Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

[Jose Fly]

As someone who spent a lot of time on the evolution v creationism battles over the last 20 years, I've noticed that in the last 5 years or so the issue seems to have largely gone off the radar. In the message boards that are still around (both Christian and secular) it's barely debated, if at all. Websites specifically dedicated to countering creationist talking points such as talkorigins and pandasthumb have gone silent, seemingly because there just isn't much to talk about.

Surveys have shown that younger Americans accept the reality of evolution at pretty much the same rate as the rest of the developed world. Thanks to national focus on science education by organizations like the NCSE, evolution is more widely taught than ever, even in the deep south. The Discovery Institute (the main "intelligent design" organization) stopped advocating for ID creationism to be taught in schools years ago, and they closed their alleged "research arm" last year.

On the science front, creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant.

So for all practical intents and purposes, this debate is over. There isn't any sort of public debate over teaching creationism, nor is there any real debate about whether evolution should be taught. For sure there's still work to do in some parts of the country (mostly the south and interior west) where even though evolution is officially required, teachers don't teach it either because it's "too controversial" or they don't believe it themselves, but big picture-wise, "evolution v creationism" is in about the same state as "spherical v flat earth"....nothing more than something a handful of people argue about on the internet, but outside of that has little to no significance. And even on that front it's kinda dead....most forums where it's openly debated have a very skewed ratio where there's like 10 "evolutionists" for every 1 creationist.

Glad to see it!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #90]

Exactly, so you agree you cannot be 100% certain you've never encountered or come into contact with something that might have been evidence for God, good, we agree.

More word games. This was about convincing evidence for the existence of gods, not some philosophical argument about not being 100% sure some evidence for gods existed and I didn't realize it. Convincing evidence, by definition, is ... convincing.

Martyrdom of Polycarp

Really? Why not just reference the Bible?

The fact is you need criteria for deciding if something is or is not evidence for God, what are your criteria? do you even have any?

Yes ... a physical sighting, or a communication of some sort that was unmistakable (to me) as having no other source, witnessing a bona-fide miracle. You'd think that any real god that existed, and wanted humans to worship him/her/it, would have no problem demonstrating in some way that it actually exists outside of the claims of prophets, preachers and the like. Yet that has yet to happen for any of the thousands of gods invented so far. Maybe one will come along that isn't afraid to show itself.

No but I expect a rational honest person to have some formal way to evaluate evidence, do you?

Yes ... see above.

Nor that there wasn't.

Sure ... flying spaghetti monster again.

[Difflugia]

Exactly, so you agree you cannot be 100% certain you've never encountered or come into contact with something that might have been evidence for God, good, we agree.

Good gods, are you still falling back on the idea that mere philosophical possibility is meaningful? Nobody else in this discussion is. Is that why you had to create a straw man out of DrNoGods' argument? The claim as written was a lack of convincing evidence, not that it was impossible in a philosophical sense. It's also pretty clear that you must have understood that, because you not only changed it to a claim of certainty, but qualified it yourself multiple times as "100% certain" to make sure that we can't mistake your straw man.

Well, give us a link or reference to any demonstrated existence of any god since humans appeared on this planet. Just one will do.

Martyrdom of Polycarp

I'm somewhat of a fan of that particular document, but again, this is either a straw man or some sort of obtuse equivocation on what "demonstrated" means. The apologetic description of Polycarp's martyrdom can hardly be demonstrated to be reasonably accurate itself, let alone somehow demonstrate that a god exists.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Exactly, so you agree you cannot be 100% certain you've never encountered or come into contact with something that might have been evidence for God, good, we agree.

Good gods, are you still falling back on the idea that mere philosophical possibility is meaningful? Nobody else in this discussion is. Is that why you had to create a straw man out of DrNoGods' argument? The claim as written was a lack of convincing evidence, not that it was impossible in a philosophical sense. It's also pretty clear that you must have understood that, because you not only changed it to a claim of certainty, but qualified it yourself multiple times as "100% certain" to make sure that we can't mistake your straw man.

