Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
Yahweh and Evolution incompatable.
-
Yahweh and Evolution incompatable.
Yahweh (God the Father in Christianity) didn’t use evolution in Genesis nor did he give a hint of creating over millions of years.
Can anyone give their shot at putting evolution or progressive creation into an account that gives a no hint of either?
-
79 Replies
-
The Bible does say creation took six days and everywhere else it says that too. So everyone is deceived and God didn’t even show it if progressive creation is true.
-
The hint is God brooded over the deep. That’s pretty good for the days before science. Jesus brought no new technology or medical data. Why expect more from Genesis?
You should think about that, Jesus was said to cure the sick but modern medicine didn’t appear for millennia. Why not reveal the microscope, and give humanity a real boost?
-
“The hint is God brooded over the deep. That’s pretty good for the days before science. Jesus brought no new technology or medical data. Why expect more from Genesis?
You should think about that, Jesus was said to cure the sick but modern medicine didn’t appear for millennia. Why not reveal the microscope, and give humanity a real boost?”
Why, God told the Israelites to washing their hands in running water instead of standing water. Is that not science?
-
Slim offerings from your God, when a clue about microbes might’ve prevented black death. Your God only offered the most primitive principles, like you weren’t worth more.
-
“Slim offerings from your God, when a clue about microbes might’ve
prevented black death. Your God only offered the most primitive
principles, like you weren’t worth more.”Why would God want to prevent the punishment he put on us from the fall?
-
Your argument goes around in pretty little circles, God is great for giving a hint about avoiding stagnant water, and also great for not treating you better than He does animals.
-
“Your argument goes around in pretty little circles, God is great for
giving a hint about avoiding stagnant water, and also great for not
treating you better than He does animals.”Let me see…let’s change history for a moment. God curses man with his punishment of toil, disease, etc., then gives them the cure for it. If man brought this punishment upon himself, then he is obligated to figure out most diseases himself.
Even if the above argument doesn’t work, we are not in a position to say that God treated us like animals, especially us in the 21st century. What would people say earlier?
-
My point is you have argued both sides. Told that God should have given technical advice in Bible times you cited vague pointers about hand-washing found therein. As it is emphasized you take the other side, saying God was great for letting man take the punishment. So you’ve left a tiny window for God, between giving advice about hand-washing and complete neglect, for either of which you’d offer utmost praises. The hand-washing seems to cancel the neglect; and implies He was not treating humans well at all.
For your argument to be coherent you have to say why God stopped with hand-washing. The raccoons learn this too, in mountain streams. Is man then not greater than a raccoon?
You sure have an odd way of looking at history; as if God plotted the diseases too. If you think this way it is no wonder your mind isn’t ready to think about your soul, or its real fate. “Maybe God plotted the diseases” reveals shabby thinking about God, and disease.
-
“My point is you have argued both sides. Told that God should have given technical advice in Bible times you cited vague pointers about hand-washing found therein. As it is emphasized you take the other side, saying God was great for letting man take the punishment. So you’ve left a tiny window for God, between giving advice about hand-washing and complete neglect, for either of which you’d offer utmost praises. The hand-washing seems to cancel the neglect; and implies He was not treating humans well at all.”
Does God need to do what you say? Can you explain that paragraph a little more?
“For your argument to be coherent you have to say why God stopped with hand-washing. The raccoons learn this too, in mountain streams. Is man then not greater than a raccoon?”
Can you search the Bible to see what did reveal to man? That way we don’t misrepresent the Bible.
“You sure have an odd way of looking at history; as if God plotted the diseases too. If you think this way it is no wonder your mind isn’t ready to think about your soul, or its real fate. “Maybe God plotted the diseases” reveals shabby thinking about God, and disease.”
I didn’t say God plotted to disease; I do believe he knew it would come, but that’s not the same as determining.
-
You don’t seem to remember your own argument. Scan up the page a little. Reread it if you think it is important, otherwise pass on. You were the one who cited hand-washing.
You and all humans should be facing the real world and asking how God is its Maker. If you could then you wouldn’t develop a weird view that evil was something God inflicted.
-
“You and all humans should be facing the real world and asking how God is
its Maker. If you could then you wouldn’t develop a weird view that
evil was something God inflicted.”You don’t seem to believe in God, jayceeii. God can’t create evil. He created the POSSIBILITY of evil for free will, but he didn’t create it one bit. Why would you think that?
-
We’re talking past each other. It doesn’t seem like we’re using the word “create,” as in God created, in anything like compatible ways. I don’t believe in your God, which is to say the idea about God in your human mind. I believe in a Living God, you would deny.
-
“We’re talking past each other. It doesn’t seem like we’re using the word
“create,” as in God created, in anything like compatible ways. I don’t
believe in your God, which is to say the idea about God in your human
mind. I believe in a Living God, you would deny.”What do you believe?
-
I believe Christians are those Jesus meant, saying many would say, “Lord, Lord.” In general this means God knew the religion would be popular, but not responsive to Him.
-
“I believe Christians are those Jesus meant, saying many would say,
“Lord, Lord.” In general this means God knew the religion would be
popular, but not responsive to Him.”What does that last sentence mean?
