(September 21, 2015 at 9:15 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 20, 2015 at 6:15 pm)alpha male Wrote: That ignores the clear teaching that death came through Adam. Evolution depends on death.

Really? Where is this 'clear teaching' at exactly?

Because in Genesis 2 16The Lord God gave him this command: “You may eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!”

To whom was God Speaking? The world and everything in it, or to Adam and Eve?

We know He was Speaking to Adam and Eve because He addresses them specifically. We also know He is speaking to Adam's decendents as well, because of what Paul said in Romans 5:12 but on the same token we also Eternal life is also possible again in Romans 5 through Christ's sacrifice thus canceling out the 'death' of Genesis 2, or so says Paul when he explains the meaning of "True life and True Death" in Romans 5:18-21.

That said nothing in the bible says everything else on the planet was immortal. that is just the religious (not biblically founded) teaching of men.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

You answered it yourself there.

(September 19, 2015 at 6:23 am)alpha male Wrote:

(September 18, 2015 at 7:13 pm)Shuffle Wrote: Um... I am confused now. You just linked an article going over more than 29 pieces of evidence for evolution. Is that supposed to help your point or............

The problem is that their supposed pieces of evidence don't meet their own criteria for scientific evidence.

Read the first one, compare it to their definition of evidence, and see if you can spot any problems.

Shuffle?

(September 16, 2015 at 1:10 am)Shuffle Wrote: Can all christians that don't believe in evolution explain to me your problems with it. It is just really hard for me to rap my head around someone not believeing in evolution in the 21st century, so it would make it easier if I understood exactly why you don't. And maybe I can help you through your confusions, maybe not.

Thanks!

I have been meaning to respond to your question here, and finally found a moment to do so.  I would start by saying, that I do believe in evolution as in change over time.  A snake with legs does not surprise me, or get me worried. I started out as a theistic evolutionist, and then started to study as questions arose.  As I mentioned to TRS in my introductory posts, I would say that I am skeptical of common descent evolution and think that the arguments against the neo-Darwinian model of devastating (and that it is only held onto, for lack of anything better).  From here on out, I'll shorten common descent evolution to just evolution for simplicity.

First, I see two categories of evidence in regards to evolution, which haven't changed much since Darwin.  There are similarities between creatures, and the appearance and disappearance of creatures in the fossil record.  While the categories of evidence  haven't changed much, we do have more information than Darwin did, and I see some of this as aiding the theory of common descent and some has hurting it.  The discovery and study of DNA has shown us, that the previous assumptions of similarity are at times more than we previously thought.  Sometimes it can be used to correct, and I think that sometimes it hurts the theory.  One of the main assumptions of evolution is that similarities are the result of common descent.  That similar features are the result of similar descent.  This is what I would expect if our understanding of DNA is true.  However when this reasoning doesn't fit the accepted phylogenetic model, then it is said to be convergence and further evidence of evolution (the original assumptions cannot be wrong).  Nature finding a similar method to solve a similar problem.  The reasoning shifts to accommodate the model.  The addition of DNA studies does make this a more convincing argument; however we are also finding that convergence (including at the DNA level) is more common then we thought.  I think that it is reasonable that similar species are more likely to have convergence with a similar starting point, than dis-similar species.  Further and I think that the most convincing evidence for common descent is the presence of retro-virus DNA found along a believed line of evolution.  There is some debate over whether these are really retrovirus's especially when they are found to be functional and necessary.  It is also my understanding that these too, suffer from the problem of convergence.  If this can occur in unrelated species, then I believe that this also weakens the presumption in similar species... again shouldn't similar species be more likely to have a similar retro-virus?

I realize that this could be a fairly long post, so I'm gong to break it up into a couple of posts.   Comments and corrections are welcome; non-constructive criticism will likely be ignored. There will be three posts for anyone who wishes to wait until I'm done.

