Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

I do know what you're saying. I know that many used the scriptures (wrongly) as a defense to support slavery of those they wrongly deemed to be inferior or subjects. Many do not realize the slavery that is imposed now in a so-called free society. I'm not speaking of the type of slavery in some countries where owners have slaves. I am speaking of being slaves to the world we live in.

It appears that you do not understand the Old Testament. You have to get rid of the obviously biased filter that you are using and read what the Bible actually says.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you conveniently miss the "God's only begotten son" part? How is Jesus the only begotten son if God also had sons who came to earth to mate with humans?

There are expressions people use to call someone, "son." Sometimes a person will call a young person, "son," even though he is not the immediate biological parent or from a close family circle.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah. Southern slave owners quoted Darwin to justify owning and beating slaves.

Oh, wait.

No, they didn't.

They cited your holy scripture.

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery
How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...699e8e-6512-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html
The Bible was used to justify slavery. ​

History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes
Christianity as a Justification for Slavery
In the Old Testament, God and the Patriarchs approve. As for the New Testament, Jesus and the Apostles show that slavery is permissible. Therefore, slavery, to those who wrote the article, was not an anti-Christian institution. It was just the opposite. Furthermore, they added, it is impious to say slavery is anti-Christian because such a conclusion contradicted God.


"Inferior" indigenous tribes, in the Americas and in the Pacific were decimated by "invasions for God" and "forced" religious conversions.

How is it that you do not know this?

​

I do know this and the situations have been tragic. It is similar in the right to kingship and rulership in countries. Darwin's theory fostered many wrong assumptions on the part of the latest and greatest in the evolutionary scale. He was dismayed by the treatment of slaves that he saw. But then when they were freed and went back to their homeland, he was also disturbed that they reverted to their old customs.
Haeckel also and other advocates of Darwinian evolution had similar beliefs, leading, as some believe, to the approved idea of the extermination of what they viewed as the lower realms of human life. Surely you know that! And yet, the slavery that many put others to now, including the mistreatment of others, men, women, and children today, how do you feel about that? Even kings, and rulers are subject to mistreatment and misjudgment by others. How do you figure that?

 

[nPeace]

No worries.


All good.


By comparing genetic sequences. The differences between them are due to mutations. Remember the experiment I did, where we compared the sequences of the parents with those of the offspring in order to identify the mutations that led to antibiotic resistance.

Sorry. I don't remember.
You sent me a number of papers, and I was trying to follow your argument, but couldn't, and you didn't seem interested in clearing it up.
So if you don't mind, you can post that particular section here.

Yep.


I suppose it's possible, but I'm not aware of any actual examples of that.

Well since it is possible, and we are sure it is, because you admitted that you can only determine that a mutation is beneficial if its function provides an advantage.
So if the gene is providing the advantage due to genetic adaptation, then, if one assumes that because there is a mutation in that location, that must mean the mutation is beneficial, a wrong conclusion is reached. True?
Therefore, you may not be aware, since it is assumed that if there is a benefit, and there is a mutation, then it is assumed to be a beneficial mutation.

My understanding is that this possibility didn't pan out (notice how the citations are all 20+ years old).

That's very helpful, so thanks.

No problem.

Earlier it seemed you were putting a lot of effort into disputing the notion that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is the result of mutations and natural selection. So I was trying to figure out what the basis for that was (e.g., was it because you didn't think mutations were common enough). But above you seem to agree that mutations happen, they are random, and they produce changes in organisms. If we're in agreement on all that, can we also agree that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is the result of mutations and natural selection?

No. We don't agree, sorry. Do you not yet understand what I am saying? Did anything said here help?

Okay. I think the main thing I'm still wondering is exactly what you mean by "design", relative to biology. Can you explain?