-
It means Christians have seized an impossible literal interpretation of Jesus’ statement He would return “on a cloud,” by which they deny the Lord could appear physically again. The term has new meaning in recent years, as so many refer to the internet as “the cloud.” In this they deny the very mechanism they claim to believe in, saying that “Jesus is Lord.” That is, they accept that God can take on a human body, but won’t let Him do it. This further means they’re condemned by their own standards, not truly believing in God.
-
“It means Christians have seized an impossible literal interpretation of
Jesus’ statement He would return “on a cloud,” by which they deny the
Lord could appear physically again. The term has new meaning in recent
years, as so many refer to the internet as “the cloud.” In this they
deny the very mechanism they claim to believe in, saying that “Jesus is
Lord.” That is, they accept that God can take on a human body, but won’t
let Him do it. This further means they’re condemned by their own
standards, not truly believing in God.”Christians have? Jesus is not returning “on a cloud” but “on the clouds of heaven”. I think that is just referencing what how it is seen to other people.
-
The long and the short of it is Christians make it impossible for the Lord to return, as each conceives they will be blessed privately although this interferes with all the rest. No one really likes Jesus, no one wants to see Jesus or to hear more from Jesus. No one ever expresses a desire He had lived longer to say more, or says they wish Jesus had not suffered but instead lived a full life so they could see what He was like on His best days. Christians seek to exploit the Lord for selfish purposes, not to become His companions.
-
“The long and the short of it is Christians make it impossible for the
Lord to return, as each conceives they will be blessed privately
although this interferes with all the rest. No one really likes Jesus,
no one wants to see Jesus or to hear more from Jesus.”Of course most don’t like Jesus. He goes against their desires.
-
You and your devils don’t like Jesus, you mean. Now you have confessed you feel demonic influences over your mind, the devils reaching right in there where others claim to be thinking on their own without noticing devils crowding in, I wonder what it is like in your particular church. I can imagine you sit in a sad circle and commiserate, each confessing devils are in their head with them. How can you have a friendship like that? Perhaps that’s the real meaning of Legion, from the Bible. It may have been an adroit comment that humans not in control of their own minds are torn by dark inner forces. I can’t imagine any friendships thriving, when the people believe they’re multiple inside. A friendship means one person confronting another, two intact souls, not souls claiming to have devils attached to their heads like lamprey eels. But this is what you said you have.
-
“You and your devils don’t like Jesus, you mean.”
What do you mean by “devil”?
“Now you have confessed
you feel demonic influences over your mind, the devils reaching right in
there where others claim to be thinking on their own without noticing
devils crowding in, I wonder what it is like in your particular church.”Satan likes to disguise himself, make it look like it’s your own thoughts.
“I
can imagine you sit in a sad circle and commiserate, each confessing
devils are in their head with them. How can you have a friendship like
that?”I call them demons, but whatever. What’s your point here?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yahweh did not write Genesis.
-
His people did. I don’t see your point here. I’m saying the Christian God and Evolution are incompatable
-
Yahweh speaks for Himself in the Incarnation. And He sends messengers. The messengers are sent to His people. They are not the people. If the Christian God and evolution are not compatible then the Christian God is a figment of the human mind.
-
<div> “Yahweh speaks for Himself in the Incarnation. And He sends messengers. The messengers are sent to His people.
They are not the people. If the Christian God and evolution are not
compatible then the Christian God is a figment of the human mind.”</div><div>And the people write down what the messengers say.
God and Natural Selection are compatible, but not full-out Evolution as is prevalent in society today.
</div>
-
The people revile the messengers unless they’re careful to say what they want to hear. Why isn’t any of this going on today? Jesus said they’d be sent, and if so they’d be killed.
What science discovers is what God has actually done; as will eventually be admitted. The people ought to have been looking for glory in foundational miracles of this planet.
-
“The people revile the messengers unless they’re careful to say what they want to hear. Why isn’t any of this going on today? Jesus said they’d be sent, and if so they’d be killed.”
Can you explain your confusing point again? I’m trying to catch up right now.
“What science discovers is what God has actually done; as will eventually be admitted. The people ought to have been looking for glory in foundational miracles of this planet.”
Yes.
-
You might not “catch up” with me for awhile, or forever. There are problems in this world but no messengers guiding men through these; it is clear that they are reviled.
If you accept the foundational miracles then you should be able to dispense with the fake miracles from Christianity, such as the Resurrection. This should be easy, if you see truly.
-
“You might not “catch up” with me for awhile, or forever. There are problems in this world but no messengers guiding men through these; it is clear that they are reviled.”
That’s disappointing. I may not catch up and the world is rejecting prophets as is predicted in God’s word.
“If you accept the foundational miracles then you should be able to dispense with the fake miracles from Christianity, such as the Resurrection. This should be easy, if you see truly.”
What do you mean by that?
-
It isn’t disappointing, it is ordinary reality. You are one who rejects the prophets. Otherwise we’d see them guiding the people directly and safely through this era.
