Merged Icebear's Evolution Thread

[Red Baron Farms]

This is interesting.

This thread has a wealth of data and linked resource.

I am engaging through email with a Christian who was involved with creating a pamphlet called 'The Fairytale' which ended up in my letter box.

Q: How do you know your God didn’t create through evolution?

A: (1) I know my God did not create through evolution because my God is the God of the bible. The God of the bible created the universe as stated in Genesis chapter 1 which is incompatible with evolution (each animal created to produce after it's own kind, not give rise to different kinds). A God that created through evolution is not the God of the bible and therefore it is not my god.

(2) There are some who try to make evolution fit with the bible, they are called Theistic Evolutionists. Now in order to reconcile evolution with the Bible, the account in Genesis 1-10 is said to be poetry or mythical.

(3) This is arbitrary, One might as well equally as arbitrarily take Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' as a poem or myth.

(4) It takes very little training in languages to identify literary genres; the natural reading of Genesis 1-10 reveals that it is historical narrative.

​

Me: (1) I consider the creation story a metaphor myself. At this time I have no desire to focus on that.
I would like to clarify. Your knowing is in relation to that story regarding your god and how he is said to have created the physical universe, correct?
You are not disputing that a conscious ‘something’ (which we could agree to refer to as ‘a god’) could have created through the device of evolution. You are saying that this conscious something is not ‘your god’ because you god is the ‘god of the bible’
Correct?

If so, what you refer to as ‘knowing’ is belief. You believe in the god of the bible and you know what the bible says re creation.

What you know the bible says, you believe that it is true.

Would you agree with this?

Q: Do you believe everything written in the bible? (yes or no will be fine for now)


(2) Or metaphor. Not to be taken literally. Like a parable. Metaphor is necessary in order to explain the unexplainable or exceptionally hard to explain.

(3) I find this quiet dismissive. Are you saying that people are dismissive of a story which can be seen as metaphor, and is but a page long, and this dismissive stance equates to the same thing as if a person would do this to Darwin’s comprehensive theory of evolution?
How do you justify your statement in light of the fact that one explanation is hardly a page long and the other is extremely involved and particular on details?

(4) Are you saying that while the story is only a few lines long, it is as involved and comprehensive as Darwin’s theory of evolution?
If so, can you expand on this, using that story?

I am confused. Where does the debate with your email friend end and your questions to me, if any, begin? Also, which questions are relevant to the science forum and how? I respect any persons right to their religious beliefs or lack thereof, which is why I have mostly posted only in the science forum with only 1 exception. Not really interested in converting the world to my religious views. I am however interested in both learning about and teaching others in the ecological, biological, and agricultural sciences, which includes lively debate without personal attacks, and the humble nature to know when my knowledge is lacking or not. Religious dogma debates almost always end up as personal attacks and not something I am interested in at all. Science debates can get nasty too. I admit. Already once here a poster was attacking with with all the underhanded lies and rhetoric techniques found in the other areas. I even got sucked into a tit for tat with him. But that is the exception here. I prefer it that way. So instead of asking me these questions, (which ever ones were actually directed at me and not your creationist email friend), think about them yourself and whatever you decide is right, I'll respect your opinion, even if I may not agree.

Respectfully,
Scott

PS ETA 1 no 2 partly 3 no 4 no There are a whole lot of strawmen you created, but since you phrased them as questions, I suppose it is ok. However, I am not interested in expanding. My beliefs are my own private affair and not open for debate. If you feel the need to debate them yourself, I recommend the religious forum for that. If it is your own personal need to know, then get a Bible (several translations) and read it yourself, over and over, for years, without some creationist preacher (or me) trying to corrupt your thoughts. I am willing to say that my beliefs are not even close to what your questions seem to imply or suppose.

 

[Navigator]

The fruit fly experiments in the early decades of the 1900s should have been the end of it. Fruit flies breed new generations every other day so that running any sort of a decades-long experiment with fruit flies will involve more generations of them than there have ever been of anything even remotely resembling humans on our planet. Those flies were subjected to everything in the world known to cause mutations and the mutants were recombined every possible way; all they ever got were sterile freaks, and fruit flies. The results were unambiguous. Several prominent scientists publicly denounced evolution at that point in time including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.

The failure was due to the fact that our entire living world is driven by information and the only information there ever was in the picture was that for a fruit fly. When the DNA/RNA information scheme was discovered, even if the fruit fly thing had never happened, evolution should have been discarded on the spot. But GIVEN the fact of the fruit fly experiments, somebody HAD to have thought to himself "Hey, THAT'S THE REASON THE FRUIT FLY EXPERIMENTS FAILED!!!!!!"