Which comment are you referring to exactly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do know this and the situations have been tragic. It is similar in the right to kingship and rulership in countries. Darwin's theory fostered many wrong assumptions on the part of the latest and greatest in the evolutionary scale. He was dismayed by the treatment of slaves that he saw. But then when they were freed and went back to their homeland, he was also disturbed that they reverted to their old customs.
Haeckel also and other advocates of Darwinian evolution had similar beliefs, leading, as some believe, to the approved idea of the extermination of what they viewed as the lower realms of human life. Surely you know that! And yet, the slavery that many put others to now, including the mistreatment of others, men, women, and children today, how do you feel about that? Even kings, and rulers are subject to mistreatment and misjudgment by others. How do you figure that?

As did Christianity. In fact the deaths from "not true Christians" is far greater than any deaths that can be put on Darwin. People are not perfect. Why are you surprised by that?

 

[dad]

No, we have evidence that there was no change. .

Link?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Link?

Do you think that you could understand it? I have one ready for you.

 

[shunyadragon]

'Arguing from ignorance' is not an argument against anything.
So what are you doing?

Presenting peer reviewed objective verifiable evidence for evolution. All you are doing making selective biased to justify a religious agenda.

Having a preconceived idea, one can use these concepts to engage in...
Circular reasoning
All life diverged from a common ancestor, therefore there would be similarities in structure.
There are similarities in structure, therefore all life diverged from a common ancestor.

Similarities in structure are not the only evidence presented to conclude the evolutionary relationship. Structural function in the sequence of the strata over time, and genetics of living relatives of the descendents of these animals also support the relationship. There are many structural similarities among animals that scientists do not consider evidence of evolutionary relatinship.

Life was created by a universal designer, therefore there would be similarities in structure of design.
There are similarities in structure of design, therefore life was created by a universal designer.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the religious agenda for ID. There have absolutely no peer reviewed articles that support the ID hypothesis.

This and accusing the science of evolution is from Satan sets your stage that you do not want to discuss science as science without selective references to justify your religious agenda..

 

[ecco]

The bible does say all men had the same language, and describes aspects of life that require a different nature actually. The bible also says all animals and people on earth started from one ark. So when we look at what was, and what now is, we can deduce that something happened. For example, are there animals that are so adapted that they are unique in one area? That tells us that adapting happened fast, and that the animals got to the area after the ark emptied. Is Australia one of those areas and is now out in the middle of the sea? That tells us it probably moved. Now, add some actual science and one can put together the puzzle.

You don't recognize actual science when it hits you in the face. No one who has even a rudimentary knowledge of science would post the nonsense you just posted above.

 

[ecco]

Did you conveniently miss the "God's only begotten son" part? How is Jesus the only begotten son if God also had sons who came to earth to mate with humans?

Your strange denial is noted. As explained both ancient history and Scripture abound with spirits. That was not made up by me or anyone else, it is a simple fact.

Since you keep ducking and dodging, it's apparent that you still haven't figured out a way to rationalize God's sons coming to earth to mate with humans and Jesus being His only begotten son.


ETA: I just saw this...

Simple. God is responsible for the baby that Mary had on that first Christmas. God is the Father of baby Jesus. Jesus is God and came down to earth as a man. So Jesus is the son of God.

The title Son of God is a messianic title of God. The phrase sons of god simply denotes that the spirits in question were created by God. So, fallen angels, for example, can be called sons of god.

Again you duck and dodge.

Did the author of Gen 6-2 lie when he wrote:

• That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Or, did John lie when he wrote:

• 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
• 
  
• 1J 4-9 9This is how God’s love was revealed among us: God sent His one and only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him.

 

[nPeace]

Presenting peer reviewed objective verifiable evidence for evolution. All you are doing making selective biased to justify a religious agenda.

You have provided no objective verifiable evidence.
It is evident that you are just making claims. That's all.
All you are doing is ignoring good scientific truths presented by honest scientists who don't do like you do, and ignore truth because you don't like it.
I will call that a scientific biased agenda.

Why not back up your, apparently, false claims.
Please show me which information I presented is not peer reviewed... if you can.

Similarities in structure are not the only evidence presented to conclude the evolutionary relationship. Structural function in the sequence of the strata over time, and genetics of living relatives of the descendents of these animals also support the relationship. There are many structural similarities among animals that scientists do not consider evidence of evolutionary relatinship.

