Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[Sapiens]

First off, let me begin by saying you are a jerk. (And if you report me for saying that, I'll just report your posts as well, where you used words like idiotic, etc, etc,)

Consider it reported. BTW: that is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

Second, Bill Cooper is used to being called a lot of things. One of his books, he could not find one publisher for it.

That's not surprising, even in this day and age when the most rancid tripe seems to find an outlet.

I don't see what is so foolish about digging old books out of old libraries and publishing them. "After the Flood" is not his best book. But I still don't see what is wrong with it. What is wrong with publishing the geneaology of the Queen of England, which goes back to Noah? Just because you don't believe these things to be geuine, doesn't mean they don't have value.

You mean besides the fact that is all wrong?

My expertise is not science or history, I already said that. My expertise is in one small part of Torah law. Once in a while, if I'm hard-up for money, I'll publish an essay. Well I don't, my publisher does.

You should stick to what you know, that's what I do.

As for genomes, I have counted at least five ethnic groups that settled in what is now the United Kingdom. Forget what you call myths, like there were a very large people (they called giants) and a very little people (they called Leprechauns) forget about them, Bill Cooper would probably believe it and then go find evidence for them. I'm talking about five ethnic groups that are recognized by the world. Like Angles, Saxons, Picts, Scots and Welsh and there were others. So let me ask you, was this DNA testing on a diverse segment of the population? And also consider there were a few different ethnic groups coming out of Troy as well. Do you have DNA testing on all the different ethnic groups of ancient Troy? This is as ridiculous as people claiming to be of the lost tribes of Israel based on a DNA test. There really are people demanding citizenship in Israel based on a DNA test. Absolutely absurd.

Giants and Leprechauns are usually alluded to sarcastically for the purpose of discrediting an opinion. This is the first time I have seen someone use them to shoot themself in the foot, a rousing example of the difference between sarcasm and irony.

Alright, I want you to demonstrate or find someone who has demonstrated that an animal has become more able to survive because of a mutation. Find one animal born with a mutation that is smarter, faster, stronger or whatever makes it a better animal. If you do that, then evolution will be more than a theory, it will be a theory which has been observed, like the theory of gravity. And genetic engineering is cheating. Where is your evidence?

A single nucleotide of the β-globin gene, which results in glutamic acid being substituted by valine at position 6 fits the bill. Individuals who inherit two copies of this mutation (one from their mother and the other from their father) develop sickle cell anemia, which, when untreated, results in a shorter life expectancy. Thus, one would expect that this mutation would be rare in human populations. This mutation is found to be highly selected for in areas of the world were malaria is very frequent, with sometimes 10-40% of the population exhibiting it. Individuals carrying just one copy of the sickle mutation (inherited from either the father or mother) do not develop sickle cell anemia and lead rather normal lives. But, these individuals, said to carry the sickle cell trait, are well protected against malaria. This explains the retention and spread of this mutation in geographical areas where malaria is endemic.

Maybe you should stick to obscure Torah and leave evolution to those trained in the field?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I know it would be exciting to see something like that, even if it did turn out to be a hoax- it still could make a lot of news. I trust these guys as credible if for no other reason than that they are honest and well meaning.

How do you know that they are honest if you haven't investigated their claims? That's like me saying "I trust completely that this person who contacted me by email is a Nigerian Prince, despite the fact that I have no good reason to believe that they are, because they are honest and well meaning".

But even I think their website, I mean, it just doesn't seem professional. It is a lot of good information, I just don't want to look like a joke here, but it's already too late, so here is the website of these creation historians www.annomundi.com.

Professionalism doesn't mean anything. If anything, more slick and professional looking websites are more inclined to be so because they wish to create the IMPRESSION of honesty and integrity while being anything but. Check some of the pages we have presented - they're hardly professional looking. What matters are the CLAIMS. As far as this site's claims, I'll have a look and get back to you. Thank you for providing it.

In one of the books I bought from that website is a mention of some of the stuff in those old libraries. I wish there were more credible and more educated scholars who were doing this work instead of these guys. There is just no interest in looking at all these mythological books and manuscripts except from fundamentalist Christians and they are only interested when it supports their theology. But if they said they saw an old manuscript with a T Rex in it, I don't believe they are liars.