If you absorb yourself in the glory of a great planet and fantastic bodies, the fake miracles fall away as silly distractions. Buddha was the Incarnation too; God’s Presence is enough.
-
“It isn’t disappointing, it is ordinary reality. You are one who rejects
the prophets. Otherwise we’d see them guiding the people directly and
safely through this era.”What prophets?
-
Indeed, what prophets? My point is they’d be here and guiding, would men accept them. Jesus said a prophet is not honored in his own country, but the situation is far worse than that. A movement needs a beginning, but there are no beginnings without individuals, and among humans a prophet finds them expecting a movement before they accept authority. He can’t speak to all humans because he can’t speak to one. Each one turns his face away.
-
“Indeed, what prophets? My point is they’d be here and guiding, would men
accept them? Jesus said a prophet is not honored in his own country,
but the situation is far worse than that. A movement needs a beginning,
but there are no beginnings without individuals, and among humans a
prophet finds them expecting a movement before they accept authority. He
can’t speak to all humans because he can’t speak to one. Each one turns
his face away.”How does this apply to me?
-
No prophets have gotten near to you to find you deny them? Or the Lord? Were the manner of denial not so severe, more might try it. Those who dare to try are killed. I mean, it’s not like Christians have any corner in their mind to seriously consider God or His messenger is near. They don’t ask questions, just reaching for a gun, and it is over. Instead of questions, just as here at the forum, there is a flood of counter-hypotheses. “I know better than you,” “There is another prophet than you, maybe even my nephew.” I turns out humans have no mental faculty to confront an authority directly; they only rage.
-
“No prophets have gotten near to you to find you deny them?”
What “prophets”? If you mean Lou Angle, Daniel Kolenda, etc., then you’re wrong.
-
You wouldn’t know a prophet from a hole in the wall. Were the Lord Himself here you’d turn Him away. Reverence for God begins with reverence for those who have noble traits.
-
“You wouldn’t know a prophet from a hole in the wall. Were the Lord
Himself here you’d turn Him away. Reverence for God begins with
reverence for those who have noble traits.”And who might those be?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Theistic evolutionists aren’t saying that the Bible gives an account of evolution. They’re merely making the claim that Genesis and evolution are compatible (as far as I know, that is). They don’t need to defend a claim they aren’t making.
-
“Theistic evolutionists aren’t saying that the Bible gives an account of
evolution. They’re merely making the claim that Genesis and evolution
are compatible (as far as I know, that is). They don’t need to defend a
claim they aren’t making.”Theistic Evolutionists are Theistic Evolutionists! They claim God used evolution. Are you thinking of another kind of creationism?
-
Well, theistic evolutionists claim that God used evolution, but they aren’t claiming that the Bible gives an account of evolution. Those are two different claims. They agree that the Bible doesn’t say evolution is true, but that hardly affects the claim that the Bible and evolution are compatible.
You believe that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President. Yahweh didn’t use the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President in Genesis, nor did he give a hint of Abraham Lincoln being the 16th President.
Can you give your shot at putting the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President into an account that gives no hint of Abraham Lincoln being the 16th President?
Theistic evolutionists aren’t trying to “put theistic evolution into” the Bible. That’s a very different claim than trying to reconcile the Bible and evolution.
-
“Well, theistic evolutionists claim that God used evolution, but they aren’t claiming that the Bible gives an account of evolution. Those are two different claims. They agree that the Bible doesn’t say evolution is true, but that hardly affects the claim that the Bible and evolution are compatible.
You believe that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President. Yahweh didn’t use the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President in Genesis, nor did he give a hint of Abraham Lincoln being the 16th President.
Can you give your shot at putting the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President into an account that gives no hint of Abraham Lincoln being the 16th President?
Theistic evolutionists aren’t trying to “put theistic evolution into” the Bible. That’s a very different claim than trying to reconcile the Bible and evolution.”
The Bible should if that was part of creation week.
-
-
-
-
Look into St Augustine – he made the point that obviously the “days” in genesis can’t be 24 hour days if the earth and sun hadn’t been made yet. This was over 1500 years ago. He also thought the “days” in Genesis could have referred to big lengths of time.
According to Craig, Augustine thought, “God had imbued the created world with, as it were, seeds of potentiality that over time would grow into the biological diversity that we see today. It wasn’t a theory of evolution a la Darwin, but it was a sort of front-loading, as it were, of the creation and its fruition over time.”
See more here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/st.-augustine-said-what
-
“Look into St Augustine – he made the point that obviously the “days” in genesis can’t be 24 hour days if the earth and sun hadn’t been made yet. This was over 1500 years ago. He also thought the “days” in Genesis could have referred to big lengths of time.
According to Craig, Augustine thought, ‘God had imbued the created world with, as it were, seeds of potentiality that over time would grow into the biological diversity that we see today. It wasn’t a theory of evolution a la Darwin, but it was a sort of front-loading, as it were, of the creation and its fruition over time.'”
Uh, you don’t need the sun for 24 hours. If you really want something from me (people haven’t), here’s my response: The Hebrew for “day” in Genesis 1 is yom, which almost always means day (and so does the plural version). Genesis is also a historical account (in my view), so it must mean what it says. Genesis doesn’t support your view, you interpret it that way. Can you give me something more than St. Augustine?