No, my position is that the claim "I have never seen convincing evidence" has no meaning unless one has a defined criteria against which they can critique proposed evidence, in short you need to know what your looking for if you want to find it, do you not agree?

The alternative is (which I suspect is the actual case) that anything and everything presented as evidence will be dismissed as not being evidence.

Well, give us a link or reference to any demonstrated existence of any god since humans appeared on this planet. Just one will do.

Martyrdom of Polycarp

I'm somewhat of a fan of that particular document, but again, this is either a straw man or some sort of obtuse equivocation on what "demonstrated" means. The apologetic description of Polycarp's martyrdom can hardly be demonstrated to be reasonably accurate itself, let alone somehow demonstrate that a god exists.

I regard it as one arbitrary example of something that serves as evidence that God exists, which is what I was asked to present.

[Difflugia]

No, my position is that the claim "I have never seen convincing evidence" has no meaning unless one has a defined criteria against which they can critique proposed evidence, in short you need to know what your looking for if you want to find it, do you not agree?

Claiming that your straw man supports your point doesn't somehow make it a valid argument.

The alternative is (which I suspect is the actual case) that anything and everything presented as evidence will be dismissed as not being evidence.

Nor does justifying your straw man with a slippery slope.

I regard it as one arbitrary example of something that serves as evidence that God exists, which is what I was asked to present.

So it was a straw man and now you're doubling down:

Well, give us a link or reference to any demonstrated existence of any god since humans appeared on this planet. Just one will do.

You even quoted it.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #71]

Now that's hilarious! Earlier, Denton was your preferred source and someone we all should pay attention to, but after it's shown that he's in agreement with universal common ancestry via evolution, suddenly "it really doesn't matter"

.

Many people change what they believe in. There are atheists that become Christians. In Christianity, you will know Christians by what they do. Take for example Ravi Zacharias an apologist that just died and then it was later revealed that he was doing more than getting a massage when he received his massages. The sad commentary on his life is that he had a head knowledge of the truth but he believed in his sin more than he believed in God. A Christian is known for his desire to turn from his sin. Ravi did not show that desire, so Ravi is in hell today because of that.

Denton changed his belief system. So what! All that simply shows is that he has some sin that he would rather hang onto than to follow Christ.

Obviously, for you this is first and foremost a religious issue. That's informative.

It is a religious issue for everyone. Religion is what you believe. It seems what you believe about the first cause is different that what I believe about the first cause. If you are an Athiest you BELIEVE there is no God, that is a belief system that encompasses what you believe about the first cause.

Except that was resolved quite a while ago. But since this is primarily a religious issue for you I have to wonder.....why do you care about the science? Why not just say that you believe in God and the Bible's creation account and leave it at that?

How does neutral theory solve the problem? 400 changes in the DNA every generation has to come together somehow. If these are all neutral changes can you explain how 400 hundred can come together every generation? And how could this happen if one has to be preceded by another? If this was resolved a while ago.

Now that the thread has evolved into another "does god exist" debate, I'll just say.....Hi 6days.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #79]

Sir you did not knew the scientific theory of evolution does not entails humans evolving from chimps. That will not go away. Will remain forever in annals of history.
That's pretty basic.

Are you sure you know about DNA stuff?

And yet again are not getting the tenor of the argument. So I will simplify the concept.

Is there any DNA sample from the common ancestor that you say humans and primates are descendants from?

You must think that there is some sample like that in the world. You must be thinking that there is a 7 million-year-old (according to your theory) sample of DNA from that "great ape." Why don't you try to pull that up and show us all.

So our only means of comparison are species that are alive today. The closest species to man according to DNA is a chimp. That is why people say we are descendants of chimps because it is believed, according to the theory you are putting, forward that chimps would share our closest relative.

So what are you trying to say that man and chimps are not related that closely?

Nonsensical ramblings plagued by ignorance.

We have plenty of genetics data that shows common ancestry with Pan troglodytes like:
->broken gene comparisons(ex: broken human GLO gene = broken chimp GLO gen)
->shared protein coding genes
->shared chromosomal inversions
->chromosome fusion events(ex: chromosome 2)
->shared endogenous retrovirus DNA
and so on.