Then what evidence did they provide?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Alright! I accept evolution! All life is evolving. And all life has been evolving through all history, going all the way back to when God created life 5776 years ago.

This is an excellent start. Kudos!

 

[Brian Schuh]

Then you can't have done any real research, or made any effort to understand, the subject. The fact that allele frequencies change over time in populations in living organisms is not only observed, but it is one of the principle foundations around which all of modern medicine, agriculture and biology are based around.


And why do you believe that?


Actually, no. Science doesn't "prove" things. Science only provides evidence for and explanatory frameworks which can test certain hypotheses.


Again, no. Science is more than capable of being used to test historical claims. It's not that history is "outside the realm" of science, it's just that the majority of historical claims leave no testable evidence other than written testimony and accounts. However, it is relatively simple for science to test for claims such as the age of the earth and the existence of a global flood. These things WOULD leave scientifically verifiable evidence behind.


We also have only known about Pluto for less than 90 years, and yet we know it takes around 200 years to orbit the Sun. How, if nobody has observed it that long? Simple. We have the mathematics, the observations and the ability to make accurate predictions based on those facts. We don't have to have direct, eye-witness testimony if we have solid facts in the world around us now that indicate something to us.


Then how can ancient civilizations exist that pre-date the supposed creation of the Universe? There are flutes that are at least seven times older than that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_flutes


Do you honestly think the only evidence that means anything is writing? Well, nevertheless, I think these stone tablets that were written between 7 and 9 thousand years ago would definitely disagree with you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tărtăria_tablets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispilio_Tablet

The chronology of ancient Egypt is an example of how nations wanted to make their nation look to have more antiquity than others. So ancient Egyptian historians would add fictional pharaohs to their list. Plus many of these pharaohs ruled jointly. Plus modern scholars have interpreted these writings in such a manner as to lengthen how long the dynasties lasted. What is amazing is that secular people accept these chronologies from Egypt as more accurate than the chronology of the ancient Hebrews, because hey- we're not idiots! we don't believe the bible! But they will jump to believe what the Egyptians said. If you accept that a bunch of Hebrew slaves left Egypt at a certain point in time, then in light of that, one can interpret Egyptian history differently and see it makes more sense. Without citing sources, maybe you can find it in a book "The Bible as History" Moses himself is even mentioned in ancient Egyptian history. So no, I don't believe Egypt predated the year the Hebrews claimed was the Creation. Although I haven't investigated, I suspect that it is pretty much the same with all those other civilizations said to predate the Hebrew year of creation.

 

[Sapiens]

Alright! I accept evolution! All life is evolving. And all life has been evolving through all history, going all the way back to when God created life 5776 years ago.

Right on! All you need now is a correction of about six orders of magnitude.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Consider it reported. BTW: that is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.
That's not surprising, even in this day and age when the most rancid tripe seems to find an outlet.
You mean besides the fact that is all wrong?
You should stick to what you know, that's what I do.

Giants and Leprechauns are usually alluded to sarcastically for the purpose of discrediting an opinion. This is the first time I have seen someone use them to shoot themself in the foot, a rousing example of the difference between sarcasm and irony.

A single nucleotide of the β-globin gene, which results in glutamic acid being substituted by valine at position 6 fits the bill. Individuals who inherit two copies of this mutation (one from their mother and the other from their father) develop sickle cell anemia, which, when untreated, results in a shorter life expectancy. Thus, one would expect that this mutation would be rare in human populations. This mutation is found to be highly selected for in areas of the world were malaria is very frequent, with sometimes 10-40% of the population exhibiting it. Individuals carrying just one copy of the sickle mutation (inherited from either the father or mother) do not develop sickle cell anemia and lead rather normal lives. But, these individuals, said to carry the sickle cell trait, are well protected against malaria. This explains the retention and spread of this mutation in geographical areas where malaria is endemic.

Maybe you should stick to obscure Torah and leave evolution to those trained in the field?

