After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered

[EarthScienceguy]

After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered the most basic questions of theist?

Charles Hodge Systematic theology copywrite 1870.

Although Strauss greatly exaggerates when he says that men of science in our day are unanimous
in supporting the doctrine of spontaneous generation, it is undoubtedly true that a large class of
naturalists, especially on the continent of Europe, are in favour of that doctrine. Professor Huxley,
in his discourse on the “Physical Basis of Life,� lends to it the whole weight of his authority. He
does not indeed expressly teach that dead matter becomes active without being subject to the
influence of previous living matter; but his whole paper is designed to show that life is the result
of the peculiar arrangement of the molecules of matter. His doctrine is that “the matter of life is
composed of ordinary matter, differing from it only in the manner in which its atoms are
aggregated.�2 “If the properties of water,� he says, “may be properly said to result from the nature
and disposition of its component molecules, I can find no intelligible ground for refusing to say
that the properties of protoplasm result from the nature and disposition of its molecules.�3 In his
address before the British Association, he says that if he could look back far enough into the past
he should expect to see “the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter.� And although
that address is devoted to showing that spontaneous generation, or Abiogenesis, as it is called, has
never been proved, he says, “I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to
suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis has ever taken place in the past or ever will take place
in the future. With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and
every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to
say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call ‘vital,’ may not some
day be artificially brought together.�4 All this supposes that life is the product of physical causes;
that all that is requisite for its production is “to bring together� the necessary conditions.

The theist argument has not changed in 150 years.

In 1870, the full problem in the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion had still not been fully realized.

In 1870 an equation to calculate rate of beneficial mutations in organisms, which makes it impossible for the cambrian explosion to happen through naturalistic means.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 116 by brunumb]

Are you saying that all men have exactly the same Y-chromosome? If not, exactly what point are you trying to make?

The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one man alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has out-competed the other strains and is now https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... t_creation

So, are you saying that all men have exactly the same Y-chromosome?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 117 by EarthScienceguy]

The following is a simple hypothesis according to Humphrey's theory.
If all of the protons in the nucleus had the same spin at the time of creation 6000 years ago.
Then the magnetic field of each celestial body will be determined by the number of protons in that body and the degradation of the magnetic field over 6000 years.
Because all of the protons were aligned at creation.

You have to wonder why God had to go through all this miraculous rigmarole when it was patently unnecessary for the omnipotent one. He creates water and distributes it all over the universe in blobs of varying size, aligns all those dipoles to create magnetic fields, converts all the blobs into countless objects of varying composition like black holes, stars, planets and so on, just to create a rather dodgy little planet for humans to live on. This God is a laughing stock.

[Seth]

How does a creationist explain the fact that stars are still being created by the universe?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 119 by brunumb]

Quote:
"The first direct observation of gravitational waves was made on 14 September 2015 and was announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_obs ... onal_waves

Oh my!! One of the things that I do when I read an article. I ask myself what is the article about or what are they measuring in the article. In the case of your "Wiki" article, they were not measuring the gravitational waves produced in the CMB. They were measuring the gravitational waves of two black holes orbiting each other.

Here are the gravitational waves I was speaking of.

March 2014, when a team of scientists working on an experiment called BICEP2 announced the first direct evidence for primordial gravitational waves rippling out from the earliest moments of the universe: a distinctive imprint in the cosmic microwave background (the light leftover from the Big Bang) called “B-mode polarization,� or B-modes for short. Polarization describes the way that light-waves are oriented, and B-mode waves are twisted into a swirling pattern. The detection of these swirls was a stunning confirmation of the theory of cosmic inflation. Suddenly, B-modes were electromagnetic celebrities.

But the story went sour just weeks later when doubt arose that the B-mode signal was really coming from the era of inflation. Eleven months after their first, much-buzzed-over announcement, the researchers conceded that some or all of the CMB swirling might actually be due to nearby galactic dust. They had not necessarily detected gravitational waves at all, but perhaps just flecks of dirt floating in the space around us.

So like I was saying there is no evidence of gravitational waves in the CMB.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 122 by Seth]

How does a creationist explain the fact that stars are still being created by the universe?

Do you know of a process of how a star is formed?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.10399.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2002ESASP.485...57W

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 123 by EarthScienceguy]

OK, granted. So we are still waiting to detect gravitational waves from the inflationary period.

Now to my question from post #120 still unanswered. Are you saying that all men have exactly the same Y-chromosome?

[Still small]

Now to my question from post #120 still unanswered. Are you saying that all men have exactly the same Y-chromosome?

Simple answer - no, all men do not “have exactly the same Y-chromosome�. All human Y-chromosome is not ‘identical’ as there is variation consistent with normal genetic mutation. Though, studies have shown that the variation based upon known mutation rates would put the ‘single common ancestor’ of the human Y-chromosome at between 15 - 50 Kya (their age estimates based upon their naturalistic assumptions). This is much less than the evolutionists’ assumed common ancestor for chimps and humans of some 5 Mya.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... rightslink
and

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/97/13/7360.full.pdfs

Have a good day!
Still small

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb]

Now to my question from post #120 still unanswered. Are you saying that all men have exactly the same Y-chromosome?

I did answer this question. In fact, rational wiki answers it for you. It is no secret and there is no debate on this the entire scientific community is agreed on this. The only thing that is debated is the timing.

[Seth]

[Replying to post 122 by Seth]

How does a creationist explain the fact that stars are still being created by the universe?

Do you know of a process of how a star is formed?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.10399.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2002ESASP.485...57W

Goddidit?

[Diagoras]

Now to my question from post #120 still unanswered. Are you saying that all men have exactly the same Y-chromosome?

Simple answer - no, all men do not “have exactly the same Y-chromosome�. All human Y-chromosome is not ‘identical’ as there is variation consistent with normal genetic mutation. Though, studies have shown that the variation based upon known mutation rates would put the ‘single common ancestor’ of the human Y-chromosome at between 15 - 50 Kya (their age estimates based upon their naturalistic assumptions).

<bolding mine>

Those estimates may be off considerably. Here’s a different pair of independent studies which put the single common ancestor at a minimum of 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, and possibly over 200,000 years ago.

This is much less than the evolutionists’ assumed common ancestor for chimps and humans of some 5 Mya.

Well, obviously. The part of the genetic ‘family tree’ which starts from this common ancestor and includes modern chimpanzees, homo sapiens and other primates isn’t just one branch on its own. It has many branches (clades), one of which would later (after many, many generations) give rise to the ‘Genetic Adam’.

You could just as easily have said “ This is much less than the evolutionists’ assumed common ancestor for <insert species here> and humans of some <insert time here>�, and been just as correct. It’s self-evident, and doesn’t in any way disprove the results from genetic population studies of Y-chromosomes.