(October 10, 2015 at 7:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

---

I have been meaning to respond to your question here, and finally found a moment to do so.  I would start by saying, that I do believe in evolution as in change over time.  A snake with legs does not surprise me, or get me worried. I started out as a theistic evolutionist, and then started to study as questions arose.  As I mentioned to TRS in my introductory posts, I would say that I am skeptical of common descent evolution and think that the arguments against the neo-Darwinian model of devastating (and that it is only held onto, for lack of anything better).  From here on out, I'll shorten common descent evolution to just evolution for simplicity.

First, I see two categories of evidence in regards to evolution, which haven't changed much since Darwin.  There are similarities between creatures, and the appearance and disappearance of creatures in the fossil record.  While the categories of evidence  haven't changed much, we do have more information than Darwin did, and I see some of this as aiding the theory of common descent and some has hurting it.  The discovery and study of DNA has shown us, that the previous assumptions of similarity are at times more than we previously thought.  Sometimes it can be used to correct, and I think that sometimes it hurts the theory.  One of the main assumptions of evolution is that similarities are the result of common descent.  That similar features are the result of similar descent.  This is what I would expect if our understanding of DNA is true.  However when this reasoning doesn't fit the accepted phylogenetic model, then it is said to be convergence and further evidence of evolution (the original assumptions cannot be wrong).  Nature finding a similar method to solve a similar problem.  The reasoning shifts to accommodate the model.  The addition of DNA studies does make this a more convincing argument; however we are also finding that convergence (including at the DNA level) is more common then we thought.  I think that it is reasonable that similar species are more likely to have convergence with a similar starting point, than dis-similar species.  Further and I think that the most convincing evidence for common descent is the presence of retro-virus DNA found along a believed line of evolution.  There is some debate over whether these are really retrovirus's especially when they are found to be functional and necessary.  It is also my understanding that these too, suffer from the problem of convergence.  If this can occur in unrelated species, then I believe that this also weakens the presumption in similar species... again shouldn't similar species be more likely to have a similar retro-virus?

I realize that this could be a fairly long post, so I'm gong to break it up into a couple of posts.   Comments and corrections are welcome; non-constructive criticism will likely be ignored.  There will be three posts for anyone who wishes to wait until I'm done.

---

Oh thank goodness, a debater who has some concept of the subject material!! Thank you for that! Seriously. I had become nearly worn out with arguing with Christians just trying to get them to accept the most basic premises of science; rather than arguing about evolution, we ended up arguing about what science even was and why their arguments weren't what science claims at all. So it was a big tension followed by a big relief to read this.

That said, I do have a couple of things I'd like clarified before I begin to answer, here (and I recognize you said you have more coming, so it may be in that, and if so I apologize in advance).

First, what do you mean by DNA "shifts the model" in cases of convergent evolution? Can you give me an example of something we thought was an issue of common descent that DNA later proved to be convergent, and was shifted? I'm unfamiliar with this actually happening. I'm aware of quite a great many examples of convergent evolution, of course, but none that we did not already know were such before the advent of DNA scanning techniques. Then again, I went to college after those techniques were invented, so I may have missed such shifts that occurred before my time. Still, I would be very surprised to learn of any examples of something that is convergent evolution that was thought to be the product of a shared recent ancestry, prior to 1985 (invention of Polymerase Chain Reaction that allowed for sequencing of DNA on any useful scale).

Second, you said, "There is some debate over whether these are really retrovirus's [sic] especially when they are found to be functional and necessary." That's not really how endogenous retrovirus (ERV) scars work; I'm not even sure how you could mean an endogenous retrovirus being "functional and necessary", since by definition they are not part of the cell's original apparatus. They have been known to trigger useful mutations, but that's not quite the same thing. They are non-functional "scars" of previous infections, and while there are ERVs that infect more than one group of species in a region (meaning ones that cannot be related for other biological or genetic reasons), they're not used as evidence of common descent (though they are sometimes used to look at prehistorical patterns of migration; if they were not in contact regionally, they cannot have been exposed to the same exact virus). To the second part of the ERV question: If the species are similar enough genetically to get the exact same species of retrovirus, as with some that affect chimpanzees and us, or baboons and all other primates, then (depending on the location infected, which may be shared among all groups) it just indicates that they share that heritage because of the exact site of scarring. You may be thinking of germs (such as H1N1) that cross entire genera or even families of animals, but those actually must mutate in a particular way to do so; it is this evolution pattern of the influenza virus that forces us to look at it when it first appears in China in birds and "guess" what mutations will occur to let it jump to us... sometimes we guess wrong. So again, I'm going to need some examples of where this occurs.