-
-
Evolution in the terms of speciation is not scientific though, so it dosnt matter.
-
“Evolution in the terms of speciation is not scientific though, so it doesn’t matter.”
Can you explain your comment here? Maybe unpack it a little?
-
So evolution is adaptation, and variation for the most part, we can see this.
A descendant is different from a ancestor.
Evolution is also mostly driven by Mutation and shared characteristics, not a darwinian view of the battle of the fittest, sure it might play some part via attrition, but ultimately its not there.
We can see alot of adaptation and variation and even conclude it with in a Kind in taxonomy.
But we simply do not witness in a empirical scientific sense Speciation, its too slow if it does occur, and if its reported it seems more a of a semantic problem of taxonomical definition to be conclusive.
-
Why do you ignore DNA as empirical evidence?
-
“But we simply do not witness in a empirical scientific sense Speciation, , , ,”
But we have witnessed speciation. It’s a kind of speciation called speciation by polyploidy, and it produces a new species instantaneously.
Polyploidy is a condition in which the number of sets of chromosomes is greater than two. Normal cells in most organisms have one set of chromosomes (haploidy) or commonly two sets (diploidy). In polyploidy, the number of sets can be three (triploidy) or four (tetraploidy) or even more. Because of abnormal development of the zygote or abnormal gamete formation should the zygote reach adulthood, a successful union between the polyploid descendant species and the diploid parental species is usually impossible. So the descendant species is instantaneously reproductively isolated from the parental species. But the polyploid descendant individuals can reproduce with other like polyploid descendant individuals or self-fertilize.
Speciation by polyploidy is common in plants and is used now in plant breeding. It is less common in animals, but it does occur in them.
-
What are your sources?
-
My sources are the many genetics courses, genetics textbooks, and published scientific research on genetics from my undergraduate and graduate university education in biology.
An internet search on speciation by polyploidy will provide material that explains this process in more detail.
For a particular general source, see the following.
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199941728/obo-9780199941728-0084.xml
-
How much variation is there? As far as I know, they still stay a deer, whatever you’re talking about.
-
Remember why I posted this. If you check the history of this thread leading up to my post, you will see I was speaking of a process of speciation that can be and has been observed. The poster I was answering flatly said speciation has not been observed. That’s incorrect.
Now, you’re expanding the discussion beyond my original goal. But to your question above, in speciation by polyploidy, a species of plant produces a new species of plant, for example, and a species of fish produces a new species of fish, for another example. In all other modes of speciation, the same thing holds. That’s to be expected, after all: the new species formed by a speciation event will resemble the ancestral species phenotypically because they share so much genetic material.
But the genetic and phenotypic similarity between the new species and the ancestral species should not be considered necessarily the logical end point, given the long periods of time available for the speciation process to operate. Why logically should it stop? Over time, then, any kind of speciation can produce a sequence of new species such that the new species and the original ancestral species could well be, and have been documented to be, different enough genetically and phenotypically to be placed in different taxonomic categories above the species level.
-
Okay, I grant that speciation occurs. That’s no problem for me.
I just challenged the fact that it can be evidence for large-scale evolution.
-
And I challenge that challenge, as I said above.
“But the genetic and phenotypic similarity between the new species and the ancestral species should not be considered necessarily the logical end point, given the long periods of time available for the speciation process to operate. Why logically should it stop? Over time, then, any kind of speciation can produce a sequence of new species such that the new species and the original ancestral species could well be, and have been documented to be, different enough genetically and phenotypically to be placed in different taxonomic categories above the species level.”
-
“Why logically should it stop?”
Why logically can you go that far?
Equivocation: When the meaning of a word is shifted in an argument.
Equivocation example: “When I asked you if I should turn left, you said right (Could mean “correct” or the direction “right”). Therefore, I was correct and you cannot get mad at me.”
Your Equivocation: “I know Evolution (Molecules to man) is true because we see Evolution (Speciation) happening all the time!”
-
You said, “I just challenged the fact that it [speciation] can be evidence for large-scale evolution,” to which I said, “I just challenged the fact that it [speciation] can be evidence for large-scale evolution.” That is, I wasn’t here using speciation alone as evidence for the entire extent of evolution. I was using it as evidence for evolution above the species level, since large-scale evolution is at least in part the development of higher taxonomic categories above the species level.
The giraffe example you linked to in an earlier post is actually evidence that speciation leads to the development of higher taxonomic categories. The long path innervation in the giraffe takes from the brain to the voice box appears peculiarly inefficient, going from the brain down the long neck, around the heart, and back up the long neck to the voice box. That arrangement makes sense only if the innervation developed successively, as in evolution from a previous animal whose neck was short to non-existent, i.e., an organism like a fish. It doesn’t make sense if it were designed intelligently. In evolution, natural selection usually works, with the help of mutations, by altering systems already in existence in the organism. An intelligent designer is not so restricted.
