Evolution My ToE

[tas8831]

I wonder how the guy who failed to respond to my arguments feels now?

Like a MARTYR!

 

[tas8831]

Sure. I'm curious though....what specifically on that page don't you agree with? Is it the concept they're explaining, or is it just the way they explain it?

You may recall that after deeje, despite her claims of years of study, whined about all the "jargon" in actual science papers, she was directed to Evolution 101. Whereupon she scoffed that the site 'glossed over' things and provided few details...

They don't seem to think that their pretense and dishonest antics are actually quite transparent.

 

[dad]

So, according to your way of thinking, science should evaluate the veracity of:

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was the chief of the animals. He saw the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. “It is impossible,” said he, “that he should be left alone; he must have a mate.” So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.
​

Oh, wait. Did you mean you think science should investigate the veracity of only your God's doings? That seems rather unfair.

Your creation myth hold no more water than the one above.

No. Science should just admit it knows squat about origins or the spiritual. No one cares what they have to say..or not after that.

 

[dad]

I regret to inform you that methodological naturalism is intrinsic to the scientific method of understanding nature. What science does is to find natural explanations of natural phenomena.

No news there, of course poor little science is absolutely limited that way.

That does not mean we are all atheists. Plenty of scientists are religious believers. But it does mean that we do not insert God into our hypotheses when we do science. And that is something that will never change.

Obviously you do not include God or you might have some clue.

You, like plenty of scientists, may see the wonder of God as Creator in nature and how it works.

Yes, I do. And it works fine now just as it worked fine in the different past.

But it is a basic error to try to look for scientific (objective, reproducible) evidence for God in nature. It is mixing disciplines to try.

I agree, it is an error to pretend science covers origins. It is a religion when it comes to origins.

 

[gnostic]

Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

Natural Selection is not about “perfection” or producing “perfect” offspring or descendants.

Natural Selection is about passing traits to descendants that will allow them to survive the changes in environment, hence adaptability through variations. Being adaptable doesn’t mean perfection.

And no biologists are saying that Natural Selection are involved with being “all-powerful” or “perfect”. These are your words, and are your strawman arguments.

 

[nPeace]

Well, I think it's simply a matter of looking at introductory material that is very basic and broad, and complaining that it doesn't explain things in technical detail.


Can you clarify something for me? Do you disagree that natural selection happens?

I said many times... it was quite a number, that natural selection happens, or has taken place, or is happening, or taking place. Don't you recall those times?

As with the Evolution 101 site, Wiki is also intended to give general overviews to laypeople, rather than fully detailed, highly technical coverage.


Well, we do see it operating, all the time. One of my early posts to you in this thread was a description of an experiment we did as undergrads that shows how trivially easy it is to observe natural selection in action.


It is very simple. I think you may just be getting too wrapped up in the way non-technical sources cover the subject and the specific words they use to do so. What's important is that you at least understand what natural selection is and how it works. I mean, it's not like there's going to be a vocabulary test at the end of all this!

It's about being able to explain something in a simple way.

I'm glad you brought up that experiment again. Let's return there, I want to ask a question.
In your scenario with the deer, you mentioned that some built up an immunity to the parasites. You mentioned "like antibiotic immunity and pesticide immunity", so I am assuming that's genetic, i.e. some gene(s) that takes action, due to cell that recognize invaders and target them for elimination (correct me if I am wrong).

However, in your earlier experiment, you said, "At some point, one individual acquired a mutation that allowed it to live in the antibiotic environment. Eventually that individual passed that new trait on to its offspring."
Why do you conclude it was due to a mutation? Was it something that was observed? Could there have been another reason for the immunity, as in the case of the deer?

Right, so try and not get frustrated because they don't explain things in a very technical way.


Sure. I'm curious though....what specifically on that page don't you agree with? Is it the concept they're explaining, or is it just the way they explain it?

I don't disagree with anything on that page. It's just the part on this page, which reads, "but selection acts on that variation".
It may not be that I disagree, but it may be that I haven't gotten an explanation that I can say I understand how that works, so yes or no. Right now it just seems out of place - weird... like it doesn't belong there.