You are also leaving out other "gene-scarring" elements that, once they occur, get passed down only in the descendants, and do not cross over to other members of the species (of that generation; in later generations, as they have more descendants, it "spreads out" among the population, and may become "fixed" in the whole species over several generations), let alone other species, such as transposons. Are you aware of these and their significance?

And third, when you say "The discovery and study of DNA has shown us, that the previous assumptions of similarity are at times more than we previously thought.", this is true... sort of. There were some errors, in places where the evidence was "thin on the ground", so to speak, and conjectures had to be made, but scientists are pretty careful to mark conjecture as conjecture, and not to say "we know what this is!" before they do. Usually, more evidence means we can settle things that were not fully settled before, which is different from how you seem to be phrasing this point. I don't mean to be a jerk by saying so, only that I think you may be reading the significance of those shifts in an inaccurate light. As before, I would need specific instances before I could tell you more about it.

I'm going to go get some food now. Be back in 45 minutes or so, most likely. I feel like having Chinese buffet.

Edit to Add: I am ten years "out of the loop" on the latest science, as I was wrongfully incarcerated for the past 9 years, and only got exonerated (thankfully only 1/3rd of the way through the sentence I would otherwise have had to serve!) and released in late April. Though I have worked hard to catch up on the latest, I recognize that there may be some discoveries in the past ten years of which I am myself not aware. Please feel free to link me to any scholarly articles or good science blogs on the points you wish to offer... you will find me appreciative.

(October 10, 2015 at 8:27 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 7:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

---

I have been meaning to respond to your question here, and finally found a moment to do so.  I would start by saying, that I do believe in evolution as in change over time.  A snake with legs does not surprise me, or get me worried. I started out as a theistic evolutionist, and then started to study as questions arose.  As I mentioned to TRS in my introductory posts, I would say that I am skeptical of common descent evolution and think that the arguments against the neo-Darwinian model of devastating (and that it is only held onto, for lack of anything better).  From here on out, I'll shorten common descent evolution to just evolution for simplicity.

First, I see two categories of evidence in regards to evolution, which haven't changed much since Darwin.  There are similarities between creatures, and the appearance and disappearance of creatures in the fossil record.  While the categories of evidence  haven't changed much, we do have more information than Darwin did, and I see some of this as aiding the theory of common descent and some has hurting it.  The discovery and study of DNA has shown us, that the previous assumptions of similarity are at times more than we previously thought.  Sometimes it can be used to correct, and I think that sometimes it hurts the theory.  One of the main assumptions of evolution is that similarities are the result of common descent.  That similar features are the result of similar descent.  This is what I would expect if our understanding of DNA is true.  However when this reasoning doesn't fit the accepted phylogenetic model, then it is said to be convergence and further evidence of evolution (the original assumptions cannot be wrong).  Nature finding a similar method to solve a similar problem.  The reasoning shifts to accommodate the model.  The addition of DNA studies does make this a more convincing argument; however we are also finding that convergence (including at the DNA level) is more common then we thought.  I think that it is reasonable that similar species are more likely to have convergence with a similar starting point, than dis-similar species.  Further and I think that the most convincing evidence for common descent is the presence of retro-virus DNA found along a believed line of evolution.  There is some debate over whether these are really retrovirus's especially when they are found to be functional and necessary.  It is also my understanding that these too, suffer from the problem of convergence.  If this can occur in unrelated species, then I believe that this also weakens the presumption in similar species... again shouldn't similar species be more likely to have a similar retro-virus?

I realize that this could be a fairly long post, so I'm gong to break it up into a couple of posts.   Comments and corrections are welcome; non-constructive criticism will likely be ignored.  There will be three posts for anyone who wishes to wait until I'm done.