I used to drink a lot with an Irish girl who tried to explain to me where the myths of the Giants and the Leprechauns came from. She said that there were very tall large people and very small people in Ireland. But not to the extremes of the myths. Mythology tends to exagerate reality. I asked her if she meant that there were a whole people or at least families of midgets. That seemed to be what she was saying. But from what I saw on your map, the Anglo Saxons displaced most everybody else. That there simply isn't the genetic diversity there used to be, or that they all intermarried. But I got a question for you, why do you not take offense with a verse in Genesis that the sons of God impregnated women and they gave birth to giants? Whether you believe it or not, you don't take offense, but if the Irish speak of Leprechauns, your panties get in a wad. Are you implying that the Hebrews can say these things, but the Irish can't? Is it that the only myths a person can stomach the ones that are in his tradition? Now I've heard and read some ridiculous stories in my life, one about a bunch of midgets in Ireland doesn't sound impossible. Jesus being born of a virgin does sound impossible. But a Christian will accept Jesus was born of a virgin, but then call the medieval Welsh guillable for claiming Merlin was born of a virign. I'll tell you what sounds most absurd. In the beginning there was nothing, there nothing exploded into something, and it expanded into all directions until a few trillion years later, there is an earth where intelligent life forms are communicating on computers, then another trillion years it will all collapse again into nothing.

 

[Sapiens]

You challenged me:

Alright, I want you to demonstrate or find someone who has demonstrated that an animal has become more able to survive because of a mutation. Find one animal born with a mutation that is smarter, faster, stronger or whatever makes it a better animal. If you do that, then evolution will be more than a theory, it will be a theory which has been observed, like the theory of gravity. And genetic engineering is cheating. Where is your evidence?

And I replied: "A single nucleotide of the β-globin gene, which results in glutamic acid being substituted by valine at position 6 fits the bill. Individuals who inherit two copies of this mutation (one from their mother and the other from their father) develop sickle cell anemia, which, when untreated, results in a shorter life expectancy. Thus, one would expect that this mutation would be rare in human populations. This mutation is found to be highly selected for in areas of the world were malaria is very frequent, with sometimes 10-40% of the population exhibiting it. Individuals carrying just one copy of the sickle mutation (inherited from either the father or mother) do not develop sickle cell anemia and lead rather normal lives. But, these individuals, said to carry the sickle cell trait, are well protected against malaria. This explains the retention and spread of this mutation in geographical areas where malaria is endemic."

Am I too much of a jerk to deserve a response?

 

[Brian Schuh]

You challenged me:


And I replied: "A single nucleotide of the β-globin gene, which results in glutamic acid being substituted by valine at position 6 fits the bill. Individuals who inherit two copies of this mutation (one from their mother and the other from their father) develop sickle cell anemia, which, when untreated, results in a shorter life expectancy. Thus, one would expect that this mutation would be rare in human populations. This mutation is found to be highly selected for in areas of the world were malaria is very frequent, with sometimes 10-40% of the population exhibiting it. Individuals carrying just one copy of the sickle mutation (inherited from either the father or mother) do not develop sickle cell anemia and lead rather normal lives. But, these individuals, said to carry the sickle cell trait, are well protected against malaria. This explains the retention and spread of this mutation in geographical areas where malaria is endemic."

Am I too much of a jerk to deserve a response?

Well, didn't I say that that is the last part of evolution I had not already accepted? That I already accepted natural selection and speciation, and now you show me a mutation that is actually a good thing? My only question would be if this gene really is a mutation, or if this is just another example of natural selection and that the gene has always been around.

Now what about why one nationality can have a ridiculous myth and not raise eyebrows, but another nationality can't? Why one people can have a virgin birth, but another people can't? And explain to me the Big Bang. That in the beginning there was nothing, and then nothing exploded, and became somethng, which expanded into the universe. Or am I too much of an idiot to deserve a response?

Sure, I believe evolution is true if it has been observed, and you say you are a scientist and you probably are, and you say beneficial mutations have been observed. I bet if I ask you to cite your sources, I bet you can. So life is evolving ever since the beginning, 5776 years ago.

