seven pairs). Genesis tells it both ways. 

I don't think your statement, actually answers all the questions, "I think you would find Genesis 1 directly relating on how things came to be, God gives us a few chapters on his creation."  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE

I somehow knew that SS would respond with an irrelevant link or video.  He didn't even follow my instructions to PM me.  Probably because he knows that what he has supplied is not what I asked for. 

An argument against irreducible complexity is not empirical evidence for natural selection or random mutation causing evolution from one class to another. Sorry!

Also, fossils and comparative genomics of angiosperms are not empirical evidence for natural selection or random mutation causing evolution from one class to another. Sorry!

You are not going to distract me with your straw-man arguments.  I have not seen one relevant link from you yet.  I cannot take you seriously anymore. 

Again, fossils are not empirical evidence, and because of convergent genetic evolution, "comparative genomics" has no foundation to stand on anymore, remember?

Quote

Biologists building family trees are likely being misled into suggesting that some organisms are closely related because genes and proteins are similar due to convergence, and not because the organisms had a recent common ancestor. No family trees are entirely safe from these misleading effects, Castoe says. “And we currently have no way to deal with this.”  http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/09/bats-and-dolphins-evolved-echolocation-same-way

 

Once again:

Quote

 

Show me empirical evidence that demonstrates that natural selection has ever caused one class to evolve into another class.  If you cannot, then it is not a scientific theory as Popper points out.  He said it is “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”

Now, show me empirical evidence that demonstrates that genes are not "biased" or "predisposed" [for a "given novel function"].  If you cannot, again, it is not a scientific theory as there is no empirical evidence to support it - only auxiliary assumptions which have not been falsified

 

If SS responds with another link or video instead of PM'ing me, don't waste your time!  And unless you copy and paste the relevant part of a link in your PM, I will not read it or respond.  You have proven to be a complete waste of time. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Bye Bye.

[JAHS]

47 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So plants lived before there was sunlight to power them?

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God.
3 And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light.
4 And I, God, saw the light; and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.
5 And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake; and the evening and the morning were the first day. (Moses 2:2-5)

Notice in verse 2 that it doesn't just say that darkness existed; it says that God Himself caused it to be dark; suggesting that before the creation process started there was already light.

 Orson Pratt said:

"It would seem, that light had been shining previous to this time. The universe, probably was lighted up, so far as it existed, and that light shone forth over the face of this embryo creation. Where that light came from or how it was produced is not mentioned; but the Lord was obliged to create darkness in order to envelop the earth therein. Whether the sun shone upon the face of this creation, before the Lord created darkness, is not for me to say. If it did, it would be an easy matter for him to withhold the rays of that bright luminary(sun) in such a manner as seemed good in his sight" (Journal of Discourses 16: 314)

Church President John Taylor offers this alternate possibility:

"They(Gods) next caused light to shine upon it before the sun appeared in the firmament; for God is light, and in him there is no darkness. He is the light of the sun and the power thereof by which it was made; he is also the light of the moon and the power by which it was made; he is the light of the stars and the power by which they were made. He says it is the same light that enlightens the understanding of men. What, have we a mental light and a visual light, all proceeding from the same source? Yes, so says the scripture, and so says science when rightly comprehended." (John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, 18:327.)

Church Apostle William W. Phelps observed: "We can look back to the morning of creation, when God said, Let there be light, and there was light, without ever remembering that his glory covered the heavens and his brightness was before the brightness of the sun." (The Evening And The Morning Star, I (February, 1833), p. 65)

So if it did not happen as Orson Pratt suggested, the light may have somehow emanated from God's glory or perhaps was allowed to shine from the place where God resides. It is this same light of God's glory we believe that will shine forth causing the earth to be burned at Christ's second coming (Malachi 4:1).

[thesometimesaint]

And what light would that be? Our closest star next to the sun is Alpha Centauri. It is gives little light at 4.22 light years away.

Gods' Glory may or may not cause water and Carbon Dioxide to combine to make plants survive and grow like natural sun light does.