I understand your scenario, but it doesn't explain it, since natural selection is happening, or taking place, due to the conditions (selective pressure), and the necessary "factors" (heredity, variation, (differential) reproduction) being in place. Natural selection happens, or is happening based on those factors. It's the result. After some time, you see the result of the process - adaptation / evolution.
I can't explain any better than that, and the weather analogy... or maybe I can, but not right now.

Perhaps you think natural selection is acting on the variation, and you understand how, but can't put it in a simple way. Leaving that aside though, I understand Richard Dawkins see natural selection as acting, not on the organism, but on the genes. So it looks like he disagrees that it is acting on the characteristics and traits in a direct way. What do you think about his view? Some apparently agree with him.
Also, do you agree with this statement? "Natural selection acts on populations."

 

[exchemist]

No news there, of course poor little science is absolutely limited that way.
Obviously you do not include God or you might have some clue.


Yes, I do. And it works fine now just as it worked fine in the different past.
I agree, it is an error to pretend science covers origins. It is a religion when it comes to origins.

You need to define what you mean by "origins". It seems vague. Why "origins" plural? And origin, or origins, of what?

I fully agree science has nothing to say about why the cosmos started. Science stops when there are no observations that enable a hypothesis to be tested. So science has an inevitable limit to it, and if you want to ask deeper "why" questions you enter the realms of metaphysics, or indeed religion.

Science is the study of nature in terms of nature. This is what it does and if you want to introduce supernatural agency you are not doing science but something else. You are welcome to do this if you like of course, but you cannot blame science for not doing something that is outside its remit.

 

[dad]

You need to define what you mean by "origins". It seems vague. Why "origins" plural? And origin, or origins, of what?

Origin of man, the species, the world, the universe, the moon, the oceans etc etc.

I fully agree science has nothing to say about why the cosmos started. Science stops when there are no observations that enable a hypothesis to be tested. So science has an inevitable limit to it, and if you want to ask deeper "why" questions you enter the realms of metaphysics, or indeed religion.

Nothing much in the standard model regarding the far universe can be tested. They do not even know if time exists out there as here, so there is no light years that involve a year! There is no space as we know it here that is a continuum with time, so forget redshift meanings as we think of it...etc etc etc.

Science is the study of nature in terms of nature. This is what it does and if you want to introduce supernatural agency you are not doing science but something else.

Our nature is physical. What nature on earth was like long long ago we don't know. There may have been forces and laws in place that accommodated things spiritual to a greater degree! Scripture and history, for example tel us of spirits that lived among men at one time.

... you cannot blame science for not doing something that is outside its remit.

Yes, we sure can when it makes stuff up about what it doesn't know!

 

[Jose Fly]

You may recall that after deeje, despite her claims of years of study, whined about all the "jargon" in actual science papers, she was directed to Evolution 101. Whereupon she scoffed that the site 'glossed over' things and provided few details...

They don't seem to think that their pretense and dishonest antics are actually quite transparent.

Yeah, that person is a particular piece of work. Just recently she said she wasn't going to waste time with someone because their "ideas are set in concrete". This, from the same person who declared "No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago".

So I guess by her own standards, no one should bother talking with her.

 

[Jose Fly]

I said many times... it was quite a number, that natural selection happens, or has taken place, or is happening, or taking place. Don't you recall those times?

I thought so, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for indulging me.

It's about being able to explain something in a simple way.

Yup.

I'm glad you brought up that experiment again. Let's return there, I want to ask a question.
In your scenario with the deer, you mentioned that some built up an immunity to the parasites. You mentioned "like antibiotic immunity and pesticide immunity", so I am assuming that's genetic, i.e. some gene(s) that takes action, due to cell that recognize invaders and target them for elimination (correct me if I am wrong).

With both cases (the deer immunity to the parasite and bacterial immunity to antibiotics), the immunity stems from a mutation that gets passed down to later generations.

However, in your earlier experiment, you said, "At some point, one individual acquired a mutation that allowed it to live in the antibiotic environment. Eventually that individual passed that new trait on to its offspring."
Why do you conclude it was due to a mutation? Was it something that was observed? Could there have been another reason for the immunity, as in the case of the deer?

That's a good question, and fortunately it's an easy one to answer.