Genetics require inference of relationships, using comparisons. That too is a hypothesis - one of many that are being evaluated by the hypothesis comparison.
Source - A prior-based approach for hypothesis comparison and its utility to discern among temporal scenarios of divergence
Hypothesis comparison offers a means to draw inferences from a set of multiple competing hypotheses and to
estimate the degree of confidence that can be placed on each of them

Oh, and that's peer reviewed.
Perhaps you are just ignoring science material in my posts, and repeating your biased opinion.
Yup. It looks that way. You commented on nothing that I presented, only picked out three little comments I made. Hilarious.

Oh. I almost forgot. I definitely don't want to leave this out, since you call attention to the fact that you have been a geologist for many, many years. So you should know this...
Source - Strata and time: probing the gaps in our understanding
Small Extract
As a good example of the problems that can arise between competing paradigms, papers in this volume reveal differences of opinion over procedures in cyclostratigraphy: when field-observed cyclic phenomena fail tests of statistical significance, resolution of the competing points of view represents a philosophical, as well as a methodological challenge.
Stratigraphy relies on interpretation, assumptions, and is a subjective methodology, and there is no certainly of their reliability.

Source - Can uncertainty in geological cross-section interpretations be quantified and predicted? | Geosphere | GeoScienceWorld
Explicit interpretation of geological data by geologists forms the basis of many geological interpretations. However, quantitative, statistically valid research into how accurate and precise these interpretations of geological data are, and hence their uncertainty, is limited. As a result, the way that uncertainty differs between geological locations is poorly quantified and cannot be predicted. Here we show that uncertainty in cross-section interpretations varies significantly between different geological locations, and we examine the controls on this uncertainty.

In case you haven't noticed, that's peer reviewed also.

I'm sure you know this, so this clearly demonstrates that you are not comfortable accepting what honest science involve... and why? Might it be you are the one with the religious agenda? I suggest that is the case.
Obviously, as a scientist with a religion that must be in line with science - dogma or other, you must support it. I'm not sure which comes first, but both the scientific dogma and the religion are basically the same.
The bias is obvious though.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the religious agenda for ID. There have absolutely no peer reviewed articles that support the ID hypothesis.

"evidence to support the religious agenda for ID"???
Huh?

The phrase religious agenda seem to be the only thing that rolls off your lips when you are faced with science peer reviewed journals that are against your biased opinions.
You are the only one here, mentioning religious agenda. So your inserting your favorite phrase in a statement that makes sense, only makes it sound like nonsense. Hence, I have to agree with you, there is no evidence for such a ridiculous statement, but there is evidence to support intelligent design.

However, we are not discussing whether or not there are peer reviewed articles that support the ID. So please don't create the strawman. It only demonstrates that you are not capable o refuting source information that proves your argument false.

It appears you have two religions - One that supports scientific dogma, and one that you chose because it requires belief in the other.

As it stands. There is no objective verifiable evidence for UCA... and that comes from peer reviewed science papers.
The best you have are opinions based on, as an average, 99% assumptions.

 

[ecco]

No. If the founts of the deep are what shot water up, then we could also assume that there WERE no oceans as such when they first erupted! Also, let's say there were (for the sake of an example) seven major openings from which water and debris shot up. Let's say for an example that two of these were in Yucatan and the North sea area. Now, if those shot up at the beginning of the flood, that would be just a small area on a planetary scale. If I was in an ark on the far side of the planet at the time, thousands of miles away, where waters were just starting to rise, it may not do what you envision. Now we could have the other fountains of the deep also erupt in the first several weeks, but maybe they would be smaller, and, once again, it would depend on where the ark was on the planet as to what waves or other effects were caused.

Yeah. Great rationalizing. Do you realize that none of your Bible makes any sense without you making up far fetched stories?

If the founts
we could also assume
there WERE no oceans
let's say
seven major openings
two of these were in Yucatan
Now, if
the far side of the planet
we could have
but maybe

Noah did have the best GPS system in all history, including modern times you know. (God's positioning system)

Simple.