What is your opinion? Is this gene that renders a person protected against malaria, is it truly a mutation? or is it simply an example of natural selection, a gene that has always existed? A gene that is naturally selected over the others, because of its survival value?

 

[metis]

Why do you equate evolution with science? Evolution is just a theory. The evidence and case for creationism is not being made by theologians, it is being made by scientists. Are you not aware that there are scientists who believe in creationism? Anti-evolution doesn't mean anti-science.

I don't believe in creationism because of the Bible or religious dogma or because anybody tells me to believe it. I passed all my biology exams in evolution in school with A's. Right, I wrote on top of the exams, "I don't believe any of this" and then I proceeded to write down all the answers that the teacher wanted to hear. Creationists don't believe in creationism because they fail to understand evolution.

You have just bought into the myth that anyone who challenges evolution must be igorant or stupid. It is part of the modern educational "creed" that you must believe in evolution and you cannot doubt it, or you will be discredited. No one is telling me I have to believe in creationism, but many say that if I am to be intelligent, then I must believe in evolution.

It's really impossible to take the above seriously. You have not done the homework, contrary to your claim, which was pointed out in a couple of previous posts whereas you spouted items that you have bought into that simply are wrong. On top of this, you don't even know what a "theory" is in the scientific context that you falsely claim to know much about.

As long as you continue on the path that you're on, you'll never understand what the truth may be, so the only thing I can do is to point that out and hope someday you'll come to realize that you're going in the wrong direction.

 

[metis]

Try reading a man named Bill Cooper. There is more than one Bill Cooper on the internet. The one I'm talking about is a historian, he is not a scientist. He likes to look at all the historical accounts of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. When evolution became popular, many of these books were lost to us and buried somewhere deep in libraries and they were forgotten. Many of the geneologies of the Irish that go all the way back to Noah were shelved and forgotten. In fact, any history of England before the Angl Saxons conquered it, became considered myth and shelved. So Bil Cooper takes the time to publish this stuff because he believes these old histories are important to the United Kingdom. He translated a book showing the first settlers in England had escaped the Trojan War and this book mentions King Arthur and Merlin and King Lear who had three beautiful daughters. You see that much of England's mythology was based on historical fact. But there are others besides Bill Cooper. Try starting with him.

What do you mean "the Truth"? What is-- "the Truth"? No, I'm not trying to sound like Pontius Pilate.

You not only didn't provide any link, neither did you explain why "Bill Cooper" should be believed. Lots of people have written lots of things that often make little or no sense, so I don't believe everything I read.

 

[Sapiens]

Well, didn't I say that that is the last part of evolution I had not already accepted? That I already accepted natural selection and speciation, and now you show me a mutation that is actually a good thing? My only question would be if this gene really is a mutation, or if this is just another example of natural selection and that the gene has always been around.

It is a single point mutation, I even told you the exact location of the single amino acid substitution.

Clearly it is not always been around since it is so disadvantageous except in the presence of Malaria that it rapidly results in the demise of any line that carries it.

Now what about why one nationality can have a ridiculous myth and not raise eyebrows, but another nationality can't? Why one people can have a virgin birth, but another people can't?

Pathenogenesis (virgin birth) is possible and occurs in some species other than humans, but all such offspring are female.

And explain to me the Big Bang. That in the beginning there was nothing, and then nothing exploded, and became somethng, which expanded into the universe. Or am I too much of an idiot to deserve a response?

No can do, answers are not yet clear. I just submit to you that a God figure only complicates an already unknown problem with the classic recursivity issue.

Sure, I believe evolution is true if it has been observed, and you say you are a scientist and you probably are, and you say beneficial mutations have been observed. I bet if I ask you to cite your sources, I bet you can. So life is evolving ever since the beginning, 5776 years ago.

Once you accept evolution you have to reset your clock, 6,000 years is no enough time to account for the diversity of organisms on earth.

What is your opinion? Is this gene that renders a person protected against malaria, is it truly a mutation? or is it simply an example of natural selection, a gene that has always existed? A gene that is naturally selected over the others, because of its survival value?

It is not an opinion. It is a mutation. That can be demonstrated. Yes, in the presence of Malaria, a strong selective factor, it provides a survival and reproductive advantage.