In our E. coli experiment, we started with what's called a "single clone population" (or sometimes it's referred to as "monoclonal"), where all the bacteria we started with were descendants of a single individual. That's how we knew the entire original population we started with didn't have antibiotic immunity. If they had, some of them would have immediately started growing on the half of the petri dish that had the antibiotic in it.

So when we started, none of the bacteria had immunity. The bacteria were cultured for multiple generations until eventually, some started growing on the half with the antibiotic (it's been a while, but I recall it taking several weeks). That told us right away that something had changed to allow some members of that generation to live in the antibiotic. Then, as I described earlier, we were fortunate enough to be able to run some genetic tests where we identified the specific genetic changes that caused the antibiotic resistance. When we compared the original population (that didn't have immunity) with the evolved population (that did have immunity) we could identify the genetic differences.

I don't disagree with anything on that page. It's just the part on this page, which reads, "but selection acts on that variation".
It may not be that I disagree, but it may be that I haven't gotten an explanation that I can say I understand how that works, so yes or no. Right now it just seems out of place - weird... like it doesn't belong there.

Well, as we've been over, a more accurate way to put it would be "but selective pressures act on that variation", but that's probably a little too detailed/technical for their target audience (laypeople). For most folks, the difference between "natural selection" and "selective pressures" isn't important.

I understand your scenario, but it doesn't explain it, since natural selection is happening, or taking place, due to the conditions (selective pressure), and the necessary "factors" (heredity, variation, (differential) reproduction) being in place. Natural selection happens, or is happening based on those factors. It's the result. After some time, you see the result of the process - adaptation / evolution.
I can't explain any better than that, and the weather analogy... or maybe I can, but not right now.

I think you nailed it!

Perhaps you think natural selection is acting on the variation, and you understand how, but can't put it in a simple way. Leaving that aside though, I understand Richard Dawkins see natural selection as acting, not on the organism, but on the genes. So it looks like he disagrees that it is acting on the characteristics and traits in a direct way. What do you think about his view? Some apparently agree with him.

That's another technical discussion, so let me see if I can characterize it in a way that's helpful.

In biology there's a saying..."genotype determines phenotype", which basically means your physical characteristics are determined by your genetics. So, when it comes to natural selection (or selective pressure) the question is....what does it act on? Well, one argument is that your physical traits are what determines how well you survive and reproduce in a particular environment, so that's what selection acts on. The other argument is that since your physical traits are based on your genetics, and it's actually your genetics that change and get passed down your offspring, selection is really acting on your genetics.

So with say, the classic peppered moth example. Whether a moth is light or dark colored is genetically based. So what is selection (bird predation) acting on? Is it acting on the color, or is it acting on the genes that determine the color?

I don't work in evolutionary biology circles, so I don't really know what the state of this "debate" is, or even if it's still debated. (@tas8831 might know) To me I think it's kind of a "six of one, half a dozen of another" thing, where it's not really all that consequential in application. In my work, we deal with selective pressures and such all the time, and we've never argued over whether selection is acting on the trait or the genetics.

Also, do you agree with this statement? "Natural selection acts on populations."

If we're referring to the overall process, then yes.

 

[exchemist]

Origin of man, the species, the world, the universe, the moon, the oceans etc etc.
Nothing much in the standard model regarding the far universe can be tested. They do not even know if time exists out there as here, so there is no light years that involve a year! There is no space as we know it here that is a continuum with time, so forget redshift meanings as we think of it...etc etc etc.


Our nature is physical. What nature on earth was like long long ago we don't know. There may have been forces and laws in place that accommodated things spiritual to a greater degree! Scripture and history, for example tel us of spirits that lived among men at one time.
Yes, we sure can when it makes stuff up about what it doesn't know!

Your last point is quite perceptive, I find.

In science, the only things we really "know" are the observations, once duly reconfirmed sufficiently. All our theories are merely models, and the knowledge they represent is strictly speaking provisional, as it could be overturned by some future observation that contradicts the model. I am quite willing to agree that some of the cosmological extrapolations of the basic Big Bang model do not seem to be supported by evidence. As such they seem to me to be mere speculations rather than knowledge in any useful sense.

But the basic Big Bang model is a proper model, as there are multiple lines of evidence, from observation, that support it. We observe the expansion of the universe. We observe the cosmic background radiation. These things are consistent with the model and are not readily explained any other way.