In other words, there is no way in the world anybody should be believing in evolution 40 years after the discovery of DNA.

Evolution is an ideological doctrine masquerading as a science theory.

I am confused. Where does the debate with your email friend end and your questions to me, if any, begin? Also, which questions are relevant to the science forum and how? I respect any persons right to their religious beliefs or lack thereof, which is why I have mostly posted only in the science forum with only 1 exception. Not really interested in converting the world to my religious views. I am however interested in both learning about and teaching others in the ecological, biological, and agricultural sciences, which includes lively debate without personal attacks, and the humble nature to know when my knowledge is lacking or not. Religious dogma debates almost always end up as personal attacks and not something I am interested in at all. Science debates can get nasty too. I admit. Already once here a poster was attacking with with all the underhanded lies and rhetoric techniques found in the other areas. I even got sucked into a tit for tat with him. But that is the exception here. I prefer it that way. So instead of asking me these questions, (which ever ones were actually directed at me and not your creationist email friend), think about them yourself and whatever you decide is right, I'll respect your opinion, even if I may not agree.

Respectfully,
Scott

PS ETA 1 no 2 partly 3 no 4 no There are a whole lot of strawmen you created, but since you phrased them as questions, I suppose it is ok. However, I am not interested in expanding. My beliefs are my own private affair and not open for debate. If you feel the need to debate them yourself, I recommend the religious forum for that. If it is your own personal need to know, then get a Bible (several translations) and read it yourself, over and over, for years, without some creationist preacher (or me) trying to corrupt your thoughts. I am willing to say that my beliefs are not even close to what your questions seem to imply or suppose.

Hi Scott.

I wasn't asking you any questions I was just commenting on the thread which seems to have been started by 'icebear' and seems to contain references to god as a creator.

Anyway, handy data. I have no interest in your beliefs, I just thought what you quoted from the bible and your commentary on it was interesting.

ETA the questions are just quotes from the email interaction. Sorry for the confusion - I wasn't asking you anything. I see I could have clarified that. My bad.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Hi Scott.

I wasn't asking you any questions I was just commenting on the thread which seems to have been started by 'icebear' and seems to contain references to god as a creator.

Anyway, handy data. I have no interest in your beliefs, I just thought what you quoted from the bible and your commentary on it was interesting.

ETA the questions are just quotes from the email interaction. Sorry for the confusion - I wasn't asking you anything. I see I could have clarified that. My bad.

Well that explains it then. All good.

 

[icebear]

I have a simple question for you icebear: What on Earth are you talking about? Why would evolution be disproved by DNA?

Simple answer: Because DNA/RNA is an information code like xml, and information codes do not simply form up out of the blue from inanimate matter, for no particular reason.

Our entire biosphere is driven by information. The fruit fly experiments, designed specifically to prove for all time the validity of the concept of macroevolution and the theory of evolution, failed so spectacularly and unambiguously that a number of prominent scientists at the time denounced evolution. That included the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt, which you can look up.

That failure was due to the fact that the only information there ever was in that picture was the information for a fruit fly. The experiments proved in no uncertain terms that information for any sort of a meaningfully new creature could not be created by any combination of mutation and selection, as the theory of evolution demands.

 

[icebear]

One other note...

When I use the term "God", I am referring to whoever or whatever created the DNA/RNA system and our living world.

The question of a relationship of God to the God ("Yahweh") of the old testament is above my pay grade.

But I can tell you this... ALL ancient religions were originally astral. You can convince yourself that "El" meant Saturn by doing Google searches on "Saturn el Babylon" and you need to include the term "Babylon" to weed out all the hits on GM/Saturn car dealerships. Yahweh is basically the same name as "Jove", which was another name for Jupiter. The two dwarf stars, Jupiter and Saturn, were the two chieftain gods of all ancient religions.

Israelites were the first people on Earth to figure out that they should not be worshiping dwarf stars. The most opposite example was Lithuanians, who were still worshiping Odin at the time of the crusades.

 

[Mojo]

Simple answer: Because DNA/RNA is an information code like xml, and information codes do not simply form up out of the blue from inanimate matter, for no particular reason.

Our entire biosphere is driven by information. The fruit fly experiments, designed specifically to prove for all time the validity of the concept of macroevolution and the theory of evolution, failed so spectacularly and unambiguously that a number of prominent scientists at the time denounced evolution. That included the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt, which you can look up.