Let’s take endogenous retrovirus DNA.

A retrovirus is a type of virus that reproduces by inserting its gene directly into a cell DNA where it becomes a permanent part of that host cell’s genome. This way the virus it “tricks” the cell to make new viruses when it reads the virus genes during coping of DNA in the process of reproduction.

If the virus infects an sperm cell or egg cell that later participate in fertilization the resulting offspring will a copy of the virus DNA. Every cell for that matter.
This might have negative effect on the individual or neutral effect (normal copying errors in virus DNA can inactivate the virus-the sequence of DNA) or a positive effect(virus genes act as extra genetical material that later can mutate a give rise to new functions).
So by this a retrovirus can become a permanent marker in a DNA specie. Scientists call this endogenous viruses.

Human genome contains thousands of such endogenous viruses(stretches of DNA sequences) that match those of retroviruses.
These DNA scars: endogenous viruses show us the unique history of specific virus infections suffered by one individual ancestors.

So if we look at chimp genome and human genome we find evidence for common ancestry. We have same virus genes in the exact same locations in both human and chimp genome.
If humans and chimp did not shared the same history we would not find the same sequences in the same spots.

In the human genome there are 10 million possible insertion spots.
The chance of human and chimp getting infected in the same spot by the same specific type of virus
is far less then 1 in 10 million.

It gets incredibly worse if two individuals having for example 12 similar independent insertions of the same virus.
The chance of 12 virus insertions happening into the exact location in both individuals is unfathomably small.

1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000 = 10^84.

So for 12 insertions we have the probability of 1 in 1x10^84. 10^84 is comparable with the whole atoms in the universe.

Geneticists have found 211 insertions from HERV-W alone in human genome from which 205 are common with chimp.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29351742/



The probability goes to proportions where such a thing is laughably impossible.
This is similar to the heating problem when one posits accelerated processes 4 billions of years of radioactive decay, 4 billions of years of plate tectonics and continental movements, 4 billions of years of geological mountain building and erosion, 4 billions of years of asteroid impacts, 4 billions of years of volcanic activity all cramped in a very short period of time which make it too laughably impossible.

So again dear creationist you are backed into a corner to choose between impossibility and God/Satan tricking us that evolution happened.

Q: What will it be?

[alexxcJRO]

...

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #96]

Let's one difference as an example:

chromosome fusion events(ex: chromosome 2)

How many generations did it take for this to become fixed in the genome of the future human genome?

Would you consider this event a neutral mutation? Because the so-called solution to Haldane's dilemma is based on the genetic changes being neutral mutation. Haldane calculated that it would take 350 generations for this to become fixed and the population would grow enough for another mutation to happen without the species becoming extinct.

Evolution's problem in this case is time. There is simply not enough time for the evolutionary changes that you are describing to happen.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #96]

Let's one difference as an example:

chromosome fusion events(ex: chromosome 2)

How many generations did it take for this to become fixed in the genome of the future human genome?

Would you consider this event a neutral mutation? Because the so-called solution to Haldane's dilemma is based on the genetic changes being neutral mutation. Haldane calculated that it would take 350 generations for this to become fixed and the population would grow enough for another mutation to happen without the species becoming extinct.

Evolution's problem in this case is time. There is simply not enough time for the evolutionary changes that you are describing to happen.

You got to love that debate form. Complete avoidance of my argument.

Please don't ignore it again:

Let’s take endogenous retrovirus DNA.

A retrovirus is a type of virus that reproduces by inserting its gene directly into a cell DNA where it becomes a permanent part of that host cell’s genome. This way the virus it “tricks” the cell to make new viruses when it reads the virus genes during coping of DNA in the process of reproduction.

If the virus infects an sperm cell or egg cell that later participate in fertilization the resulting offspring will a copy of the virus DNA. Every cell for that matter.
This might have negative effect on the individual or neutral effect (normal copying errors in virus DNA can inactivate the virus-the sequence of DNA) or a positive effect(virus genes act as extra genetical material that later can mutate a give rise to new functions).
So by this a retrovirus can become a permanent marker in a DNA specie. Scientists call this endogenous viruses.