As you may be aware, the Big Bang model was originally put forward by a Catholic priest, astronomer and physicist, Fr. Georges Lemaȋtre. Poignantly, he died shortly after learning of the newly discovered cosmic background radiation, which corroborated his hypothesis. The model was resisted by atheist astronomers for a while, as they suspected it of trying to promote creationism! Such is history.

 

[dad]

Your last point is quite perceptive, I find.

In science, the only things we really "know" are the observations, once duly reconfirmed sufficiently.

YET cosmology is based on what we cannot observe! (that time and space are the same as here in the solar system area)
Evolution is based on nature always having been the same and that id not observed in any way of course. Now if all you are talking about is observation of things working on earth or some such..fine. Nothing to do with origin issues.

All our theories are merely models, and the knowledge they represent is strictly speaking provisional, as it could be overturned by some future observation that contradicts the model. I am quite willing to agree that some of the cosmological extrapolations of the basic Big Bang model do not seem to be supported by evidence. As such they seem to me to be mere speculations rather than knowledge in any useful sense.

OK, fine, I'll take it.

But the basic Big Bang model is a proper model, as there are multiple lines of evidence, from observation, that support it. We observe the expansion of the universe. We observe the cosmic background radiation. These things are consistent with the model and are not readily explained any other way.

False. You observe redshifted light out there you assume has to mean expansion...and that there was no creation, just expansion from the beginning...and that the distances cosmology uses are correct, etc. There can be no other way for science! Their models are based solely on precepts that do not allow for anything else but a fishbowl based (earth and solar system area based) explanation of what we see.

As you may be aware, the Big Bang model was originally put forward by a Catholic priest, astronomer and physicist, Fr. Georges Lemaȋtre. Poignantly, he died shortly after learning of the newly discovered cosmic background radiation, which corroborated his hypothesis. The model was resisted by atheist astronomers for a while, as they suspected it of trying to promote creationism! Such is history.

If the guy knew the bible he would not have gotten so messed up and confused. Having (what appears here as ) heat spaced out in the observed universe does not have to mean what science says. Not at all.

 

[exchemist]

YET cosmology is based on what we cannot observe! (that time and space are the same as here in the solar system area)
Evolution is based on nature always having been the same and that id not observed in any way of course. Now if all you are talking about is observation of things working on earth or some such..fine. Nothing to do with origin issues.

OK, fine, I'll take it.
False. You observe redshifted light out there you assume has to mean expansion...and that there was no creation, just expansion from the beginning...and that the distances cosmology uses are correct, etc. There can be no other way for science! Their models are based solely on precepts that do not allow for anything else but a fishbowl based (earth and solar system area based) explanation of what we see.



If the guy knew the bible he would not have gotten so messed up and confused. Having (what appears here as ) heat spaced out in the observed universe does not have to mean what science says. Not at all.

No it doesn't, that's true.

But the big bang model successfully accounts for both the recession and the heat. No other scientific model does this. So, provisionally as always, that is the model that is in favour.

You are quite right to point out that the models of science, in cosmology and in geology, assume that natural processes operating today are the same as the ones that operated in the past. This principle, which first became effectively defined in the context of c.19th geology, is known as uniformitarianism: Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia And it is an assumption, certainly. The justification for it is simply Ockham's Razor: one assumes the past works in the same way as the present for simplicity, unless there is scientific evidence that suggests it may not be so. And there is no such evidence, to date.

I recall at school wondering if the red shift could be due to the value of Planck's Constant having changed with time. But then that would make it hard to explain the CMBR, whereas both are explained by the Big Bang idea. So that's why Fr. Lemaître wins, for now.

 

[nPeace]

I thought so, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks for indulging me.

No problem.

Yup.


With both cases (the deer immunity to the parasite and bacterial immunity to antibiotics), the immunity stems from a mutation that gets passed down to later generations.

I was not aware that copying errors are responsible for immunity.
Isn't the immune system a natural defense system, in the organism?
Why do you attribute immunity to a result of a copying error?

That's a good question, and fortunately it's an easy one to answer.

In our E. coli experiment, we started with what's called a "single clone population" (or sometimes it's referred to as "monoclonal"), where all the bacteria we started with were descendants of a single individual. That's how we knew the entire original population we started with didn't have antibiotic immunity. If they had, some of them would have immediately started growing on the half of the petri dish that had the antibiotic in it.

