Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #189]

I bet if the platypus never existed in modern days, and we found fossils of it from x million years ago, you guys would be trying to push the agenda of those fossils being transitional from a beaver to a duck.

Funny you bring up the platypus. First, on a side note, explain how the platypus got from Noah's ark to Australia (or kangaroos, or any other animal that only naturally lives there) if the supposed ark landed somewhere in the Caucasus or Middle East. The following article is a good combination of genetics work as it relates to reptiles and mammals, and it involves the platypus:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... -evolution

You can get a little ways into it before the annoying signup message appears ... but the online original is here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06936

Here is one from Jan 2021 that has more information and some neat graphics.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03039-0

It is this kind of research that leads to conclusions that something might have evolved from something else. It is not "Why not? That is the same thing you do with everything else." which suggests it is all willy-nilly guessing because something may look like something else. And this is why genetics has just added to what the fossil record has revealed regarding evolution. It all makes too much sense.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Sorry but your supernatural wand waving just doesn't cut it, as in "poof," Noah was able to gather and pack 15 million forms of life aboard the ark. AND feed and water them all for 150 days.

OR was it that after the hundred or so representative species got off the ark god tapped each one they all changed into 15 million species?

First off, I disagree with the notion that it was 15 million forms of life. The Bible states that two of each kind of animal (male/female) were on the ark.

Now, whether or not all of the animals could fit on the ark depends on...

1. How big the ark was..
2. How many different "sets" of animals there were..
3. How big the animals were at the time they entered the ark..

And at that point with the exception of #1, all we can do is speculate because no one was there.

Heck, why didn't god simply direct Noah to find and keep one mammal, one bird, one reptile, one amphibian, one fish, one insect one tree, one mushroom, etc, and then after the flood by tapping each they would instantaneous transform them into millions of species.

The answer is simple; God does things his way...and a lion doesn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep.

For instance, that one insect species would become the 5,500,000 insect species now roaming the earth. That he didn't speaks of a very inefficient and not too bright of a god. But, hey, I don't ever remember reading in the Bible that god was necessarily efficient or bright. Do you?

An inefficient God (in your opinion) is one that still exists, correct?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Hey, Doc...you are in Tucson, AZ...are ya? I live in Phoenix. How about one weekend, you take a trip to Phoenix and we can meet over lunch (no homo) as we can discuss some of these here topics?

Funny you bring up the platypus. First, on a side note, explain how the platypus got from Noah's ark to Australia (or kangaroos, or any other animal that only naturally lives there) if the supposed ark landed somewhere in the Caucasus or Middle East.

Trying to figure out how the travel arrangements of kangaroos will be a hinderance to an all-powerful God.

The following article is a good combination of genetics work as it relates to reptiles and mammals, and it involves the platypus:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... -evolution

You can get a little ways into it before the annoying signup message appears ... but the online original is here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06936

Here is one from Jan 2021 that has more information and some neat graphics.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03039-0

It is this kind of research that leads to conclusions that something might have evolved from something else. It is not "Why not? That is the same thing you do with everything else." which suggests it is all willy-nilly guessing because something may look like something else. And this is why genetics has just added to what the fossil record has revealed regarding evolution. It all makes too much sense.

Sure, it makes sense to those who are already pushing the theory. I've already stated why genetics is poor evidence of evolution and I need not do so here.

[Tcg]

Sorry but your supernatural wand waving just doesn't cut it, as in "poof," Noah was able to gather and pack 15 million forms of life aboard the ark. AND feed and water them all for 150 days.

Yes, clearly impossible. It's even worse than that though. Noah and crew entered the ark on his 600th year on the 17th day of the second month. (Gen. 7:10) They didn't exit the ark until his 601st year on the 27th day of the second month. (Gen. 8:13-14) Noah and crew would have to feed and water the animals for over a year. That's like more than twice as impossible.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

Sure, it makes sense to those who are already pushing the theory. I've already stated why genetics is poor evidence of evolution and I need not do so here.

Second, it doesn't matter if you mention genetics first, second, or third....regardless, offering genetics as evidence for evolution is poor. Why? Because of reasons I've already mentioned; which is that any similarities in anatomy or genetics could very well mean common designer as opposed to common ancestry.

I didn't see this before, so I'm glad you mentioned it again. Genomic relationships are actually very strong evidence against a common designer.

When creationists claim that genomic similarities can be due to common design, they generally think that genotypic differences are a simple proxy for phenotypic diffferences. Fortunately, they're not. The argument goes something like, all mammals have hair and alveolar lungs, not because they're related, but because the ecological niches that those particular organisms occupy are best served by similar phenotypic expression. The way that an intelligent creator effected that expression was by similar, but not identical genes corresponding to similar, but not identical ecological niches.

