I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Thermos aquaticus]

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.

Horses and donkeys produce sterile mules, so would you consider them separate species or different kinds?

Great Danes and Chihuahuas can't interbreed, so are they different kinds?

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.

How do you determine if two finch populations are "different types"? Chimps sure look a lot like we do, so are they the same kind?

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.

It's a bit easier for biologists since all species fit into one group.

 

[1robin]

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.

So far the only attempt I have noticed to post proof was provided by @Thermos aquaticus. I am way behind in my responses at the moment and have been in a big rush. If you think there is proof of one breeding population evolving into another you need to quote that specific proof. I am way to short on time to fully investigate links without those quotes. If you specifically quote this proof I will investigate the link that accompanies it. I also do not recall using the word "wall" in this thread. I don't know what your referring to.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ecco: “Now give us one absolutely incontrovertible instance where the bible has proved itself.”

Here you go.... https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989038?q=science+bible&p=par

Nice, Deeje.

 

[metis]

If you think there is proof of one breeding population evolving into another you need to quote that specific proof.

First of all, you had time to respond to what I had posted so why didn't you have the time to even take a brief look at the link I posted?

Secondly, the above deals with "speciatation", which is a very slow process, relatively speaking. For an example, it's not like there was an early version of the horse, which was about the size of a current medium-sized dog with five toes, suddenly gave birth to a draft horse with hooves. Instead, that process took millions of years, obviously with stages in between.

Again, the evolution of life is just plain old common sense as all material items appear to change over time, and genes are material items. If you are right and I am wrong, then we should expect that geneticists would agree with you and not I, but the opposite is true.

BTW, you didn't respond to my question that I asked you in my last post, so maybe revisit that and explain why you chose the word "the".

 

[ecco]

I know they will work very hard on the origins of life, consciousness, and the universe. So we will wait and see if they can work it all out. I dont have any faith in that though.

• Five hundred years ago you would have not had any faith in believing that we would work out that some germs are beneficial while others are harmful.
• Five hundred years ago you would have not had any faith in believing that we would work out that the earth is not the center of the universe.
• Five hundred years ago you would have not had any faith in believing that we could someday travel in horseless carriages and fly thousands of feet over the ground.

People like you have never given rise to progress.

 

[1robin]

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".

"The" refers to a thing. In this case that thing is a position but I think the words "a" or "my" would also work. I would have never thought the word "the" would cause confusion in this context.

 

[ecco]

1. I said that the absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence.
2. I also stated that the absence of proof means that the conclusion is not known to be true.

No, you said...

I said it has never been observed therefor it is not known to have occurred therefor the bible's claim is perfectly consistent with known reality

Just because something has not been observed does not mean that something has not occurred.

The bible's claim of a worldwide flood is not consistent with reality.

Just the couple of things you have conceded is all that is necessary to justify my position.

I have conceded nothing other than an acknowledgement of your nonsensical views..

The burden of faith is the absence of a defeater. You can't provide a defeater (your own admission) my position is fully warranted.

I'll also concede that the above is unintelligible.

 

[1robin]

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.

I am ignoring nothing. We share a great many genetic markers with tomato's as well. How exactly does that demonstrate one evolved into the other.

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

I did not request your opinion concerning whether you think evidence exist, I asked for that evidence.

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

Yesterday alone I got 37 responses. I spend every moment I can spare typing replies and still can't keep up because every post I submit is responded to in 3 or 4 posts from others.

I tried to quickly asses your copy and paste. When I saw it said "inseminated female" I requested clarification concerning whether geneticist manipulated this study. Instead of clarifying you simply copied and pasted your study again. I have limited time at the moment. If you want me to consider your argument (as I have said repeatedly) I need you to select the specific part of the study you think proves I am wrong. What you copied and pasted isn't it. If it's in there somewhere find it and post it.

 

[osgart]

• Five hundred years ago you would have not had any faith in believing that we would work out that some germs are beneficial while others are harmful.
• Five hundred years ago you would have not had any faith in believing that we would work out that the earth is not the center of the universe.
• Five hundred years ago you would have not had any faith in believing that we could someday travel in horseless carriages and fly thousands of feet over the ground.

