I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[metis]

I hold the faith position. My burden is only the absence of a defeater. So I have requested that others provide that defeater. Only one person so far has even made the attempt.

My claim is that strong evidence against my position does not exist. No one can prove a negative so others must prove a positive. Until this occurs I have every warrant necessary to hold my beliefs. You need to understand what burdens different positions require.

First of all, I did provide you with evidence that was found in the link I provided you, plus I showed you where you can get much more of the same. You have provided nothing but your opinions, thus you have not provided any evidence whatsoever or link for your "wall" you say exists. It is you, not I, who says it exists, so the burden of proof is on you.

 

[metis]

I hold the faith position.

Can you explain what you mean by that because the word throwing me is "the" rather then maybe "a" or "my"? In Christianity, there is no "the faith position".

 

[1robin]

Why aren't fossils evidence? It would seem to me that if humans evolved from an ancestor shared with other apes that there should have been species in the past that had a mixture of ape and human features. So why aren't fossils that have those features evidence for the theory? Please explain.

I didn't say were not evidence for something. I specifically said they were evidence of something but I also said a poster with 14 somewhat similar skulls on it does not demonstrate that anything evolved from anything. Macroevolution is a belief which takes an ounce of evidence and produces a ton of theory. I am looking for someone to demonstrate that macroevolution is a fact, not a belief. I am not looking for a theory (I know very well what theories are out there) I am looking for proof.

We also observe fossils and genomes, all of which contain evidence of what happened in the past. Why do you ignore these observations?

Of course fossils say something about the past but they are not proof of macroevolution.

How do you determine if different species belong to the same kind?

That is a good question. It is hard to say for sure, the most common interpretation is creatures that can interbreed, a second possibility would be what appears to be a type of creature. I do not know if biblical "kinds" translates to any accepted taxonomy classification.

For example wolves, dogs, and coyotes all seem to be the same "kind" of creature.

Until you show us what genetic manipulation was done the example stands. All you are doing is demonstrating your refusal to accept the very evidence you are asking for.

I just do not have the time at the moment to investigate all the links in all the threads I have been getting. I looked into your example a little bit and it appeared to suggest artificial insemination and I didn't see anything about one kind of thing becoming another. However I did not reject your example I simply asked you some questions about it. I don't have much time currently so I need you to point out the specific things you want me to consider concerning the links you gave. Your posting 6 or 7 responses at a time and just one of your links contains 29 different cases that I would have to investigate. I need you to consolidate the amount of info I must evaluate.

 

[1robin]

What we do have is observations consistent with separate species sharing a common ancestor. We call that evidence.

Who observed a primate evolving into chimps and humans?

Can you explain why you expect to see millions of years worth of evolution in just a few hundred years?

You finally get it. I don't expect it because it never occurred. It does not matter why we do not know macroevolution, it only matters that we don't. The fact that macroevolution takes longer to occur than we have to observe is why I knew that it has never been observed.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Who observed a primate evolving into chimps and humans?

Chimps and humans evolving from a shared primate common ancestor is the hypothesis. The observations that support this hypothesis are shared genetic markers like ERV's and the fossils which you are ignoring.

The fact that macroevolution takes longer to occur than we have to observe is why I knew that it has never been observed.

Except that it has happened, but you made up stories about genetic manipulation as a way of ignoring those observations.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[1robin]

Do you agree that humans and other primates are in the same kind since we are all primates?

I would have to think about it a while before I could say for sure but I will say that just because people call monkeys and people primates does not have anything to do with whether they are both the same kind in a biblical sense. The arbitrary terms biologists use has no effect on biological reality. You can call a whale an elephant but nothing about actual whales or elephants will change.

Do you agree that humans and all other mammals are in the mammal kind?

I can certainly agree that that label may be used to refer to both. But doing so has no impact on biological facts what so ever.

Your trying to evaluate the biblical term "kind" by referring to semantic technicalities.

Would you be willing to discuss endogenous retroviruses?

I am happy to consider anything you want to post but your referring to things that will require a long time to sufficiently evaluate. That is fine but since I am short on time at the moment I need you to synthesize these very involved subjects into very compact statements that quickly get to the point your trying to make.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I didn't say were not evidence for something. I specifically said they were evidence of something but I also said a poster with 14 somewhat similar skulls on it does not demonstrate that anything evolved from anything. Macroevolution is a belief which takes an ounce of evidence and produces a ton of theory.

If it is a theory backed by evidence then it isn't a belief.

I am looking for someone to demonstrate that macroevolution is a fact, not a belief. I am not looking for a theory (I know very well what theories are out there) I am looking for proof.

" First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254

There are more than 200,000 ERV insertions in the human and chimp genomes that are found at the same loci. That's 200,000 pieces of proof right there.