The problem with that argument from a genomic standpoint is that it fails to account for (or, rather, assumes that its hearers will fail to account for) genetypic differences that don't correspond to phenotypic differences. Examples that fall into that category are essentially any gene in the mitochondrial genome. Mitochondria are responsible for cellular respiration and behave exactly the same way in all organisms that share even very broadly similar environments. The problem for the common design argument is that mitochondrial genes show the same relationship patterns between organisms as nuclear genes. The mitochondrial genes of closely related organisms are more similar than those of more distantly related in exactly the same pattern as nuclear genes. They don't change very much because if they stop doing exactly the same thing, the organism dies. There is some wiggle-room, though, for what's called "neutral drift." There are changes to the genotype that don't affect the phenotype and a mitochondrion with some slight differences can still behave in exactly the same way as a similar one. If the common design argument were valid, though, we would expect that all of the mitochondrial genes would have been the same across (at least) all mammals. If they were all created at the same time, they would have had the same amount of time to accumulate neutral changes. We would expect that, even though, say, many bear and raccoon nuclear genes are more similar to each other than to deer or elephants because the designer built differences in at the beginning, mitochondrial gene differences should all account for the exact same eight thousand years that all kinds have been diverging from each other. Bear mitochondria should be just as different from dog and deer and human mitochondria as any are to each other.

It shouldn't be much of a spoiler at this point that we don't see that. Bear and raccoon mitochondrial genes are more similar to each other than either is to a bison. Human and chimpanzee mitochondria are more similar to each other than either is to any other organism on earth. Once again, if God is your common designer, then He built in a pattern that makes no sense. That invalidates the argument, since the whole point is that the common designer thing is supposed to make more sense than evolution as a thought experiment. If one knows enough about molecular phylogenetic analysis, though, the thought experiment fails spectacularly as far as creationism is concerned, but is exactly what we should expect from evolution.

[The Barbarian]

There were dinosaurs with all these features. Not one avian apomorphic character there. Microraptor had all these.

And my point is; they could have been distinct, separate creatures

Every animal is a distinct separate creature.

Have you guys even considered that possibility...

Clearly a reptile. Lots of reptile apomorphic characters. No avian ones, though.

I bet if the platypus never existed in modern days, and we found fossils of it from x million years ago, you guys would be trying to push the agenda of those fossils being transitional from a beaver to a duck.

Nope. The platypus bill is soft and broad, unlike that of a duck, which is hard, keratinized, and narrow.

Not remotely like that of a duck.




And the vast number of skeletal differences would quickly make it clear that it wasn't even a eutherian, much less a beaver. But it would clearly indicate that it was a mammal.

Why not?

Shoulder girdle, for example. It has the complex reptilian form, but otherwise mammalian. Pretty much a tip-off that it's a monotreme.

That is the same thing you do with everything else.

You're still confusing homologous structures with analogous structures.

[Miles]

Sorry but your supernatural wand waving just doesn't cut it, as in "poof," Noah was able to gather and pack 15 million forms of life aboard the ark. AND feed and water them all for 150 days.

OR was it that after the hundred or so representative species got off the ark god tapped each one they all changed into 15 million species?

First off, I disagree with the notion that it was 15 million forms of life. The Bible states that two of each kind of animal (male/female) were on the ark.

I know, which is why I raised the total by only 75%, taking into account those species that don't require a partner to reproduce. If I simply doubled the amount it would have been 17.4 million---there being an estimated 8.7 million species in all.

Now, whether or not all of the animals could fit on the ark depends on...

1. How big the ark was..
2. How many different "sets" of animals there were..
3. How big the animals were at the time they entered the ark..

And at that point with the exception of #1, all we can do is speculate because no one was there.

1. Well the Bible certainly tells us how big the boat was: 450 x 75 x 45 feet.
2. As I figured it out, the number of sets (pairs) would have been 3,262,500. (6,525,000 forms of life required males and females to reproduce.)
3. I recall that the average size was said to be that of a rat, but I think it's much smaller. In any case, to house and feed 15 million species, no matter what their size, would have been a herculean task, and one preformed for at least 150 days by only eight people.

Heck, why didn't god simply direct Noah to find and keep one mammal, one bird, one reptile, one amphibian, one fish, one insect one tree, one mushroom, etc, and then after the flood by tapping each they would instantaneous transform them into millions of species.

The answer is simple; God does things his way...and a lion doesn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep.

So what do you think his way was to insure that we now have 8.7 million species on Earth? Pack 15 million into a boat 1/9th the cubic size of the Titanic.

(Don't pay any attention to the number of animals and insects. They're incorrect)

For instance, that one insect species would become the 5,500,000 insect species now roaming the earth. That he didn't speaks of a very inefficient and not too bright of a god. But, hey, I don't ever remember reading in the Bible that god was necessarily efficient or bright. Do you?