My definition of the term evolution has consistently been “a change in allele frequency over time in a population.” That definition underlies every use of the word evolution from me.
-
You said that you grant that speciation occurs. Speciation involves a change in allele frequency over time in a population, a change from the ancestral species. It, therefore, is evolution because evolution is a change in allele frequency over time in a population.
Thus, if one accepts speciation, one then logically accepts evolution. So, where one sees evidence of speciation, one sees evidence of evolution. In the fossil record one sees evidence of speciation.
Thus, the fossil record provides a record of evolution.Not all changes in allele frequency over time in a population involve speciation, but they nevertheless are examples of evolution, as in adaptations within a species. Such adaptations are sometimes called microevolution.
Evolution then can be applied to within-species contexts like adaptation; to species contexts like speciation; to above species contexts leading to the formation of higher taxonomic categories like genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, and kingdoms that we see represented in the fossil record. This category of evolution is sometimes called macroevolution.
-
Did you not see my challenge of equivocation to your statements?
-
Your challenge is vacuous. The definition of evolution underlying my use of the term is consistent, as I covered in my most recent two posts above.
-
<div>”My definition of the term evolution has consistently been “a
change in allele frequency over time in a population.” That definition
underlies every use of the word evolution from me.” That seems to be observable, If I got your definition right. But that doesn’t seem to mean “molecules to man evolution”, so why argue “allele frequency over time” to the “molecules-to-man evolution” perspective? Did I get something wrong?
</div><div></div>
-
I explained the answer above.
You said that you grant that speciation occurs. Speciation involves a change in allele frequency over time in a population, a change from the ancestral species. It, therefore, is evolution because evolution is a change in allele frequency over time in a population.
Thus, if one accepts speciation, one then logically accepts evolution. So, logically, where one sees evidence of speciation, one sees evidence of evolution. In the fossil record one sees evidence of speciation. Thus, the fossil record provides a record of evolution.
That’s as close to explaining your “molecules to man” expression you will get from me, because I don’t have any notions, preconceived or otherwise, about how the first living creatures were formed from primordial molecules in this world or elsewhere.
-
“You said that you grant that speciation occurs. Speciation involves a change in allele frequency over time in a population, a change from the ancestral species. It, therefore, is evolution because evolution is a change in allele frequency over time in a population.”
Did you know that Humans have orphan genes, genes that nothing else has? How can that be “allele” frequency?
“Thus, if one accepts speciation, one then logically accepts evolution. So, logically, where one sees evidence of speciation, one sees evidence of evolution. In the fossil record one sees evidence of speciation. Thus, the fossil record provides a record of evolution.”
Why logically? That’s the same as saying: “Because I can jump 3 feet, why logically can it stop until I can jump into space?” That’s fallacious because you can only go so far. That’s true with NS as well.
-
“Did you know that Humans have orphan genes, genes that nothing else has? How can that be “allele” frequency?’
You obviously don’t know anything about population genetics. All alleles in a population have a frequency, which is simply the number of particular alleles in a population divided by the total number of alleles at that particular gene locus that has the alleles in question in a population.
An orphan gene is simply a gene found only in a species (or lineage) and not in other species (or lineages). If an orphan gene has alleles, it has an allele frequency, too, a frequency varying from a very low number to the highest at 1.00.
Further, it is a simple undeniable truth that if you accept speciation, you accept evolution because speciation IS evolution.
Discussing evolutionary topics with you is a waste of time. You simply lack the basic biological knowledge required to understand elementary topics in evolution and you seem not to realize it.
-
‘You obviously don’t know anything about population genetics. All alleles in a population have a frequency, which is simply the number of particular alleles in a population divided by the total number of alleles at that particular gene locus that has the alleles in question in a population.
An orphan gene is simply a gene found only in a species (or lineage) and not in other species (or lineages). If an orphan gene has alleles, it has an allele frequency, too, a frequency varying from a very low number to the highest at 1.00.”
Move this to a better discussion: Natural Destruction.
“Further, it is a simple undeniable truth that if you accept speciation, you accept evolution because speciation IS evolution.”
You keep messing with words. It could be Evolution (change over time) or Evolution (A history lesson; i.e. the evolution of the wheel, the car, etc) or Evolution (Goo to You by way of the Zoo).
Here is your calculation: Change x millions of years = You from Goo.
Are you not addressing your equivocation? You may need another logic class unless you can answer it.
-
You said, “You keep messing with words. It could be Evolution (change over time) or Evolution (A history lesson; i.e. the evolution of the wheel, the car, etc) or Evolution (Goo to You by way of the Zoo).
Here is your calculation: Change x millions of years = You from Goo.
Are you not addressing your equivocation? You may need another logic class unless you can answer it.”
It is you who need a class in logic (and a class or two in a biology). There is no equivocation in my answers. I have consistently defined evolution as a change in genetic makeup (i.e., allele frequency) over time in a population. Each of the other biological definitions of evolution imply that definition, i.e., they each imply a change in genetic make-up over time in a population.