Yet righteous mortals are supposed to survive that burning. So something else must be involved.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

But I wasn't asking about day 3, nor about plants.

Read Genesis 1:verses 3 through 5 again. It talks about "light", the light being called day.  Although the word "sun" is not used, is not sun implied?

Day 2 is firmament and waters,

Day three, as you stated, is plants: herbs,  grasses, trees, seeds.

Day 4. Verses 14-19. Oops. Light; again. Sun isn't mentioned here either but the light rules the day. Can sun be implied?

So back to my question. Was the sun created on day 1 or day 4?

Genesis also has two distinctly different stories about Noah. Did he takes animals two by two, or did he take sevens of the clean animals (or seven pairs). Genesis tells it both ways. 

I don't think your statement, actually answers all the questions, "I think you would find Genesis 1 directly relating on how things came to be, God gives us a few chapters on his creation."  

Sun was created on day 4. Is it possible to have light without the sun? I would certainly think so. Revelation 22:5  talks about heaven not having a sun, but Lord God is the light. ⁵ And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

So can there be light without a sun, sure. How about a flashlight, or your phone, or a light bulb, light not from the sun. If you read vs 14-18 it is clear that this is the sun he is talking about, giving light upon the earth, signs for seasons, days and years etc. obviously this is the day the sun is made. 

 

¹⁴ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

¹⁵ And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

¹⁶ And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

¹⁷ And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

¹⁸ And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

¹⁹ And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

And what light would that be? Our closest star next to the sun is Alpha Centauri. It is gives little light at 4.22 light years away.

Gods' Glory may or may not cause water and Carbon Dioxide to combine to make plants survive and grow like natural sun light does.

Yet righteous mortals are supposed to survive that burning. So something else must be involved.

With God involved anything is possible. I am sure He has a dimmer switch to adjust the light as necessary. ;-)

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

2 Peter 3:8
King James Bible
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Show me a plant that can live a thousand years without sunlight.

So if you would please go back and read all of 2 Peter 3, you notice that there will be scoffers willingly ignorant of creation, the flood and the end times. I have read quite a few posts on this thread that might fall into the "scoffers" category. 

As one reads the bible it is so important to look at the context of the scripture. In context, is peter talking about how God created the world or the end times?  When read in context, this verse along with verse 9 seems to be saying that "God work's on God's time, not on yours".. or God will get done what he said he will. Remember, God is outside of time, he created time so of course time does not matter to him.

In Genesis God seems to be clearly saying that these things happened in a day, not in a thousand years, I agree, how could he create plants before the sun and expect them to live?  One day, no problem.

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Sun was created on day 4. Is it possible to have light without the sun? I would certainly think so. Revelation 22:5  talks about heaven not having a sun, but Lord God is the light. ⁵ And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

So can there be light without a sun, sure. How about a flashlight, or your phone, or a light bulb, light not from the sun. If you read vs 14-18 it is clear that this is the sun he is talking about, giving light upon the earth, signs for seasons, days and years etc. obviously this is the day the sun is made. 

 

¹⁴ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

¹⁵ And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

¹⁶ And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

¹⁷ And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

¹⁸ And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

¹⁹ And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Or if you know your Hebrew you know that the Torah was composed from a variety of authors who told the same story in different ways. The "J" source who have YWHW as their common name for God,  who were priests in the southern kingdomof Judah, who wrote between 848 BC and 722 BC.   

The second or "E" group, from the northern sector of Israel, had Elohim as their god name and were inteested n the righteous efforts of their people. 

The "P" source, or the priestly code, from around the the time of Babaylonian captivity. The "P" group saw God as distant and transcendental, unmercifula nd brutal.

Then there was the "D" group deuteuronomic group. Around 622 these four sources were combined.

Verse by verse, scholars can tease apart the way in which each book of the Old Testament was woven together (see Friedman 1987 or Pelikan 2005). As a result, the Bible is full of internal contra-dictions that make it impossible for anyone who reads it closely to take it literally, but only makes sense in the context of different sources being blended together. For example, Genesis 1 (largely from the P source) gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man, and woman, but Genesis 2 (from the J source) gives it as man, plants, animals, and woman.