So when we started, none of the bacteria had immunity. The bacteria were cultured for multiple generations until eventually, some started growing on the half with the antibiotic (it's been a while, but I recall it taking several weeks). That told us right away that something had changed to allow some members of that generation to live in the antibiotic. Then, as I described earlier, we were fortunate enough to be able to run some genetic tests where we identified the specific genetic changes that caused the antibiotic resistance. When we compared the original population (that didn't have immunity) with the evolved population (that did have immunity) we could identify the genetic differences.

Immunity is not something that resides in an organism... I mean, like a knight in a city.
The cells builds up a resistance to some invader only after being exposed to that threat. The cells do not build up an immunity, if it is not recognized to be a foreign invader, or threat to the organism.
So since the bacteria was never exposed to the antibiotic, it would not have genes that would resist the antibiotic. After exposure, the cells are familiar with the threat, and the genes are structured to resist it. Hence they can be passed on to future generations.

Well, as we've been over, a more accurate way to put it would be "but selective pressures act on that variation", but that's probably a little too detailed/technical for their target audience (laypeople). For most folks, the difference between "natural selection" and "selective pressures" isn't important.


I think you nailed it!

Glad we agree on that.

That's another technical discussion, so let me see if I can characterize it in a way that's helpful.

In biology there's a saying..."genotype determines phenotype", which basically means your physical characteristics are determined by your genetics. So, when it comes to natural selection (or selective pressure) the question is....what does it act on? Well, one argument is that your physical traits are what determines how well you survive and reproduce in a particular environment, so that's what selection acts on. The other argument is that since your physical traits are based on your genetics, and it's actually your genetics that change and get passed down your offspring, selection is really acting on your genetics.

So with say, the classic peppered moth example. Whether a moth is light or dark colored is genetically based. So what is selection (bird predation) acting on? Is it acting on the color, or is it acting on the genes that determine the color?

I don't work in evolutionary biology circles, so I don't really know what the state of this "debate" is, or even if it's still debated. (@tas8831 might know) To me I think it's kind of a "six of one, half a dozen of another" thing, where it's not really all that consequential in application. In my work, we deal with selective pressures and such all the time, and we've never argued over whether selection is acting on the trait or the genetics.

Interesting.
No problem. I've read it myself. I just was wondering about your view.
Please don't think that when I ask a question, I am asking for a tutoring. Please?

When a hurricane blows, what is it acting on? Everything it can affect in its path. What is the end result? Some buildings may be standing. Some flattened. Some missing parts - all based on the intensity of the hurricane. However, that depends on the factors that make the hurricane possible.
Take away those factors, and the hurricane doesn't happen.
Natural selection is the result. It is mindless - does not care about anything.
What more can I say...
Let's put natural selection to the side, for the meantime.

If we're referring to the overall process, then yes.

It won't be wrong to say, natural selection affects the population. Would it?

 

[Jose Fly]

I was not aware that copying errors are responsible for immunity.
Isn't the immune system a natural defense system, in the organism?
Why do you attribute immunity to a result of a copying error?

You're confusing immunity to something like an antibiotic with immunity to a virus (as in how the vertebrate immune system works). The two are not the same.

With resistance to the antibiotic in the lab experiment, the whole reason we used a single-clone population and compared the genetics of the parental and evolved strains was to establish that the resistance was due to a mutation.

Immunity is not something that resides in an organism... I mean, like a knight in a city.
The cells builds up a resistance to some invader only after being exposed to that threat. The cells do not build up an immunity, if it is not recognized to be a foreign invader, or threat to the organism.
So since the bacteria was never exposed to the antibiotic, it would not have genes that would resist the antibiotic. After exposure, the cells are familiar with the threat, and the genes are structured to resist it. Hence they can be passed on to future generations.

No, it doesn't work that way with bacterial resistance to antibiotics. We've known for over half a century that mutations can cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. It's the same with insects becoming resistant to pesticides. If you'd like, I can provide you all sorts of papers to read on this.

Please don't think that when I ask a question, I am asking for a tutoring. Please?

I'm just trying to be as helpful as I can.