 

[Brian Schuh]

It's really impossible to take the above seriously. You have not done the homework, contrary to your claim, which was pointed out in a couple of previous posts whereas you spouted items that you have bought into that simply are wrong. On top of this, you don't even know what a "theory" is in the scientific context that you falsely claim to know much about.

As long as you continue on the path that you're on, you'll never understand what the truth may be, so the only thing I can do is to point that out and hope someday you'll come to realize that you're going in the wrong direction.

What do you mean by-- "the Truth"? What is-- "the Truth"? Pontius Pilate asked this of Jesus when Jesus pulled the same stunt. "The Truth." The truth about what? The truth about whether evolution is true or not? Why is it so goddam important to know whether evolution is true or not? There are other truths that are much more important. How is that a wrong path? How is it a path at all? Evolution vs. Creation has no relevance to my path. Therefore "the Truth" about that debate has no affect on my life. I just find it fun to discuss.

So Jesus, before I execute you, tell me, what is "the Truth"?

 

[Parsimony]

Well, didn't I say that that is the last part of evolution I had not already accepted? That I already accepted natural selection and speciation, and now you show me a mutation that is actually a good thing? My only question would be if this gene really is a mutation, or if this is just another example of natural selection and that the gene has always been around.

What is your opinion? Is this gene that renders a person protected against malaria, is it truly a mutation? or is it simply an example of natural selection, a gene that has always existed? A gene that is naturally selected over the others, because of its survival value?

There are other examples too. Take the Nyl A and Nyl B genes in a laboratory-cultivated strain of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacterium, for instance. Natural strains of P. aeruginosa show no ability to degrade 6-aminohexanoate oligomers (which are a group of synthetic chemicals not found in nature, a byproduct of nylon manufacture). However, a lab-cultivated strain gained the ability to digest the dimer form of chemical after a period of 9 days. Over time, it's ability to grow rapidly by using the chemical as a carbon and nitrogen source improved and by 3 months time it was able to digest multiple forms of the chemical (including linear and cyclic oligomers). So we know that these genes could not have been there in the beginning otherwise it would have immediately been capable of digesting the chemicals.

Flavobacterium gained the ability to use these same synthetic nylon waste products outside of the lab. The genes that they use to produce the needed enzymes have been sequenced and are found to be the result of a frame-shift mutation and gene duplication events. So yes, we do know that mutations are responsible for these new bacterial abilities.

Sources: TalkOrigins, Pseudomonas Report

 

[Brian Schuh]

It is a single point mutation, I even told you the exact location of the single amino acid substitution.

Clearly it is not always been around since it is so disadvantageous except in the presence of Malaria that it rapidly results in the demise of any line that carries it.
Pathenogenesis (virgin birth) is possible and occurs in some species other than humans, but all such offspring are female.
No can do, answers are not yet clear. I just submit to you that a God figure only complicates an already unknown problem with the classic recursivity issue.
Once you accept evolution you have to reset your clock, 6,000 years is no enough time to account for the diversity of organisms on earth.

It is not an opinion. It is a mutation. That can be demonstrated. Yes, in the presence of Malaria, a strong selective factor, it provides a survival and reproductive advantage.

By the way, when I mentioned virgin births, I wasn't talking about scientific facts. I was talking about religious myths.

You claim that almost 6000 years is not enough time for all the diversity of species. There is even a tighter schedule than that. You see, a pair of all the land animals, plus birds- pretty much all vertebrates except sea life, had to fit on a boat. Forget dinosaurs for a moment, (let me just say that for a pair of every dinosaur species to fit on a boat, the dinosaurs were babies and not full grown) but forget the dinosaurs. 5776 years minus time to Flood (1656 years? I don't remember) so in 4120 years speciation had to work fast enough to produce all the species we see today from just the species that could fit on a large boat. And remember that some traditions say that Noah had a whole fleet of boats. Remember, just the land dwelling vertebrates.

Do you think 4120 years is enough time?

 

[Sapiens]

By the way, when I mentioned virgin births, I wasn't talking about scientific facts. I was talking about religious myths.