Excerpt From: "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" by Donald R. Prothero.

In other words, the conflict of texts is a conflict of ancient authors, each trying to focus attention on their own personal beliefs.

[Freedom]

15 hours ago, snowflake said:

Freedom, could you please show us an experiment of how life came to be?  (The Miller-Urey experiment is a bust). Please show us how using the scientific method we can observe animals changing species? Also, I think you would find Genesis 1 directly relating on how things came to be, God gives us a few chapters on his creation. 

Evolution requires massive assumptions every step of the way.

We are talking about evolution, not how life came to be. We do not know how life started and as far as I know, there are no scientific theories that consider this. There have been several links provided in this thread that show how new species have been observed in the lab. Go back and read what has been posted. Genesis 1 contradicts what is known of how the earth was formed and is not supported by a single qualified scientist. Evolution does not require any assumptions. It requires examining the data and it is the only scientific theory that exists to explain the data. According to genesis 1, the earth came into existence before any of the stars including our own sun, to name just one serious problem with the narrative.  If evolution requires massive assumptions, creationism requires a lobotomy. 

[JAHS]

10 hours ago, Freedom said:

Evolution does not require any assumptions.

Wrong. Evolution, especially on the macro scale, requires at least what one might call "reasonable" assumptions in those situations where no direct information is available or observable.

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, snowflake said:

Sun was created on day 4. Is it possible to have light without the sun? I would certainly think so. Revelation 22:5  talks about heaven not having a sun, but Lord God is the light. ⁵ And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

So can there be light without a sun, sure. How about a flashlight, or your phone, or a light bulb, light not from the sun. If you read vs 14-18 it is clear that this is the sun he is talking about, giving light upon the earth, signs for seasons, days and years etc. obviously this is the day the sun is made. 

 

¹⁴ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

¹⁵ And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

¹⁶ And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

¹⁷ And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

¹⁸ And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

¹⁹ And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Anytime you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work it is no longer science but religion.

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo Galilei

Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1072023

[thesometimesaint]

22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Wrong. Evolution, especially on the macro scale, requires at least what one might call "reasonable" assumptions in those situations where no direct information is available or observable.

CFR

[JAHS]

33 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

55 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Wrong. Evolution, especially on the macro scale, requires at least what one might call "reasonable" assumptions in those situations where no direct information is available or observable.

CFR

Besides my own experiences in the sciences, here are a few references on the internet; there are many more. I have a few books that refer to this but their packed away in boxes somewhere:

"We can use the lifetime of species to estimate how many species have ever existed. Since there are some key factors about evolution that we don't know precisely, we'll have to make some reasonable assumptions when developing our estimate."
(Evolution: Making Sense of Life by Carl Zimmer and DOuglas J Emlen, 2016)
http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf

"In reality, evolution is not without controversy. Religious objections aside, in-depth analysis of evolution raises doubts that the scientific community is hard pressed to answer. Evolution has never been fundamentally proven, and most scientists admit as much. Ironically, many evolutionists defend the theory using arguments once attributed to fundamentalist Christians, such as "it just makes the most sense," and "because I choose to believe it," or "because I refuse to believe the opposite." These scientists fill in the gaps in the evolutionary model using reasonable assumptions, something for which non-evolutionists are often criticized." 
http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-evolution-faq.htm

"Of course, assumptions, even very reasonable ones, lead us into a world of arbitrariness and speculation. This becomes obvious when we attempt to tackle such difficult topics as the origin of life, and the nature of the primitive earth. The use of assumptions is legitimate in those situations only where no direct information is available. In that case, however, we should never make the error of assuming that our reasonable assumption is of the same value as the conclusion of a scientific inquiry using the scientific method."
(PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN LIFE AN EXPLORATION IN BIOETHICS Dr. Andrew L. Szebenyi, Macroevolution: Partial knowledge leads to total confusion.)
https://web.lemoyne.edu/~szebenyi/0114.htm

 