When a hurricane blows, what is it acting on? Everything it can affect in its path. What is the end result? Some buildings may be standing. Some flattened. Some missing parts - all based on the intensity of the hurricane. However, that depends on the factors that make the hurricane possible.
Take away those factors, and the hurricane doesn't happen.
Natural selection is the result. It is mindless - does not care about anything.
What more can I say...
Let's put natural selection to the side, for the meantime.

No problem.

It won't be wrong to say, natural selection affects the population. Would it?

Nope, it would not be wrong to say that.

 

[nPeace]

You're confusing immunity to something like an antibiotic with immunity to a virus (as in how the vertebrate immune system works). The two are not the same.

With resistance to the antibiotic in the lab experiment, the whole reason we used a single-clone population and compared the genetics of the parental and evolved strains was to establish that the resistance was due to a mutation.


No, it doesn't work that way with bacterial resistance to antibiotics. We've known for over half a century that mutations can cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. It's the same with insects becoming resistant to pesticides. If you'd like, I can provide you all sorts of papers to read on this.


I'm just trying to be as helpful as I can.


No problem.


Nope, it would not be wrong to say that.

Can you post some info observing that mutation. Thanks.
I'll get back to you on this possibly tomorrow.

 

[ecco]

No. Science should just admit it knows squat about origins or the spiritual.

Science knows a lot more about origins than a bunch of myths. However, science does know that every culture has made up its own origin myths. Yours is no more believable than the Cherokee origin myth I posted earlier.

No one cares what they have to say..or not after that.

People care about truth. You, by your own admission, make up your own versions of what is and is not real. There is a term for people who do that - "delusional".

 

[Jose Fly]

Can you post some info observing that mutation. Thanks.
I'll get back to you on this possibly tomorrow.

Sure. Here ya go....

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(14)61550-0/fulltext

Here's something from the journal Nature that's more geared to laypeople: Mutation Rates and Antibiotic Resistance | Learn Science at Scitable

If you'd like more, just let me know.

 

[dad]

No it doesn't, that's true.

But the big bang model successfully accounts for both the recession and the heat.

The recession that it determines must be there due to it's interpretation of shifted light far far far far away. As for heat, well, that need not be related to any so called expansion phase/big bang etc.

No other scientific model does this. So, provisionally as always, that is the model that is in favour.

Science only uses strict guidelines/criteria in making any models. Using those criteria (fishbowl criteria) they are bound to be limited in what models can be like!

You are quite right to point out that the models of science, in cosmology and in geology, assume that natural processes operating today are the same as the ones that operated in the past. This principle, which first became effectively defined in the context of c.19th geology, is known as uniformitarianism: Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia And it is an assumption, certainly.

In other words it is believed but can't be demonstrated true. Sorry, but if someone is going to tell me God was wrong and the bible, and that they know better, they better darn well KNOW what they are talking about, rather than beliefs and assumptions.

The justification for it is simply Ockham's Razor: one assumes the past works in the same way as the present for simplicity, unless there is scientific evidence that suggests it may not be so. And there is no such evidence, to date.

Doing so forces one to toss out ancient history and Scripture. That is simple all right. It is called rejecting the truth of God and recorded features of life in history to boot. No Christian monk would want that. Another simple way to look at evidence is to believe that our nature does not represent the nature of the far past here on earth! Simple need no mean pagan or godless.

I recall at school wondering if the red shift could be due to the value of Planck's Constant having changed with time. But then that would make it hard to explain the CMBR, whereas both are explained by the Big Bang idea. So that's why Fr. Lemaître wins, for now.

We do not need any constant to have changed over time, we could have time right now...as we speak..being non existent (as we know it on earth) or different out in the distant universe. What may take a century here may not involve much time at all out there. Maybe God stretched time as well as space in all His stretching!?

 

[dad]

Science knows a lot more about origins than a bunch of myths. However, science does know that every culture has made up its own origin myths. Yours is no more believable than the Cherokee origin myth I posted earlier.

Not sure why you interject the spirit world into your worshipful rant about physical science.

People care about truth. You, by your own admission, make up your own versions of what is and is not real. There is a term for people who do that - "delusional".

Your denial of history and the bible and the spiritual coupled with your demonstrated and repeated total failure to be able to support the nature you claim existed on earth in the past has rendered your so called science beliefs null and void.