The myth of evolution

[Willum]

Theists use myth an awful lot:

They have myths about talking snakes and magic DNA altering, evil bestowing fruit, and so on.

But they also use myth offensively, as in the case of evolution.

They say that since fish eggs don't hatch out men, or ape mommys don't give birth to human children, that evolution is false.

But anyone who does not need Original Sin in their playbook knows that that is not what evolution claims.

(As in write this, if they believed their myth of evolution was true, they would have to believe men and fish could interbreed or man an ape - but I digress.)

So we have what evolution is according to the REST of the world: The promotion of inheritable traits among generations

Vs

The myth of evolution, what Judaists and Christians maintain: That just about anything can evolve into anything else.

The point of discussion is, how do Judeo-Christians maintain their MYTH of evolution, in order to maintain their myth of creation (and sin)?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Science only speaks to what is observed. Wallace made the original observation that that all mutations in genes that control early development are very disadvantageous and late changes cannot accumulate to give an early change.

I have not read of any observation contrary to the one above.

Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the phenotype of an organism. This can happen in many situations: perhaps the mutation occurs in a stretch of DNA with no function, or perhaps the mutation occurs in a protein-coding region, but ends up not affecting the amino acid sequence of the protein.

If you are trying use the quote above as the mechanism in support of your position.
1. It is not observed, therefore not science but some philosophical hope.
2. Wallace also observed that late changes cannot accumulate to give early change. So it would be falsified by Wallace's observations.

[Bust Nak]

Science only speaks to what is observed. Wallace made the original observation that that all mutations in genes that control early development are very disadvantageous and late changes cannot accumulate to give an early change.

Did he? What observations do you think they are?

I have not read of any observation contrary to the one above.

Lets figure out what observations you are referring to first, shall we?

Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the phenotype of an organism. This can happen in many situations: perhaps the mutation occurs in a stretch of DNA with no function, or perhaps the mutation occurs in a protein-coding region, but ends up not affecting the amino acid sequence of the protein.

If you are trying use the quote above as the mechanism in support of your position.
1. It is not observed, therefore not science but some philosophical hope.

Don't you mean if it is not observed? We obverse this all the time.

2. Wallace also observed that late changes cannot accumulate to give early change. So it would be falsified by Wallace's observations.

He observed that, did he? What exactly is this observation?

How about we skip this song and dance? Why don't you just link me to the creationist site that brought Wallace Arthur's quote to your attention?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 50 by Bust Nak]

1. because hox genes are so influential, no experimental mutations in hox genes (so far) have proven helpful to the organism.
Explore Evolution, p. 109

Is this this true or not? If it is not show me an example, that is all I ask.

[Diagoras]

1. because hox genes are so influential, no experimental mutations in hox genes (so far) have proven helpful to the organism.
Explore Evolution, p. 109

Is this this true or not? If it is not show me an example, that is all I ask.

<bolding mine>

It’s not true.

Since your more recent posts have indicated a potential interest in them, here’s a comprehensive summary of hox genes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877300/

[Willum]

[Replying to post 47 by EarthScienceguy]

Again Wallace,

“There is, however, a problem. Those genes that control early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so�

Wallace is just perpetrating another myth. You do realize everybody puts their pants on one leg at a time, and invoking some dude who wrote a book that is CONTRARY to the fundaments of evolution, just makes Wallace look dumb, no matter how many letters he has after his name.

Do you understand that the "explosion" took place over a very long piece it lasted AT LEAST 13 million years. A long time in evolutionary times when many niches could be evolved into/filled.

No, I am afraid you are simply doing what the OP suggests, creating a sophism, or myth about evolution so that the "talking snake" idea seems more reasonable than the myth you inflict upon evolution.

This is an established fact.

No, it is not an established fact. If anything it would be a projection of data that would lead to a hypothesis, and if anybody not wearing tin foil underwear on their heads could substantiate it, it might become a theory:

A theory being something that is unlikely to be overturned by new discoveries.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 53 by EarthScienceguy]

Extra pair of wings doesn't count as useful? More to the point, didn't you just tried to tell us that it's always very disadvantageous? Now you are making do with mere non-helpful?

Wallace is just perpetrating another myth. You do realize everybody puts their pants on one leg at a time, and invoking some dude who wrote a book that is CONTRARY to the fundaments of evolution, just makes Wallace look dumb, no matter how many letters he has after his name.

I think you are being unfair to Wallace Arthur. His books are not contrary to evolution, he is a victim of, shall we say, selective quoting. Probably originated from the usual suspect at "evolutionnews."

[Willum]

[Replying to post 56 by Bust Nak]

I'll stand corrected, if Wallace is being misquoted, just as Judaeo-Christians cherry pick the Bible, he can't be blamed.
It is just J-C's making up their myths using another's works by proxy.

Odd, huh? The more ESG fights for his position, the more he invokes the post... making up stuff about evolution in an attempt to make it look more stupid than the "talking snake hypothesis."

Although it isn't really a hypothesis any more than Prometheus making us out of stones is a hypothesis.

[Diagoras]

The point of discussion is, how do Judeo-Christians maintain their MYTH of evolution, in order to maintain their myth of creation (and sin)?

Likely by simply ignoring conflicting information. It’s not helped by the repetition of views which have been shown to be false since Darwin’s time. For example, consider this blog post about ‘The Mistakes That Argue for Evolution’:

https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... evolution/

Within that article, there’s a link to a response from Answers in Genesis which states in part:

Although Ken Miller’s story does not properly consider current scientific understanding of chromosomal fusions or significant genomic differences between apes and humans, he promotes it enthusiastically to support his belief that humans descended from apes. Furthermore, he is ardently opposed to teaching intelligent design in the schools, claiming that it is not scientific. He appears to be blind to the fact that the belief that humans descended from apes is a religious (atheistic) one; such changes have never been observed. Thus, he is not able to distinguish between science and religious indoctrination.

<bolding mine>

Evolutionary scientists do NOT believe that humans descended from apes. This is the single most common error that many creationists make. Apes are literally ‘genetic cousins’, not ‘genetic parents’. Also, atheism is NOT a religion.

Answers in Genesis thus demonstrates a clear lack of basic scientific understanding in regards to evolution.

[Difflugia]

Evolutionary scientists do NOT believe that humans descended from apes.

Minor quibble, but human beings are apes. It's chimpanzees that we are often incorrectly described as "descending from" in the sense of an ancestor. What Answers in Genesis gets wrong by saying that we are descended from apes is the implication that we're not apes ourselves.

We could, of course, define human beings as being "not ape," but then that would just make apes paraphyletic.

[Tiberius47]

Theists use myth an awful lot:

They have myths about talking snakes and magic DNA altering, evil bestowing fruit, and so on.

But they also use myth offensively, as in the case of evolution.

They say that since fish eggs don't hatch out men, or ape mommys don't give birth to human children, that evolution is false.

But anyone who does not need Original Sin in their playbook knows that that is not what evolution claims.

(As in write this, if they believed their myth of evolution was true, they would have to believe men and fish could interbreed or man an ape - but I digress.)

So we have what evolution is according to the REST of the world: The promotion of inheritable traits among generations

Vs

The myth of evolution, what Judaists and Christians maintain: That just about anything can evolve into anything else.

The point of discussion is, how do Judeo-Christians maintain their MYTH of evolution, in order to maintain their myth of creation (and sin)?

Classic Strawman, and they count on their followers to be ignorant of what evolution really is so they'll believe the strawman.