Human genome contains thousands of such endogenous viruses(stretches of DNA sequences) that match those of retroviruses.
These DNA scars: endogenous viruses show us the unique history of specific virus infections suffered by one individual ancestors.

So if we look at chimp genome and human genome we find evidence for common ancestry. We have same virus genes in the exact same locations in both human and chimp genome.
If humans and chimp did not shared the same history we would not find the same sequences in the same spots.

In the human genome there are 10 million possible insertion spots.
The chance of human and chimp getting infected in the same spot by the same specific type of virus
is far less then 1 in 10 million.

It gets incredibly worse if two individuals having for example 12 similar independent insertions of the same virus.
The chance of 12 virus insertions happening into the exact location in both individuals is unfathomably small.

1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000 = 10^84.

So for 12 insertions we have the probability of 1 in 1x10^84. 10^84 is comparable with the whole atoms in the universe.

Geneticists have found 211 insertions from HERV-W alone in human genome from which 205 are common with chimp.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29351742/



The probability goes to proportions where such a thing is laughably impossible.
This is similar to the heating problem when one posits accelerated processes 4 billions of years of radioactive decay, 4 billions of years of plate tectonics and continental movements, 4 billions of years of geological mountain building and erosion, 4 billions of years of asteroid impacts, 4 billions of years of volcanic activity all cramped in a very short period of time which make it too laughably impossible.

So again dear creationist you are backed into a corner to choose between impossibility and God/Satan tricking us that evolution happened.

Q: What will it be?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #0]

This is similar to the heating problem when one posits accelerated processes 4 billions of years of radioactive decay,

Nuclear fusion takes place in lighting bolts every day somewhere in the world. (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017G ... B/abstract)
Lighting occurs during earthquakes. (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... gy-science)
Nuclear Combustion
"Since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton -21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated nuclear combustion. By producing traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes. (Stanislav Adamenko et al., Controlled Nucleosynthesis: Breakthroughs in Experiment and Theory (Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer Verlag, 2007), pp. 1–773.)"

"In those experiments, a brief (10E-8 second), 50,000-volt electron flow, at relativistic speeds, self-focuses (Z-Pinches) inside a hemispherical electrode target, typically 0.5 mm in diameter. The relative abundance of chemical elements produced generally corresponds to what is in the Earth's Crust.

"The statistical mean curves of the abundance of chemical elements created in our experiments are close to those characteristic in the Earth's crust." (Stanislav Adamenko, “The New Fusion,” ExtraOrdinary Technology, Vol. 4, October-December, 2006, p. 6.) (Physics, Vol. 5, 2015, p. 62.)"

It only takes 50,000 bolts to produce a z-pinch powerful enough to make all of the elements in the Earth's crust. Lighting bolts are 300 million volts and 30,000 amps. So yes lightning bolts in the crust could cause the radioactive elements that we see in the earth's crust. That would also mean that radioactive dating would mean nothing.

4 billions of years of plate tectonics and continental movements,

If plate tectonics has been occurring for billions of years and it takes millions of years for plates to subduct. Then why can we detect tectonic plates in the mantle and even at the bottom of the mantle? How would these plates be hard enough yet to have earthquakes? (https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ntists-say)

4 billions of years of geological mountain building and erosion,

This would need a narrowing of what process you are specifically speaking of.

As an example, the Colorado River flows into Grand Lake Colorado at an elevation of 8369 feet above sea level. The Kaibab Plateau in which the Grand Canyon is cut through has an elevation of 8701. The top of the Kaibab plateau is covered by a layer of basalt (lava flow) that was dated at 6 million years. The basalt layer is on both the north end and the south end of the canyon. So how does water flow up hill to make the Grand Canyon?

4 billions of years of asteroid impacts,

Again this needs to be narrowed. Exactly what evidence are you looking at that makes you think that there have been billions of years of asteroid impacts.

4 billion of years of volcanic activity all cramped in a very short period

.

Again what evidence are you referring to that make-believe that there are billions of years of volcanic activity?