People like you have never given rise to progress.

And you would have that faith? Especially not being directly involved? And way before it happened?

I suppose religious faith should be abandoned then according to you?

 

[metis]

"The" refers to a thing. In this case that thing is a position but I think the words "a" or "my" would also work. I would have never thought the word "the" would cause confusion in this context.

The reason I focused in on "the" was because I was getting the impression you thought there was only one Christian view on the creation accounts and that it was a literalistic one.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am ignoring nothing. We share a great many genetic markers with tomato's as well. How exactly does that demonstrate one evolved into the other.

You may want to check out my thread on ERVs (if you have not already):

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

I did not request your opinion concerning whether you think evidence exist, I asked for that evidence.

See thread above.

I tried to quickly asses your copy and paste. When I saw it said "inseminated female" I requested clarification concerning whether geneticist manipulated this study. Instead of clarifying you simply copied and pasted your study again. I have limited time at the moment. If you want me to consider your argument (as I have said repeatedly) I need you to select the specific part of the study you think proves I am wrong. What you copied and pasted isn't it. If it's in there somewhere find it and post it.

There was no genetic manipulation. What resulted was separate breeding populations.

 

[1robin]

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

That is exactly what it is. Anytime we lack absolute certainty for our conclusion it is a belief.

" 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

I only had time to scan what you copied and pasted. I take issue with it's conclusion. The data provided does not prove a common ancestor existed. There is a huge difference between evidence for something and proof of something.

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.

Can you please dumb some of this down so it does not require that I earn a PhD in biology to be able to quickly asses it? However on first glance this also appears to be a belief. While genetic similarity may be shown to exist similarity is not proof of anything. A Toyota and a Honda contain thousands of similarities in in the same locations. That is not proof that a tundra evolved into an accord.

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

A child could see that humans and wolves are two different kinds of creatures and they can easily see that coyotes, dogs, and wolves appear to be the same kind of creature. I appreciate your effort to supply what I requested but you keep mistakenly trying to bind what the bible means by "kind" by arbitrary taxonomy terms.

If you want the first chance I get I will look into the exact biblical interpretation of the word kind, but until I can do so there is no way to know what taxonomy term (if any) that corresponds to the biblical term "kind"

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.

What does the amount of time I have at any one moment have to do with my motivations? The amount of time I have has nothing to do with my attitude.

Again, you have made a better effort than anyone else in this thread to provide what I requested and I hope I can find the time to sufficiently evaluate the examples you brought up but at the moment I just don't. Just yesterday alone I got almost 40 replies to get to.

 

[ecco]

And you would have that faith? Especially not being directly involved? And way before it happened?

I suppose religious faith should be abandoned then according to you?

Man's progress has been made despite religious objections.

Certainly religious faith should be abandoned. Then it would no longer pose an impediment to learning.

Thousands of young kids are turned against science by religious holy rollers of all faiths.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

That is exactly what it is. Anytime we lack absolute certainty for our conclusion it is a belief.

Are germs a belief? Are atoms a belief? Is the Sun a belief?

I only had time to scan what you copied and pasted. I take issue with it's conclusion. The data provided does not prove a common ancestor existed. There is a huge difference between evidence for something and proof of something.

This is what I meant by creationists not accepting evidence.

While genetic similarity may be shown to exist similarity is not proof of anything.

It isn't simply genetic similarities. We are talking about viral genomes that have been inserted into the host genome. Since retroviruses insert randomly throughout the genome the only way to have two different species with the same insertion at the same position in their genomes is if the ERV was found in their common ancestor. If they did not share a common ancestor then their ERVs would be at different places in their genomes.

A Toyota and a Honda contain thousands of similarities in in the same locations. That is not proof that a tundra evolved into an accord.

Evolution isn't evidenced simply by similarities. Evolution is evidenced by a nested hierarchy. It is the PATTERN of similarities that matters.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_16

This is one of the most frustrating parts of these discussions. You claim there is very little if any evidence for evolution, yet you don't even understand the most basic principles of the theory. I'm not trying to pick on you, I swear. You seem like a nice person and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity. However, you can probably understand why people would get frustrated when people reject a theory they know so little about.