---

---

Oh thank goodness, a debater who has some concept of the subject material!! Thank you for that! Seriously. I had become nearly worn out with arguing with Christians just trying to get them to accept the most basic premises of science; rather than arguing about evolution, we ended up arguing about what science even was and why their arguments weren't what science claims at all. So it was a big tension followed by a big relief to read this.

That said, I do have a couple of things I'd like clarified before I begin to answer, here (and I recognize you said you have more coming, so it may be in that, and if so I apologize in advance).

First, what do you mean by DNA "shifts the model" in cases of convergent evolution? Can you give me an example of something we thought was an issue of common descent that DNA later proved to be convergent, and was shifted? I'm unfamiliar with this actually happening. I'm aware of quite a great many examples of convergent evolution, of course, but none that we did not already know were such before the advent of DNA scanning techniques. Then again, I went to college after those techniques were invented, so I may have missed such shifts that occurred before my time. Still, I would be very surprised to learn of any examples of something that is convergent evolution that was thought to be the product of a shared recent ancestry, prior to 1985 (invention of Polymerase Chain Reaction that allowed for sequencing of DNA on any useful scale).

Second, you said, "There is some debate over whether these are really retrovirus's [sic] especially when they are found to be functional and necessary."  That's not really how endogenous retrovirus (ERV) scars work; I'm not even sure how you could mean an endogenous retrovirus being "functional and necessary", since by definition they are not part of the cell's original apparatus. They have been known to trigger useful mutations, but that's not quite the same thing. They are non-functional "scars" of previous infections, and while there are ERVs that infect more than one group of species in a region (meaning ones that cannot be related for other biological or genetic reasons), they're not used as evidence of common descent (though they are sometimes used to look at prehistorical patterns of migration; if they were not in contact regionally, they cannot have been exposed to the same exact virus). To the second part of the ERV question: If the species are similar enough genetically to get the exact same species of retrovirus, as with some that affect chimpanzees and us, or baboons and all other primates, then (depending on the location infected, which may be shared among all groups) it just indicates that they share that heritage because of the exact site of scarring. You may be thinking of germs (such as H1N1) that cross entire genera or even families of animals, but those actually must mutate in a particular way to do so; it is this evolution pattern of the influenza virus that forces us to look at it when it first appears in China in birds and "guess" what mutations will occur to let it jump to us... sometimes we guess wrong. So again, I'm going to need some examples of where this occurs.

You are also leaving out other "gene-scarring" elements that, once they occur, get passed down only in the descendants, and do not cross over to other members of the species (of that generation; in later generations, as they have more descendants, it "spreads out" among the population, and may become "fixed" in the whole species over several generations), let alone other species, such as transposons. Are you aware of these and their significance?

And third, when you say "The discovery and study of DNA has shown us, that the previous assumptions of similarity are at times more than we previously thought.", this is true... sort of. There were some errors, in places where the evidence was "thin on the ground", so to speak, and conjectures had to be made, but scientists are pretty careful to mark conjecture as  conjecture, and not to say "we know what this is!" before they do. Usually, more evidence means we can settle things that were not fully settled before, which is different from how you seem to be phrasing this point. I don't mean to be a jerk by saying so, only that I think you may be reading the significance of those shifts in an inaccurate light. As before, I would need specific instances before I could tell you more about it.

I'm going to go get some food now. Be back in 45 minutes or so, most likely. I feel like having Chinese buffet.

Edit to Add: I am ten years "out of the loop" on the latest science, as I was wrongfully incarcerated for the past 9 years, and only got exonerated (thankfully only 1/3rd of the way through the sentence I would otherwise have had to serve!) and released in late April. Though I have worked hard to catch up on the latest, I recognize that there may be some discoveries in the past ten years of which I am myself not aware. Please feel free to link me to any scholarly articles or good science blogs on the points you wish to offer... you will find me appreciative.