You would see if you attended and understood a class in logic that what we have here involves the concept of a necessary condition. That is, the term “a change in genetic makeup over time in a population” is a necessary condition of each of the other biological definitions of evolution. For example, from Merriam-Webster, we have these other definitions of evolution: “descent with modification from preexisting species; cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms; the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations.”
If A is a necessary condition of B, B implies A. Thus, if the definition of evolution I have used (A) is a necessary condition of each of these other biological definitions (B), each of these other definitions (B) implies the definition of evolution I have used (A), i.e., a change in genetic make-up over time in a population.
Since a change in genetic make-up over time in a population is implied by these other biological definitions of evolution, there is no equivocation in my using as a definition of evolution “a change in genetic makeup over time in a population.”
-
You said, “You keep messing with words. It could be Evolution (change over time) or Evolution (A history lesson; i.e. the evolution of the wheel, the car, etc) or Evolution (Goo to You by way of the Zoo).
Here is your calculation: Change x millions of years = You from Goo.
Are you not addressing your equivocation? You may need another logic class unless you can answer it.
“It is you who need a class in logic (and a class or two in a biology). There is no equivocation in my answers. I have consistently defined evolution as a change in genetic makeup (i.e., allele frequency) over time in a population. Each of the other biological definitions of evolution imply that definition, i.e., they each imply a change in genetic make-up over time in a population. “
But then you take that to the extreme and assume it can go further than that: Change the whole body structure to make a fish turn into an amphibian. You would need new alleles for that. Am I missing something, or is it you?
For example, from Merriam-Webster, we have these definitions of evolution: “descent with modification from preexisting species; cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms; the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations.”
“If A is a necessary condition of B, B implies A. Thus, if the definition of evolution I have used (A) is a necessary condition of each of these other biological definitions (B), each of these other definitions (B) implies the definition of evolution I have used (A), i.e., a change in genetic make-up over time in a population.”
It is a change in the existing genetic makeup, then, but it can’t create new genes to make new phyla.
-
You said, “You would need new alleles for that. Am I missing something, or is it you?
It is a change in the existing genetic makeup, then, but it can’t create new genes to make new phyla.”
What? A change in genetic makeup can and often does involve new alleles and new genes from mutations within the population or from other populations via introgression!
-
“What? A change in genetic makeup can and often does involve new alleles and new genes from mutations within the population or from other populations via introgression!”
Okay, interesting. Where’s your evidence?
-
You said, “Okay, interesting. Where’s your evidence?”
What? You want evidence of new alleles or genes from mutations?
I recently gave a list of observations one can make of evolution occurring in the world. Many of these examples are direct evidence of new mutations, particularly those involving adaptations by microorganisms. As we should all be acutely aware, Covid-19 has evolved many times in the last few years through obviously new mutations that have weakened the causative virus’s virulence but strengthened its dispersal ability.
-
“What? You want evidence of new alleles or genes from mutations?”
Yes, please.
“I recently gave a list of observations one can make of evolution occurring in the world. Many of these examples are direct evidence of new mutations, particularly those involving adaptations by microorganisms.”
Bacteria adapting to new antibiotics? Is that new information? Oh, maybe. My point was that they stay bacteria.
-
I previously said, “I recently gave a list of observations one can make of evolution occurring in the world. Many of these examples are direct evidence of new mutations, particularly those involving adaptations by microorganisms.”
You, in answer said, “Bacteria adapting to new antibiotics? Is that new information? Oh, maybe. My point was that they stay bacteria.”
You keep dancing around aimlessly, like a headless chicken. If I give you evidence that new information is provided by mutations in answer to a request to provide evidence that mutations do provide new information, then that is the end of that particular story. You don’t–in the world of logical discourse–then get to add new requirements after the question is asked and answered.
-
“You keep dancing around aimlessly, like a headless chicken. If I
give you evidence that new information is provided by mutations in
answer to a request to provide evidence that mutations do provide new
information, then that is the end of that particular story. You don’t–in
the world of logical discourse–then get to add new requirements after
the question is asked and answered.”They do add information WHEN IT IS ALREADY THERE. Actually, they only copy information to make it stronger (I’m not making this up). The weeds already had some defense; they just needed to expand it. There is my answer to your challenge.
Now it is your turn. When will you get my point? Weeds stay weeds; they cannot change their body plan but can modify what they have by mindless mutations and NS to help filter them by killing the ones with bad ones.
There is my point.
If I am chicken, here is a quote from an article about them:
“They’re super smart.
A recent study has shown that chickens are intelligent and emotional
animals, and are able to “demonstrate thinking skills on par with
mammals and primates“. If you hide an object from a chicken, they will
still know it’s there — this is something even young human kids aren’t
able to do.”I am super smart, then. Better try another animal.
-
You said, “They do add information WHEN IT IS ALREADY THERE.”
NONSENSE! Novel mutations occur constantly, some of which prove beneficial. That they are novel means they are new, not already there. So, they, by definition, add information that was not already there.
As an example of this, a novel mutation that confers the ability for a bacterial species to grow on styrene, normally a toxin to bacteria, has been reported in the paper “Less is more: reduced catechol production permits Pseudomonas putida F1 to grow on styrene.” That adaptation gives the bacterial species a significant advantage in the highly competitive world of bacteria.