A child could see that humans and wolves are two different kinds of creatures and they can easily see that coyotes, dogs, and wolves appear to be the same kind of creature.

A child can see that a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are different kinds of creatures. I can as well. I can see that wolves and domestic dogs are different kinds of creatures.

I appreciate your effort to supply what I requested but you keep mistakenly trying to bind what the bible means by "kind" by arbitrary taxonomy terms.

You are trying to create kinds by your arbitrary decisions on what looks similar.

 

[1robin]

Actually, we would point out that whales and elephants are both in the mammal kind.

I don't know why because arbitrary terms have no effect on biological reality.

Also, their common ancestor was also a mammal.

Saying that doesn't make it so. No one has ever or will ever observe what you just claimed was fact.

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.

Why do you keep equate what the bible meant by kind with what you or any biologist happens to think the word kind may mean? If you want to help me find the time to sufficiently examine your examples then quit wasting it by doing this over and over. As a matter of fact I wish you would drop all these semantic technicalities pick the best example you have from those you have provided and give me time to adequately investigate it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I don't know why because arbitrary terms have no effect on biological reality.

You mean arbitrary terms like finches or dogs? How is mammal any less arbitrary than finches?

Saying that doesn't make it so. No one has ever or will ever observe what you just claimed was fact.

You said that two breeding populations were finches, because you say so. How is that any different?

Why do you keep equate what the bible meant by kind with what you or any biologist happens to think the word kind may mean? If you want to help me find the time to sufficiently examine your examples then quit wasting it by doing this over and over. As a matter of fact I wish you would drop all these semantic technicalities pick the best example you have from those you have provided and give me time to adequately investigate it.

You are the one who said that a kind, according to the Bible, was a breeding population. I then showed that researchers directly observed the evolution of two breeding populations of birds on the Galapagos islands. You rejected that example because you arbitrarily grouped them as finches. Who is the one not using the biblical definition?

 

[1robin]

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.

No it is not unreasonable to ask for a definition unless I have already supplied that definition several times. Sorry @Subduction Zone but I am too far behind on my responses and must end some of my debates to enable me to catch up. So what I am going to do is this. @Thermos aquaticus is doing a better job than anyone else to counter my points so I am going to continue to debate him/her, so if you want to watch our debate most of what your asking will be answered.

 

[1robin]

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.

I am getting even further behind, I can't catch up. So what I am going to do is this. You are the only one in this thread that is posting challenging responses. So what I am going to do is end my other debates in this thread and concentrate on you so I can find the time to sufficiently consider your claims.

So just hang on a bit until I can catch up and tell others that they can simply view our discussions if they want to follow the discussion. When I get caught up I will responding to your questions in detail. So, just hang on a bit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it is not unreasonable to ask for a definition unless I have already supplied that definition several times. Sorry @Subduction Zone but I am too far behind on my responses and must end some of my debates to enable me to catch up. So what I am going to do is this. @Thermos aquaticus is doing a better job than anyone else to counter my points so I am going to continue to debate him/her, so if you want to watch our debate most of what your asking will be answered.

Once again, I explained why your definition fails. When your definition fails it is more than reasonable to ask for one that does not.

And I refuted your points a long time ago. You either did not pay attention or you did not understand. You should have asked questions.

Let me explain one more time why your definition fails: If it cannot be used to tell you if two separate groups are of the same "kind" or not it fails as a definition. The species definition of evolution can be used to show why lions and tigers are different species, even though they can have limited breeding with each other. It also tells us that horses and donkeys are different species. The offspring of the two species when they do interbreed in both cases are not able to breed an ongoing population.

When your definition has shown to fail, by your own admission of an inability to tell us whether or not two populations are of the same "kind" or not then you have not given a definition several times. You have only repeated an error several times.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No it is not unreasonable to ask for a definition unless I have already supplied that definition several times.

You have already ditched that definition when you were shown an example that met those criteria.