---

Thank you for the compliments... I am by no means any type of scholar on the issue, but I do try to follow it and find it interesting.  Upon typing some of this (particularly the second post after which you commented, I am realizing, that I do need to read more of the scholarly articles if I can find the time and I'm able to understand.  I find many of the popular sites and comments to be a bit fishy, and low on actual evidence.  I do visit http://www.uncommondescent.com/   you may not agree with many there, but I think you could enjoy some of the info, and perhaps even contribute. 

To your first question, about convergence; what I mean is that the same reasoning and evidence for common descent doesn't come to the same conclusion when it doesn't fit the model.  I'm either missing something which validates this distinction, or this reasoning is more based on presumptions to the idea, then is normally let on.  I think it at least calls into question the certaintly when applied to common descent.

To the second question, I am by no means an expert, although I do ask questions.  I apologize in advance if I mix up terms.   I welcome any insight you can give me here, or better yet, point me in the right direction to study further.

In your third point, I agree that I need to read more of the scholarly articles.  And I agree that scientist are "pretty careful" in mark conjecture  in these articles, although I have read some which aren't so, and pass peer review with big assumptions especially in regards to evolution.  Some skepticism on peer review is generating into more of a debate lately though I notice.  I also find that many of the popular articles presented to the public far exceed the statements of the scholarly ones.  Would you agree, that in peer review accepted ideas are going to be much easier to pass, than controversial ones?  I did hear an interview of someone who had passed the peer review board, and received notice at the last minute that his article would not be published, because of complaints about it's contents and the implications that could be made.  This was unprecedented for this publisher after passing peer review, and the article was rejected because it was I.D. friendly.  (Not promoting I.D. but could be used by them). 

Do you think that evidence which may be harmful to the theory of evolution should be taught?  I do agree, that the difficulty from both sides is to do so without bias.

---

Crap... somehow instead of new post, my second post was combined with my response to you.  I thought it was a copy and paste duplicate, and deleted it.   I guess I'll have to re-write it later.

(October 10, 2015 at 8:28 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: In your third point, I agree that I need to read more of the scholarly articles.  And I agree that scientist are "pretty careful" in mark conjecture  in these articles, although I have read some which aren't so, and pass peer review with big assumptions especially in regards to evolution.  Some skepticism on peer review is generating into more of a debate lately though I notice.  I also find that many of the popular articles presented to the public far exceed the statements of the scholarly ones.  Would you agree, that in peer review accepted ideas are going to be much easier to pass, than controversial ones?  I did hear an interview of someone who had passed the peer review board, and received notice at the last minute that his article would not be published, because of complaints about it's contents and the implications that could be made.  This was unprecedented for this publisher after passing peer review, and the article was rejected because it was I.D. friendly.  (Not promoting I.D. but could be used by them). 

Do you think that evidence which may be harmful to the theory of evolution should be taught?  I do agree, that the difficulty from both sides is to do so without bias.

I have heard several of the ID people complaining that they were passed up for peer review because  they were ID proponents, but in ever case I have read directly, the journal publishers were quite clear (and indeed, follow-up articles were written on the cases I have seen) that they were making assumptions not proper for a scientific paper. It was not that they had an unpopular opinion that sunk them, but the fact that they were not following well-established scientific protocols required for any  paper to be published. There are many people in the ID community who go out of their way to play the victim card, and claim it is the nature of their work, rather than the methodology of their work, that is causing them to be excluded. If you really want to see why this is the case, read the transcript of the Kitzmiller  case, found here, or any of a number of excellent summaries of that case, at the same site.

Peer review does not quite mean what it seems from this that you think (and the author of that article thinks) it means. Peer review is the process by which scientists confirm your work through their own experiments, and publish any errors in methodology or outcome that they uncover, criticize assumptions, etc. Before being published, journals do submit their papers to a board to determine if they're even worth publishing, the first step in peer review, but the members of the board are often not fully qualified for the detailed specifics of every paper that comes in front of them, and often will just scan for grievous and/or obvious errors that would sink the thing before it got off the ground (bad data, obviously unjustified conclusions, etc). Being published is not enough, in science, though it is of course a good thing. It is merely the first major step in the peer review process... once a paper has been cited to by follow-up articles that either have tested the work or used the work in their own work, it may be considered "peer-reviewed" on a full level. Technically, no paper ever "finishes" being peer-reviewed.