That is a good question. It is hard to say for sure, the most common interpretation is creatures that can interbreed, a second possibility would be what appears to be a type of creature. I do not know if biblical "kinds" translates to any accepted taxonomy classification.

For example wolves, dogs, and coyotes all seem to be the same "kind" of creature.

Humans, wolves, dogs, and coyotes also appear to be the same kind of creature, what we call a mammal.

I just do not have the time at the moment to investigate all the links in all the threads I have been getting. I looked into your example a little bit and it appeared to suggest artificial insemination and I didn't see anything about one kind of thing becoming another. However I did not reject your example I simply asked you some questions about it. I don't have much time currently so I need you to point out the specific things you want me to consider concerning the links you gave. Your posting 6 or 7 responses at a time and just one of your links contains 29 different cases that I would have to investigate. I need you to consolidate the amount of info I must evaluate.

Then it makes me wonder why you say there is just an ounce of evidence supporting evolution when there is so much evidence you don't have to time read about it.

 

[1robin]

There 13 species of finches on the Galapagos islands alone. Those are 13 separate breeding populations. Across the world, there are hundreds of finch species that are separate breeding populations. You claim that finches are a kind, correct? If so, how are you determining which species do or do not belong to a kind?

The word species is irrelevant to this subject. To save time I will assume your right that one type of finch can't breed with any other type but I still do not see any evidence that one type of finch became another type. It is very hard to gravitate back and forth between biblical terms and modern taxonomy terms. I do not think that any taxonomy term is relevant to my claims but I understand it is very hard to discuss this without using them.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I would have to think about it a while before I could say for sure but I will say that just because people call monkeys and people primates does not have anything to do with whether they are both the same kind in a biblical sense. The arbitrary terms biologists use has no effect on biological reality. You can call a whale an elephant but nothing about actual whales or elephants will change.

Actually, we would point out that whales and elephants are both in the mammal kind. Also, their common ancestor was also a mammal. Therefore, whales and elephants would be an example of evolution within a kind. Humans and chimps evolving from a common primate ancestor is also evolution within the primate kind. Humans and whales evolving from a common ancestral mammal is also evolution within the mammal kind. Humans and trout evolving from a common vertebrate ancestor is also evolution within the vertebrate kind.

 

[1robin]

So if you were presented with a documented example of a population giving rise to a new population that was completely unable to breed with the original population, your position would be negated?

The term population has no relevance. I don't even know what your talking about when you use that term.

The only person who has attempted to provide any example of one breeding population evolving into another is @Thermos aquaticus, no one else has even tried. I am not saying that their example was right or wrong. What I told them was that I do not have time at the moment to fully investigate what they were talking about so instead I asked them to strain the information at their link and post the specific parts that they claim counter my own statements. This has not occurred yet but may in the future. I couldn't even tell if they were talking about a bacteria or a type of moth nor whether or not geneticists had manipulated the creature in question. It said that whatever it was inseminated????? I am still trying to get clarification and have rejected nothing yet.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The word species is irrelevant to this subject.

"However it does not matter because I am talking about what the bible meant by kind. It is most often translated as a breeding population."--1robin

A species is a breeding population. You claimed that a breeding population was relevant to this subject.

To save time I will assume your right that one type of finch can't breed with any other type but I still do not see any evidence that one type of finch became another type.

A new species of finch evolved right in front of researchers.

The Galapagos finches have been intensely studied by biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant since 1973. At that time, the Galapagos island Daphne Major was occupied by two finch species: the medium ground finch and the cactus finch. Then, in 1981, a hybrid finch arrived on Daphne Major from a neighboring island. It was part ground finch, part cactus finch, and quite large compared to the locals. It also happened to have an extra-wide beak and an unusual song — a mash-up of the songs sung by ground finches in its birthplace and on Daphne Major. The immigrant paired up with a local female ground finch (who also happened to carry some cactus finch genes), and the Grants followed these birds' descendents for the next 28 years.

After four generations, the island experienced a severe drought, which killed many of the finches. The two surviving descendents of the immigrant finch mated with each other, and this appears to have set the stage for speciation. In December of 2009, the Grants announced that, since the drought, the new lineage has been isolated from the local finches: the children and grandchildren of the survivors have only produced offspring with one another.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

I do not think that any taxonomy term is relevant to my claims but I understand it is very hard to discuss this without using them.

In biology, species are grouped by shared derived features, also called synapomorphies. What criteria are you using?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

They're not mutually exclusive. Get it back.

God doesn't want us living in a cave. Nor under the slavery of early classical Rome. He wants us to develop and grow. To evolve.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passag...+2:15,Ephesians+4:24,Hebrews+8:13&version=ESV

My God is a God of traditions, but also a God of new wineskins.

 

[1robin]

Perhaps you should slow down a bit. Your posts are filled with errors so all you will get is a quick correction. Bring up your claims one at a time and we can go over them. Also you still have not made a proper definition of kind. Think of this a you try to define the term: How would you tell if two different populations were the same kind of not.