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Besides my own experiences in the sciences, here are a few references on the internet; there are many more. I have a few books that refer to this but their packed away in boxes somewhere:

"We can use the lifetime of species to estimate how many species have ever existed. Since there are some key factors about evolution that we don't know precisely, we'll have to make some reasonable assumptions when developing our estimate."
(Evolution: Making Sense of Life by Carl Zimmer and DOuglas J Emlen, 2016)
http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--making.pdf

"In reality, evolution is not without controversy. Religious objections aside, in-depth analysis of evolution raises doubts that the scientific community is hard pressed to answer. Evolution has never been fundamentally proven, and most scientists admit as much. Ironically, many evolutionists defend the theory using arguments once attributed to fundamentalist Christians, such as "it just makes the most sense," and "because I choose to believe it," or "because I refuse to believe the opposite." These scientists fill in the gaps in the evolutionary model using reasonable assumptions, something for which non-evolutionists are often criticized." 
http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-evolution-faq.htm

"Of course, assumptions, even very reasonable ones, lead us into a world of arbitrariness and speculation. This becomes obvious when we attempt to tackle such difficult topics as the origin of life, and the nature of the primitive earth. The use of assumptions is legitimate in those situations only where no direct information is available. In that case, however, we should never make the error of assuming that our reasonable assumption is of the same value as the conclusion of a scientific inquiry using the scientific method."
(PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN LIFE AN EXPLORATION IN BIOETHICS Dr. Andrew L. Szebenyi, Macroevolution: Partial knowledge leads to total confusion.)
https://web.lemoyne.edu/~szebenyi/0114.htm

 

Thank you, but that really doesn't answer the question. Just because we don't currently have all the answers doesn't warrant tossing out a particular theory.

1. It looks like it takes about 50,000 generations for a new species to develop.

2. Of course every theory has controversy. IE; There is an ongoing debate among scientists as to the definition of gravity, but few doubt it's real existence.

3. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Plenty is still left to learn about both. We don't know everything about anything, but that is no excuse to dismiss what we do know. Such a course leads back to the caves.

[JAHS]

36 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Thank you, but that really doesn't answer the question. Just because we don't currently have all the answers doesn't warrant tossing out a particular theory.

1. It looks like it takes about 50,000 generations for a new species to develop.

2. Of course every theory has controversy. IE; There is an ongoing debate among scientists as to the definition of gravity, but few doubt it's real existence.

3. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Plenty is still left to learn about both. We don't know everything about anything, but that is no excuse to dismiss what we do know. Such a course leads back to the caves.

It answered your CFR question. Did I ever say we should toss out the theories or dismiss what we know? No. They are the best we can do now with our own limited brains. 

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It answered your CFR question. Did I ever say we should toss out the theories or dismiss what we know? No. They are the best we can do now with our own limited brains. 

On that we can agree.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Just because we don't currently have all the answers doesn't warrant tossing out a particular theory.

Just a quick chime in (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak).  I am fine with calling darwinian evolution a "theory" (a very useful one I might add) as long as we all recognize that it is a metaphysical theory and not a scientific one.

To be a scientific theory, it must be testable, repeatable, observable, and capable of being falsified through empirical testing.  Theories about history can help to explain a lot and lead to other discoveries, but they do not qualify as "scientific" theories.  Any theory that explains the origins of life from one ancestor, and the evolution from that ancestor, cannot meet those requirements.  It is as observable and testable as creationism and requires some faith as well.  Some may argue that it explains things better than creationism.  That may or may not be true, but that doesn't make it any more observable. 

Some may argue, "well, it is the best theory we have", that may or may not be true, but that still does not meet the rigorous requirements to qualify as a scientific theory.

Edited March 30, 2016 by pogi

[ERayR]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Abiogenesis is not evolution. Plenty is still left to learn about both. We don't know everything about anything, but that is no excuse to dismiss what we do know. Such a course leads back to the caves.

Ah But that is where the rub comes.  It is not at all clear what we do know.  However, I think we can all agree that things do change (evolve).  It is just how far reaching that evolution is, that is the question.