History Repeats Itself

[Kingpin]

Not sure I fall in to a category.  I believe God created all things, I don't believe he used evolution to make humans, I don't have an issue with 14.8 billion years, I don't think all life came from a bacteria in primordial soup.  Where does that land me?  I suppose the closest is old earth creationist, but I don't like labels, they lead to stereotypes.  Let's just go with "non-Bible thumping unique (and likeable) creationist"

Then why do we have a clear evolutionary history of humans right from the Australopithicines to modern humans.

I would disagree despite the "consensus".  Label me as you will but I think there are immense leaps being made and assumptions based on presuppositions.  I'm sure I will be flamed for taking a presupposition to God's existence as a refutation for evolution, but that's not the case.  The mathematical improbability for increased complexity by gene mutation and natural selection does not lend any credence to the "macro" evolutionary model in my mind.  

This candid admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature:  

"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change.  The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye.  Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature.  Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities.  One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

The extrapolation of macroevolution being possible because "there is enough time" is a presupposition that falls flat on its face.  There have been many discussions regarding it.  I understand it's still a highly debated topic, but I firmly believe it is based on unfounded assumptions.  Here is a good scientific peer reviewed article discussing it:


http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/...O-C.2012.4

Little snippet:

"Converting an enzyme to a new function is the kind of thing that should have occurred thousands of time in the course of evolution, given the vast array of biochemical functions carried out by extant enzymes. Yet recent work has shown that converting an enzyme encoded by a 1,200-nucleotide gene to a genuinely new function4 is likely to require seven or more coordinated mutations. This is true even though the starting and target enzymes have common three-dimensional proteinfolds and active-site chemistries— just no shared reaction [29].5 Getting seven specific changes in a gene 1,200 nucleotides long is a 1-in-10^22 event, not a 1-in-10,000 event. Even then it is by no means clear that significant changes in gene function can be had with just seven base substitutions."

In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect.  But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes.

As for the hominids, some overzealous scientists have been rebuked by University of California (Berkeley) paleontologist Tim White, as he attempts to rein in the tendency of fossil hunters to classify every find as a new species.  He said, "To evaluate the biological importance of such taxonomic claims, we must consider normal variation within biological species. Humans (and presumably their ancestors and close relatives) vary considerably in their skeletal and dental anatomy. Such variation is well documented and stems from ontogenetic, sexual, geographic, and idiosyncratic (individual) sources."

[Longhorn]

So....change gradually occurring over long periods of time is a leap....But goddidit isn't?

[Kingpin]

So....change gradually occurring over long periods of time is a leap....But goddidit isn't?

I never said that.  There are many factors that go in to my belief in God, not just as an answer to difficult questions.

[Longhorn]

No, I mean your skepticism is very selective. What about the creation 'theory' ISN'T based on a huge leap?

By the way....macroevolution IS microevolution, only occurring on a larger scale. See:



Like that.

[Kingpin]

I will admit, in the origin of the universe and creation of all things, God is the simplest answer. However, through the incredible complexity and design of the universe and humanity, morality, personal experiences, I don't find it to be that big of a leap. I cannot speak for you or anyone else. Skepticism is healthy and leads to an increase in knowledge. I investigate things I don't easily find plausible. God is no exception and I would hope that from my posts in my short time here others can see that I don't just accept it and say "Because God" or "Because the Bible". I'm a critic, of all things and I reach some conclusions based on deduction of the evidence I have. I wouldn't operate any other way.

[Longhorn]

Sure. But that 'simplest answer' is not simple at all. It completely ignores the problem of infinite regress and emergent complexity, and uses special pleading. Do not multiply entities. This hypothesis raises more questions than it answers.

To me at least, it seems like an enormous leap. What exactly is your reasoning that led you from first cause/'a creator' to a deistic deity, to then a theistic god, to then yahweh and then christian yahweh and finally to your denomination and personal version of yahweh?

Because to me it is a one big unjustified non sequitur.

[Kingpin]

Sure. But that 'simplest answer' is not simple at all. It completely ignores the problem of infinite regress and emergent complexity, and uses special pleading. Do not multiply entities. This hypothesis raises more questions that it answers.

To me at least, it seems like an enormous leap. What exactly is your reasoning that led you from first cause/'a creator' to a deistic deity, to then a theistic god, to then yahweh and then christian yahweh and finally to your denomination and personal version of yahweh?

Because to me it is a one big unjustified non sequitur.

I fully understand where you are coming from on that and that exact progression you mention is not something simple and would create a very long response to which I currently don't have time to do, but I'm not opposed to offering.

[Longhorn]

Please do, when you have time. I mean it when I say that I really want to see it. You'd be the first theist to do that. All I've ever gotten was a dodge.

[Kingpin]

No, I mean your skepticism is very selective. What about the creation 'theory' ISN'T based on a huge leap?

By the way....macroevolution IS microevolution, only occurring on a larger scale. See:



Like that.

I understand that but microevolution is variations within a species (which in the lab shows there are limits) and evolutionists state that given enough time these variations lead to entirely new species that continue to evolve and lead to more and than present pictures as proof.  Like this:

[Longhorn]

It was not meant as 'proof', but as an analogy.

What is an 'evolutionist'? -_-

And, while we're still on the topic, will you post a thread about the progression from first cause to your personal god when you have time, or would it be in this thread?