That failure was due to the fact that the only information there ever was in that picture was the information for a fruit fly. The experiments proved in no uncertain terms that information for any sort of a meaningfully new creature could not be created by any combination of mutation and selection, as the theory of evolution demands.

That's a nice bundle of straw you have there, but it's no substitute for a valid argument.

 

[Border Reiver]

Thousands of years and not a shred of evidence for the existence of sky daddies. It will be a long so far, methinks.

"Beer is evidence that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Benjamin Franklin

Alternately, Ben just liked to drink and was trying to justify it.

Either way, beer is good.

 

[Border Reiver]

The fruit fly experiments, designed specifically to prove for all time the validity of the concept of macroevolution and the theory of evolution, failed so spectacularly and unambiguously that a number of prominent scientists at the time denounced evolution. That included the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt, which you can look up.

That failure was due to the fact that the only information there ever was in that picture was the information for a fruit fly. The experiments proved in no uncertain terms that information for any sort of a meaningfully new creature could not be created by any combination of mutation and selection, as the theory of evolution demands.

Why must you turn my forum into a place of lies?

From the Wiki on Goldschmidt:

Goldschmidt is usually referred to as a "non-Darwinian" however he did not object to the general microevolutionary principles of the Darwinians. He only veered from the synthetic theory in his belief that a new species develops suddenly through discontinuous variation, or macromutation. Goldschmidt presented his hypothesis when neo-Darwinism was becoming dominant in 1940s and 1950's and he strongly protested against the strict gradualism of neo-Darwinian theorists. Because of this his ideas were seen as highly unorthodox of the time by most scientists and were greatly subjected to ridicule and scorn.[11] However there has been a recent interest in the ideas of Goldschmidt in the field of evolutionary developmental biology as some scientists are convinced he was not entirely wrong.[12] Goldschmidt presented two mechanisms for how hopeful monsters might work. One mechanism, involved “systemic mutations”, rejected the classical gene concept and is no longer considered by modern science however, his second mechanism involved “developmental macromutations” in “rate genes” or “controlling genes” that change early development and thus cause large effects in the adult phenotype. These kind of mutations are similar to the ones considered in contemporary evolutionary developmental biology

So, while not a Darwinst (small gradual changes), he was a proponent of more large scale and sudden changes, but still an evolutionist.

 

[Dinwar]

Goldschmidt is usually referred to as a "non-Darwinian" however he did not object to the general microevolutionary principles of the Darwinians. He only veered from the synthetic theory in his belief that a new species develops suddenly through discontinuous variation, or macromutation. Goldschmidt presented his hypothesis when neo-Darwinism was becoming dominant in 1940s and 1950's and he strongly protested against the strict gradualism of neo-Darwinian theorists.

de Vrise found this to be true in flowers as well. In some taxa, evolution demonstrably does occur in fits and starts. The reason is that evolution necessarily must be discrete--it (mostly) can only happen by altering specific genes, and while few alterations may occur each generation each alteration is all or nothing. (The exception is epigenetic factors, which I don't know enough about to address properly.) Some morphological traits alter wholesale, as Mendel and de Vrise both determined--and in such cases, evolution is going to occur in discrete jumps. This is hardly the Hopeful Monster mode of evolution that icebear is attempting to ascribe as the prominant scientific understanding of evolution; however, it's not as gradual as many researchers who should know better think, either.

That failure was due to the fact that the only information there ever was in that picture was the information for a fruit fly. The experiments proved in no uncertain terms that information for any sort of a meaningfully new creature could not be created by any combination of mutation and selection, as the theory of evolution demands.

I've highlighted the weasle-words. No one has ever proposed that evolution creates entirely new creatures in timespans that humans can observe outside the rock record. What is proposed is that the accumulation of mutations over long periods of time result in new creatures. The thing is, even with the fits-and-starts evolutionary model each generation is extremely similar to the previous one--enough so that the dividing line between species is, when you zoom in on the speciation event, impossible to pinpoint. Ring species are clear proof of that (they are species that are one ecological perturbance away from splitting into multiple species, using the biological species concept).

Actually, I'm going to make this a point I want you to address: Why should we discard the data we've accumulated about ring species? These species clearly show gradual (on human timescales) evolution, and it's trivially easy to determine which traits are involved (catch a member of each subpopulation, run DNA analysis, compare the results; standard stuff for geneticists). This shows EXACTLY the type of data you say we don't have in support of evolution. Yet you would have is ignore that data due to what you believe to be a failure in one class of experiments.