You can read about it by copying and pasting this reference below into the address bar.
https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.058230-0
Again, if I give you evidence that new information is provided by mutations in answer to a request to provide evidence that mutations do provide new information, then that is the end of that particular story. You don’t–in the world of logical discourse–then get to add new requirements after the question is asked and answered.
By the way, you even botched the simile I used! I didn’t compare your behavior to that of a chicken. I compared your behavior to that of a headless chicken, i.e., “dancing around aimlessly.”
-
“NONSENSE! Novel mutations occur constantly, some of which prove beneficial. That they are novel means they are new, not already there. So, they, by definition, add information that was not already there.”
Where did you get the word “novel”?
“As an example of this, a novel mutation that confers the ability for a bacterial species to grow on styrene, normally a toxin to bacteria, has been reported in the paper “Less is more: reduced catechol production permits Pseudomonas putida F1 to grow on styrene.” That adaptation gives the bacterial species a significant advantage in the highly competitive world of bacteria.”
Guess what? The mutation in the DNA was a reduction in production, nothing new was created.
“You don’t–in the world of logical discourse–then get to add new requirements after the question is asked and answered.”
When was I doing that?
“By the way, you even botched the simile I used! I didn’t compare your behavior to that of a chicken. I compared your behavior to that of a headless chicken, i.e., “dancing around aimlessly.””
Then tell me why.
-
You said, “Where did you get the word ‘novel’?
Uh, it’s just another word for “new” or “not previously identified” often used in genetics to describe genes. The authors of the paper I linked to actually used the word to describe what they found, as you can see here: “In this study, we characterized a novel mutant of P. putida F1 with reduced TDO activity that was capable of growing on styrene.” You should work a bit harder on your vocabulary. And as you can see from your post of March 17, 2024, at 11:42 pm, you indeed asked for evidence for such NEW, and thus, novel genes, which I kindly provided.
So, you asked for evidence of new alleles and new genes, which evidence I then provided.
“As an example of this, a novel mutation that confers the ability for a bacterial species to grow on styrene, normally a toxin to bacteria, has been reported in the paper ‘Less is more: reduced catechol production permits Pseudomonas putida F1 to grow on styrene.’ That adaptation gives the bacterial species a significant advantage in the highly competitive world of bacteria.”
Then you said, “Guess what? The mutation in the DNA was a reduction in production, nothing new was created.” No. You are confusing the result of the gene’s actions with the gene itself. A new gene was indeed created by a single point mutation, according to the authors. You asked for evidence, and I gave it.
I then said, “You don’t–in the world of logical discourse–then get to add new requirements after the question is asked and answered.”
And you incredibly said, “When was I doing that?” Did you already forget saying. “Bacteria adapting to new antibiotics? Is that new information? Oh, maybe. My point was that they stay bacteria.”
So, I answered your question about new alleles and new genes, and then to that, you threw out “bacteria stay bacteria”! That–pointing out that bacteria stay bacteria–is a deflection because it raises a different point not originally brought up in you post I responded to until after the original question was asked and answered. It’s irrelevant to my answer to the question about new alleles and new genes.
I also said, “By the way, you even botched the simile I used! I didn’t compare your behavior to that of a chicken. I compared your behavior to that of a headless chicken” dancing around aimlessly.
You said in answer to that, “Then tell me why.”
It’s very simple. I said you were acting like a headless chicken. That’s a figurative manner of speaking called a simile. A headless chicken wanders aimlessly (just as your posts often do), even if the chicken was very smart as far as a chicken goes when it had a fully functioning brain in its still-attached head. (I’ll have you know that when I was a kid, I raised dozens of chickens over several years, from newly hatched chicks to fully grown, egg-laying hens. They were smart and fun. I loved handling them and collecting their eggs every day.)
-
“you indeed asked for evidence for such NEW, and thus, novel genes, which I kindly provided.
So, you asked for evidence of new alleles and new genes, which evidence I then provided.”
It was just a reduction in production. We’ll see what you said below.
“As an example of this, a novel mutation that confers the ability for a bacterial species to grow on styrene, normally a toxin to bacteria, has been reported in the paper ‘Less is more: reduced catechol production permits Pseudomonas putida F1 to grow on styrene.’ That adaptation gives the bacterial species a significant advantage in the highly competitive world of bacteria.”
Then you said, “Guess what? The mutation in the DNA was a reduction in production, nothing new was created.”
“No. You are confusing the result of the gene’s actions with the gene itself. A new gene was indeed created by a single point mutation, according to the authors. You asked for evidence, and I gave it.”
I asked for new genes, not new phenotypes. Of course a bacteria could do something new, but only because a mutation destroyed some of the production of catechol. New genes were not created, and the authors didn’t get it, unfortunately.
New question: Where has new information in DNA been created? If there isn’t, then evolution couldn’t have happened, because a microbe needs to add info to become a human eventually.