The best GPS system does no good when you're in a rudderless ship with no means of propulsion.

 

[ecco]

Oh, by the way, while you're at it, allow me to say that the idea of superior race was, in fact, and still is in some cases, believed by many as a conclusion of evolution.

I do know what you're saying. I know that many used the scriptures (wrongly) as a defense to support slavery of those they wrongly deemed to be inferior or subjects. Many do not realize the slavery that is imposed now in a so-called free society. I'm not speaking of the type of slavery in some countries where owners have slaves. I am speaking of being slaves to the world we live in.

Your admission that Southern slave owners used the Bible to justify owning and beating slaves is acknowledged.

However, you still have not provided support for your assertion that "the idea of superior race was, in fact, and still is in some cases, believed by many as a conclusion of evolution."

 

[YoursTrue]

Presenting peer reviewed objective verifiable evidence for evolution. All you are doing making selective biased to justify a religious agenda.



Similarities in structure are not the only evidence presented to conclude the evolutionary relationship. Structural function in the sequence of the strata over time, and genetics of living relatives of the descendents of these animals also support the relationship. There are many structural similarities among animals that scientists do not consider evidence of evolutionary relatinship.



There is absolutely no evidence to support the religious agenda for ID. There have absolutely no peer reviewed articles that support the ID hypothesis.

The problems I see with your agreement with the conclusions you accept for evolution is that other than similarity of genes among the different kinds or species, you have no real evidence in action or not in action. The only support it seems you use is genetic similarity. There are no evidences of any organism evolving, such as dinosaurs morphing eventually after a looong time to be a bird. Just because a dinosaur may have had feathers doesn't mean birds came by means of dinosaurs that evolved over millions, is it, of years. No observable genetic support then or now for this type of postulation. You may say that is how it happened, but it may not be so. Some scientists do feel that there is an be irreducible complexity to that which is supposed to have emerged from who knows what.

 

[ecco]

Many do not realize the slavery that is imposed now in a so-called free society. I'm not speaking of the type of slavery in some countries where owners have slaves. I am speaking of being slaves to the world we live in.

I'm surprised to hear that a Christian considers himself to be a slave: "to the world we live in".

Or, perhaps, you are referring to being a slave who is soon to be freed by the second coming.

 

[ecco]

It's almost like going to get a second or third opinion from a doctor, isn't it? One reason is we learn and decide on what we are learning. Or maybe did not learn. Like I'm figuring some teaching doctors are more knowledgeable than others. And some students pay closer attention than others.

So, no opinion. OK.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your admission that Southern slave owners used the Bible to justify owning and beating slaves is acknowledged.

However, you still have not provided support for your assertion that "the idea of superior race was, in fact, and still is in some cases, believed by many as a conclusion of evolution."

I didn't make it up but I'll get the references for it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm surprised to hear that a Christian considers himself to be a slave: "to the world we live in".

Or, perhaps, you are referring to being a slave who is soon to be freed by the second coming.

Your second guess is closer to what I believe, but there are chains and there are chains.

 

[ecco]

There are expressions people use to call someone, "son." Sometimes a person will call a young person, "son," even though he is not the immediate biological parent or from a close family circle.

If you really feel the need to get into the middle of a conversation, at least take the time to understand where the participants are coming from.

Within the context of my conversation with Dad...

• In no way is Dad using the term "son" as you described.
• In no way is the OT using the term "son" as you described.
• In no way is the NT using the term "son" as you described.

 

[ecco]

I do know this and the situations have been tragic. It is similar in the right to kingship and rulership in countries. Darwin's theory fostered many wrong assumptions on the part of the latest and greatest in the evolutionary scale. He was dismayed by the treatment of slaves that he saw. But then when they were freed and went back to their homeland, he was also disturbed that they reverted to their old customs.
Haeckel also and other advocates of Darwinian evolution had similar beliefs, leading, as some believe, to the approved idea of the extermination of what they viewed as the lower realms of human life.

Surely you know that!

No. Surely I do not know that. Would you care to provide some evidence to support your allegations?