As far as you are concerned I have defined what I mean by kind over and over and over. I give up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as you are concerned I have defined what I mean by kind over and over and over. I give up.

The problem is that you haven't. If you can't tell me how you would tell if two separate populations are the same "kind" or not then you do not have a functioning definition. There are several definitions of "species" depending upon various conditions. One of them is the based upon the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. If they can't interbreed and produce a third group that will continue to breed and produce young then they are no longer the same species. That sort of evolution has been directly observed in nature.

My request for a working definition is not unreasonable since as you use the word it is all but worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The term population has no relevance. I don't even know what your talking about when you use that term.

The only person who has attempted to provide any example of one breeding population evolving into another is @Thermos aquaticus, no one else has even tried. I am not saying that their example was right or wrong. What I told them was that I do not have time at the moment to fully investigate what they were talking about so instead I asked them to strain the information at their link and post the specific parts that they claim counter my own statements. This has not occurred yet but may in the future. I couldn't even tell if they were talking about a bacteria or a type of moth nor whether or not geneticists had manipulated the creature in question. It said that whatever it was inseminated????? I am still trying to get clarification and have rejected nothing yet.

No, it has the term has very important relevance. It is how one tells if a speciation event has occurred or not. This is why definitions are so important. One must have a definition that can not only support one's work, but also conceivably refute it. In the sciences one cannot even begin to claim that one has evidence for an idea if that idea is not testable and possibly refutable. The willingness to put one's beliefs to the test is k a basic part of doing science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

As far as you are concerned I have defined what I mean by kind over and over and over. I give up.

First, you said that going from one breeding population to two breeding populations was macroevolution. You now claim that breeding populations are irrelevant. On top of that, you use groups such as finches which are groups of separate breeding populations, and you label them as the same kind. Surely you can see how your position can be a bit confusing. The target for macroevolution appears to be moving all over the place.

 

[Jose Fly]

The term population has no relevance. I don't even know what your talking about when you use that term.

A population is a group of interbreeding organisms that live in the same place at the same time.

The only person who has attempted to provide any example of one breeding population evolving into another is @Thermos aquaticus, no one else has even tried. I am not saying that their example was right or wrong. What I told them was that I do not have time at the moment to fully investigate what they were talking about so instead I asked them to strain the information at their link and post the specific parts that they claim counter my own statements. This has not occurred yet but may in the future. I couldn't even tell if they were talking about a bacteria or a type of moth nor whether or not geneticists had manipulated the creature in question. It said that whatever it was inseminated????? I am still trying to get clarification and have rejected nothing yet.

It's very simple. A population (see above) exists in a certain place for a period of time, and at some point that population gives rise to a new population that is completely unable to interbreed with the original population. Then the two populations co-exist, side by side, never breeding with each other.

Is that the sort of thing that would negate your position ("So to counter my position you must show that in fact one breeding population is known to have evolved into another")?

 

[1robin]

There are hundreds of breeding populations of finches, yet you say that finches is a kind. Care to explain?

I believe I said both. Let me clarify.

1. When your talking about things that appear to be extremely similar it is hard to translate the biblical term "kind". I would have to investigate all of the creatures you mention to determine what can't breed with what, what could breed but doesn't, and what can and does breed.
2. However I was willing to consider different types of finches as being different kinds just for the sake of argument. What you need to show in that case is that one type of finches evolved into a different type.

Simply claiming that different groups of finches exist is not proof that one group evolved into another. Are you keeping up with all the terms involved? I can't. We got types, groups, species, populations, finches, kinds, primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc....ad nausium. Its becoming unmanageable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I said both. Let me clarify.

1. When your talking about things that appear to be extremely similar it is hard to translate the biblical term "kind". I would have to investigate all of the creatures you mention to determine what can't breed with what, what could breed but doesn't, and what can and does breed.
2. However I was willing to consider different types of finches as being different kinds just for the sake of argument. What you need to show in that case is that one type of finches evolved into a different type.

Simply claiming that different groups of finches exist is not proof that one group evolved into another. Are you keeping up with all the terms involved? I can't. We got types, groups, species, populations, finches, kinds, primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc....ad nausium. Its becoming unmanageable.

Twice I linked an article on ring species that showed that process in action. You never asked questions about it. It is a clear example that macroevolution does occur.

 

[1robin]

Correction, absence of evidence may be, but is not always, evidence of absence. If a supposed event would have left evidence and there is none than would be a case of evidence of absence.

More irrelevant and incorrect semantic technicalities. You did not correct me. I said that it may not be which implicitly implies that it could be as well.

You are correct about the second thing though. An absence of evidence is only evidence of absence only when we do not find the amount of evidence we should have if the proposition is true. This is impossible to determine in the case of common descent.