“So, I answered your question about new alleles and new genes, and then to that, you threw out “bacteria stay bacteria”! That–pointing out that bacteria stay bacteria–is a deflection because it raises a different point not originally brought up in you post I responded to until after the original question was asked and answered. It’s irrelevant to my answer to the question about new alleles and new genes.”
Okay, let’s try to new question above.
I also said, “By the way, you even botched the simile I used! I didn’t compare your behavior to that of a chicken. I compared your behavior to that of a headless chicken” dancing around aimlessly.
You said in answer to that, “Then tell me why.”
It’s very simple. I said you were acting like a headless chicken. That’s a figurative manner of speaking called a simile. A headless chicken wanders aimlessly (just as your posts often do), even if the chicken was very smart as far as a chicken goes when it had a fully functioning brain in its still-attached head. (I’ll have you know that when I was a kid, I raised dozens of chickens over several years, from newly hatched chicks to fully grown, egg-laying hens. They were smart and fun. I loved handling them and collecting their eggs every day.)
I asked why you said that about me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
According to Genesis 1:20-25, God created marine creature, birds, and then livestock and land animals “according to their kinds. I interpret this as God creating creatures according to their essential nature. Once the essential nature is created, there is no further explanation of changes to the organisms. This poses area for interpretation and investigation into mechanisms and how this creation appeared and adapted on Earth. I claim that this leaves a possibility for microevolution and adaptations on a small scale, but not macroevolution.
Microevolution is understood as small adaptations that allow for permanent adjustments over time to the phenotypes of various organisms. This does not change what an animal essentially is; but, it allows the animals to be better adapted for their environment that they have been placed in. These adaptations can surface from physical strssors or genetic mutations alike and do not contradict the Biblical account of creation. God created the nature of the animal and placed them in their appropriate environment with their characteristic abilities. Adaptations fo not contradict or change their essential nature, so God’s work is not changed. Animals can go extinct and fossils have been found that supposedly “link” past organisms to their “modern counterparts”. This may not be entirely accurate, as the transitional organisms may have been animals that God created and that went extinct. Macroevolution is not Biblical. Natural selection itself could not have created human beings from fish, even over tens of millions of years. Similarly to the fine-tuning argument, the odds of the correct mutations happening that allow for life to occur and result in a viable organism would be too unlikely to happen, even over millions of years. The trial and error that would take for evolution to create new, viable organisms would be an extremely long time and many, many instances of error. Natural selection does not change the essence of what a creature is and is more deleterious then creative, stacking the case against macroevolution.
-
Well.. you seem to be saying that God created different animals and placed them in their environments, that he presumably also created. But he then changed those environments which affected the animals he created to such an extent that he had to create slightly different animals, and on and on so much so that it appears very much like evolution. You further seem to say that there was not enough time for these species to evolve naturally, only God could have rolled them out in such a fashion. You provide no explanation of exactly how God would have done it, only saying it is unlikely for mutation and natural selection. That sounds nothing more than a personal wish, like day dreaming, and not very convincing as an explanation of the evidence.
-
-
Yahweh (God the Father in Christianity) didn’t use evolution in Genesis nor did he give a hint of creating over millions of years.
So either the whole of modern scientific discovery is wrong, or early Genesis is wrong or both are correct and you shouldn’t be taking early Genesis so literally. Does the Bible stipulate which approach to take? No, and not taking the passages literally stretches back to the early church fathers (Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen et al), much earlier than the theory of evolution.
“For who that has the understanding will suppose that the first, second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without sky? … I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally.”
Origen: The Fundamental Doctrines – 225AD.Early Genesis says that God created animals etc but it does hint that he did this by commanding the earth to bring forth these things.
“And God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”
Genesis 1: 24
Yes, the Bible says that God created these things but by commanding the land to produce them, a vital detail that you omit from your assertions about how Christians should be interpreting the passage. Unless you are suggesting that God commanded and gave the land the ability to create ex nihilo (something you have no evidence for), this is fully compatible with with God commanding a process that allowed the land to produce these things.
In addition to this, you are presenting an argument from silence. The Bible doesn’t mention that Jesus passed urine but this shouldn’t be taken as evidence that he didn’t. The Bible does not mention that God used the process of evolution. Likewise, this cannot be taken as evidence that he didn’t and once we include details that you are omitting (God commanding the land to produce living things), evolution is fully compatible with the idea of God commanding a process to occur that would allow the land to produce living things under the traditional and non-literal view of days. The fact that the Bible doesn’t mention something cannot be taken as evidence that it did not occur. It can only be taken as evidence that it’s occurrence (if it occurred) was not relevant to what was being written at the time, or the writers were not aware of it so didn’t mention it in their account.
As such, Christians who take a different approach to Genesis than yourself have no burden to try and demonstrate your view false (particularly, if you’re not open to the possibility that you’re wrong and are just going to assume that any evidence pointing away from your view is part of a deception). They simply have to point out that they have the backing of scientific discoveries plus the teachings of early church fathers which predate the theory. The alternative is that those Christians reject science and the teachings of early church fathers and go with the assertions of some dude on the internet who insists that it must all be taken literally (but has presented nothing else to back it up). On the face of it, it is obvious who is being the most reasonable.
Log in to reply.