You claim that almost 6000 years is not enough time for all the diversity of species. There is even a tighter schedule than that. You see, a pair of all the land animals, plus birds- pretty much all vertebrates except sea life, had to fit on a boat. Forget dinosaurs for a moment, (let me just say that for a pair of every dinosaur species to fit on a boat, the dinosaurs were babies and not full grown) but forget the dinosaurs. 5776 years minus time to Flood (1656 years? I don't remember) so in 4120 years speciation had to work fast enough to produce all the species we see today from just the species that could fit on a large boat. And remember that some traditions say that Noah had a whole fleet of boats. Remember, just the land dwelling vertebrates.

Do you think 4120 years is enough time?

No it is not. I guess you're faced with a dilemma. You now possess knowledge that contradicts belief, will you wallow in the cognitive dissonance or will you take a step forward?

 

[Brian Schuh]

No it is not. I guess you're faced with a dilemma. You now possess knowledge that contradicts belief, will you wallow in the cognitive dissonance or will you take a step forward?

One more part of the story. The land of Israel never went under water. A whole lot of animals could have survived there. Does that significantly impact this situation?

 

[Sapiens]

One more part of the story. The land of Israel never went under water. A whole lot of animals could have survived there. Does that significantly impact this situation?

This is a little too strange for me. I think I'll be leaving.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The chronology of ancient Egypt is an example of how nations wanted to make their nation look to have more antiquity than others. So ancient Egyptian historians would add fictional pharaohs to their list.

I don't believe I mentioned ancient Egypt, but in any case do you have any evidence that this is true?

Plus many of these pharaohs ruled jointly. Plus modern scholars have interpreted these writings in such a manner as to lengthen how long the dynasties lasted. What is amazing is that secular people accept these chronologies from Egypt as more accurate than the chronology of the ancient Hebrews, because hey- we're not idiots! we don't believe the bible!

Again, I've not mentioned chronologies from Egypt. The evidence I have presented is based on archaeology and modern dating techniques. It has nothing to do with ANY chronology.

But they will jump to believe what the Egyptians said. If you accept that a bunch of Hebrew slaves left Egypt at a certain point in time, then in light of that, one can interpret Egyptian history differently and see it makes more sense. Without citing sources, maybe you can find it in a book "The Bible as History" Moses himself is even mentioned in ancient Egyptian history. So no, I don't believe Egypt predated the year the Hebrews claimed was the Creation. Although I haven't investigated, I suspect that it is pretty much the same with all those other civilizations said to predate the Hebrew year of creation.

I really have no idea why you decided to go on a tangent about Egypt when I never mentioned Egypt, rather than actually responding to the evidence I DID present. Do you have any response to the 40,000 year old flute, or the two stone tablets that both pre-date your supposed origin of the earth?

 

[Valjean]

One more part of the story. The land of Israel never went under water. A whole lot of animals could have survived there. Does that significantly impact this situation?

How did Israel manage that? I'm thinking Dutch hydrologic engineers...

Brian, there's a great deal of evidence from multiple disciplines pointing to an Old Earth, where do you come up with this Young Earth stuff? How do you explain away the evidence of great age?

 

[Brian Schuh]

I don't believe I mentioned ancient Egypt, but in any case do you have any evidence that this is true?


Again, I've not mentioned chronologies from Egypt. The evidence I have presented is based on archaeology and modern dating techniques. It has nothing to do with ANY chronology.


I really have no idea why you decided to go on a tangent about Egypt when I never mentioned Egypt, rather than actually responding to the evidence I DID present. Do you have any response to the 40,000 year old flute, or the two stone tablets that both pre-date your supposed origin of the earth?

Oh, you mentioned that there are civilizations older than 5776 years ago. I was mentioning Egypt as an example of one of those alleged civilizations. Did you forget what you said?

Already, I have made it clear in this thread that most scientific evidence for evolution doesn't matter. I'll just say, "Sure I agree, life evolved all through time back to when God created life." And then I suggested we move out of the realm of science to history, to see how evolution holds up to history. You are still ignoring the historical record, and you want to talk archaeology now. Okay shoot, tell me the evidence.