An inefficient God (in your opinion) is one that still exists, correct?

Nope. I don't see any god as existing. However, I don't see why an inefficient god would have any less chance of existing than an efficient god. After all, who would think a god would make mistakes, but there we have it in the Bible, Jehovah making mistakes in Genesis 6:6 and 1 Samuel 15:35


.

[Tcg]

The Bible states that two of each kind of animal (male/female) were on the ark.

Actually, the story contradicts itself. Not unusual in biblical tales.

Genesis 6:19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

<bolding mine>

Perhaps this is an editing artifact. We get to the end of the flood and Noah sends out birds to find dry land. Quite risky if you've only got two of each kind. Even more so, Noah sacrifices some of the clean animals and clean birds. Not a good idea if you only brought two. Perhaps someone saw this problem and added the Genesis 7 bit. Or perhaps this is evidence of the melding of two flood stories. Not the first time we see something like that in the Bible.

In any case, the Genesis 7 bit, pretending it is true, would increase the need for room. Maybe the ark had a slide-out like modern RVs do just to resolve this issue. Or, just maybe, there is no truth to any of the tale.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

I didn't see this before, so I'm glad you mentioned it again. Genomic relationships are actually very strong evidence against a common designer.

That was an excellent read...clear and concise. However, I obviously have to disagree with what you said above...as I think genomic relationships ARE actually very strong evidence for a common designer.

The reason genetics is good evidence for intelligent design is because of the fact that it is coded information...and information can only come from an informant, and codes have programmers.

The English language has 26 letters in its alphabet. If we just have 26 letters sequenced in alphabetical order, the letters mean nothing...but when we have the 26 letters sequenced in certain specific orders/arrangements....those letters become words...and those words becomes sentences...and those sentences become paragraphs...and those paragraphs become chapters..and those chapters becomes books. A word is information itself, so how much more will a book be? Even MORE information.

I said that to say this, all living things are made up of the same building blocks of life (cells, proteins, etc)...in this case, we can just carry on with the alphabet analogy...because it is the arrangements of each letter than makes every word different...and the same is true our own DNA.

1. Alphabetical
2. Alphabet
3. Alphabetically
4. Alphabetize

I see similarities in those words, I see differences in those words. For all I know..

1. Alphabet (lion)
2. Alphabetical (tiger)
3. Alphabetically (cheetah)
4. Alphabetize (leopard)

All of the words are related, just a slight variation between the four...but roughly talking about the same kind of thing.

Now...lets take..

1. Theory (python)
2. Theoretical (anaconda)
3. Theorize (boa)
4. Theories (cobra)

Now, what the evolutionist wants us to believe is that, the words which makes up the snake "kind", was somehow changed to...

1. Tape (parrot)
2. Taped (pigeon)
3. Taping (crow)
4. Tapes (eagle)

When you compare the words related to "theory" and "tape"...you see similarities...as they all have some of the same letters in common, but the words are completely different and mean completely different things.

"Theory" doesn't become "tape"..."theorize" doesn't become "taping". It just doesn't happen. It never happens.

Not only that, but as mentioned before, look at the information; it has been said that one cell is more complex than a space shuttle. The more complex it is, the more intelligent design is needed.

If a space shuttle was designed, then it only logically follows that something more complex than it would also have to be designed....the naturalist would rather not agree with this, which is nothing more than the taxi cab fallacy.

So I said all of that to say this; genetics actually proves intelligent design.

[benchwarmer]

Maybe we need to approach this differently. What exactly constitutes a 'bird' in your eyes? Does it have to have feathers? A beak? Talons? Please tell us what makes a bird a bird since you seem to know how to classify things at the 'kind' level - which I assume is what you are attempting to do.

Exactly. Beaks, feathers, talons, two legs, wings. Those are the main identifiers of "birds".

Given that we are obviously just spinning our wheels here, I'm glad you answered the above as that is what I primarily wanted to get from you.

So, according to you, the following are NOT birds:

No wings
The now extinct Moa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa

Only vestigial wings
Kiwi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_(bird)

Four legs
A chick born (from a 2 legged bird) with 4 legs: https://metro.co.uk/2017/03/25/chick-bo ... l-6533423/

If this one evolves any more, will likely fall off your list:

Almost no legs/talons
A Swift: https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildl ... ked%20tail.

The point being, your definition of the "bird" kind is so hand wavy and loose as to be practically useless. How is it that some birds or bird species lack your main identifiers? Since birds give birth to birds, from your definition we have birds eventually giving birth to non birds somehow. That's what happens when science is thrown out the window and the old "eyeball" test comes into play.