Personally, I think the issue is that you're unaware of ring species. It's an understandable ignorance--they're not exactly common, after all--but one that I find unforgiveable in one who is attempting to overthrow the entire theory. You should have your ducks in a row before attempting anything close to what you're trying to do, and you haven't even obtained all your ducks much less lined them up.

But I can tell you this... ALL ancient religions were originally astral.

Your ignorance of ancient religion is only overshadowed by your ignorance of evolutionary theory.

 

[Aridas]

Simple answer: Because DNA/RNA is an information code like xml, and information codes do not simply form up out of the blue from inanimate matter, for no particular reason.

First of all, the people who are suggesting that DNA appeared magically are the creationists, for the record. You'd likely know that if you had even a basic understanding of the scientific theories about abiogenesis, rather than the disinformation that creationists keep pumping out. Secondly, abiogenesis in the first place is not evolution and arguing against it will get you nowhere at all when your target's biological evolution. Thirdly, DNA/RNA is NOT an information code like xml. Not even remotely like xml, for that matter, even if we accepted that the vague and overly broad description of information code actually applies to DNA/RNA.

Once you actually show that you understand these things, maybe we could make some headway, but as it stand, it sounds like you've got a lot of disinformation to get rid of before you can make much, if any, headway into understanding.

 

[Mojo]

Personally, I think the issue is that you're unaware of ring species. It's an understandable ignorance--they're not exactly common, after all--but one that I find unforgiveable in one who is attempting to overthrow the entire theory. You should have your ducks in a row before attempting anything close to what you're trying to do, and you haven't even obtained all your ducks much less lined them up.

If we're talking about ring species, shouldn't he be getting his seagulls in a row?

 

[Slowvehicle]

If we're talking about ring species, shouldn't he be getting his seagulls in a row?

Well played!

 

[icebear]

Why must you turn my forum into a place of lies?

From the Wiki on Goldschmidt:...

\
You're calling me a liar and quoting wikipedia and you don't see anything ironic in that??

 

[Slowvehicle]

\
You're calling me a liar and quoting wikipedia and you don't see anything ironic in that??

Just because a source is designed to be accessible even to such as you, it is not automatically untrustworthy...

I anticipate your substantive demonstration that the material in the wiki is wrong.

 

[Cainkane1]

\
You're calling me a liar and quoting wikipedia and you don't see anything ironic in that??

He didn't call you a liar. He suggested you called him one. Wikipedia is a decent enough source of information albeit not a perfect one. I strongly feel that wikipedias source of scientific information is more than somewhat better than yours even with its small imperfections.

 

[Dinwar]

\
You're calling me a liar and quoting wikipedia and you don't see anything ironic in that??

Not when the data from Wiki are true. Do you have any substantive data to indicate that the statement is false? By "substantive data" I mean anything Goldschmidt wrote that, in context, indicates that he actually rejected evolution as such, and not just a poor interpretation of it.

 

[bruto]

\
You're calling me a liar and quoting wikipedia and you don't see anything ironic in that??

You're calling everyone else here an idiot. If we're not, you're a liar. Simple as that.

 

[icebear]

I strongly feel that wikipedias source of scientific information is more than somewhat better than yours even with its small imperfections.

Wiki is a wonderful resource for any topic for which no controversy could plausibly exist; for anything else, it's worthless.

 

[Dinwar]

Wiki is a wonderful resource for any topic for which no controversy could plausibly exist; for anything else, it's worthless.

Name a topic for which no controversy could plausibly exist. Ever hear of something called "manufactured controversy"?

Secondly, you have yet to address the data presented. Please show specifically where the Wiki article is in error. If it's not, than the source is irrelevant--facts are facts. You appear to be rather adverse to addressing these facts, choosing instead to hide behind attacking the source; could that be because you have no evidence with which to refute the statements?

 

[catsmate]

Wiki is a wonderful resource for any topic for which no controversy could plausibly exist; for anything else, it's worthless.

Irrelevant. You misquote Goldschmidt (or rather parrot the IDiotic quote mining and distorting of him) without citing any supporting evidence at all.
Not that this would help you; Goldschmidt was active decades ago, his most oft distorted book The Material Basis of Evolution dates from 1940, and died in 1958. Evolutionary science has progresses greatly in the intervening 55 years.