And, as I think you implied, many articles aren't even being thoroughly reviewed before being published, resulting in some seriously bad science getting out there into the body of literature, which began to draw enough notice from the scientists who had to test the junk publications that some of them got together and deliberately slipped junk through to see at what rate it would pass board review. It was not a good discovery, but it is in the nature of science to spot such problems and work to correct them. Still, this is why simply relying on a published article alone is not enough to constitute "the body of scientific knowledge", despite their availability online for citation, unless the person doing the citing is also willing to look at what else was published after that article, and what other scientists said about it. In many of my online debates with Creationists or ID people, on here, I have had some articles quoted at me (or worse, quote-mined at me, a serious pet peeve of mine) that I was forced to chase down and show that the article had been roundly criticized by follow-up experiments/reviews.

When you ask me, "Do you think that evidence which may be harmful to the theory of evolution should be taught?", it tells me that you still don't trust the basic integrity of scientists. And that's okay; the best thing about science is that it doesn't ask you to trust anyone! 

Yes. I absolutely think that evidence which is harmful to any theory should be taught, if it is taught honestly, and not in a skewed way to promote an agenda. I wish I had such evidence! If I could disprove everything we think we know about evolution tomorrow, I'd have a Nobel with my name on it, in next years prize awards.

That's the problem, really. People often claim to have evidence which harms the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean they really do. They may in fact either not understand the theory, not understand what kind of evidence would disprove it, or think some alternative hypothesis with incredibly weak evidence can somehow dislodge it completely.

If anyone really does have such evidence, they are keeping it well hidden.

(September 16, 2015 at 1:10 am)Shuffle Wrote: Can all christians that don't believe in evolution explain to me your problems with it. It is just really hard for me to rap my head around someone not believeing in evolution in the 21st century, so it would make it easier if I understood exactly why you don't. And maybe I can help you through your confusions, maybe not.

Thanks!

lol i dont think there are many christians here maybe try posting this question on >snip<

So... on to the second category - the fossil record.

The fossil record shows the appearance and for many the disappearance of creatures and plants throughout geological time.  This begs the question of how these creatures came to be.  The fossil record is still incomplete, and by it's very nature shows us snapshots in time.  I always like when a creature which is believed to be extinct for millennia suddenly shows up. 

Charles Darwin said

Quote:Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)

And despite a largely expanded fossil record this is still true.  We do see some similarities, in which we can imagine a common lineage, but I am not persuaded by the evidence I have seen.  It is still not a finely graduated chain which is described.  I have also become leery of drawings presented as evidence.  I have found at times, where claims and similarities are greatly exaggerated based on scant fossil evidence.  I do want to know what they are basing their conclusion on what are the similarities and differences, and what fossil they have. This is often lacking at least in the popular articles.

Also, I do believe that the fossil record does show a punctuated equilibrium.  Where creatures suddenly appear fully formed, and remain largely unchanged for their time in the fossil record.  Similarly in events such as the Cambrian explosion we see major changes in a relatively short period of time.

Also just to be up front - I do question some of the assumptions in dating.  We are assuming that the daughter isotope is completely removed during formation of the rock.  Also the dating is not done on the fossils themselves, nor the rock in which they are found (you cannot date sedimentary rock in which most fossils remain).

The process of fossilization means that the vast majority of animals which died weren't fossilized, and those that were have been subject to the vicissitudes of time.

The fossil record does show some instances of rapid speciation. Indeed, we have seen speciation in our recent history, with fish in Mexico. That only means that the process can be sped up by selection pressures, which is after all one of the logical inferences of EbNS. Allopatric speciation also tends to happen quicker due to the isolation of the breeding population.

As for how fossil lineages are tracked, it is usually done by way of comparative study of homologous bones. You're right that the drawings are most often speculative, but they are also based on fossil information. No one regards the drawings as evidence, and you shouldn't either.

As for radiometric dating, I'll have to get home and on my computer. It's a little too complex to handle on my phone without clear references handy.