Doubters of Evolution

[Gonzo]

I pose to you a hypothetical situation.

There are several assumptions which are known as facts that must be taken into account first though.

1) Genetic mutations exist (or at the very least accept that there are large amounts of varying genetics throughout a population). Examples would be varying eye color, hair color, and a variety of others regarding almost every aspect of an organism.

2) These mutations are coded for within DNA and can be passed down to offspring.

3) When mutations are selected for they have can "stacking up" effect to some degree, as we would see with dog breeding. (for example the breeding of bloodhounds with extremely sensitive sense of scent).


Now for my example lets say we take individuals from a human population and select for traits, much like animal breeding. We select for individuals with an extended tail bone/spine and continue to select for them throughout the generations. Based upon the above assumptions you will eventually have a group of individuals with an appendage much like a tail. Now if we select for smaller body size and body hair as well, we have something that looks very much like a monkey, but it wouldn't be and it would most likely still be able to breed with the regular human population. However, if you select for certain traits regarding sexual reproduction, specifically the acidity of the vagina and size of it as well (perhaps even shape). And you have the males in the population selected for characteristics that correspond, it will eventually make sexual reproduction with the normal human population impossible (Which under one definition of the species concept, will make them separate species). There are also some other wild genetic traits that exist in the human population that could be selected for, like webbed digits or blue skin even.


If this example does not convince you I ask that you point out the reasons so that I may use our existing knowledge of genetics and heritability to propose another hypothetical example that may persuade you. I also ask that you lay the groundwork on what constitutes a separate species in your opinion so that my example may incorporate it. Also, if you disagree with my assumptions I can help illustrate them as fact.

I realize my example uses artificial selection rather than natural selection, but I can substitute artificial pressures for environmental ones in the next situation I provide.

[Tuff]

And we know what happened to the Spanish Habsburg dynasty as a result of just a few generations of aggressive inbreeding.



=

On November 1st, 1700, an entire dynasty of kings came to a crashing end with the death of Charles II of Spain. Charles had neither a pleasant life nor a successful reign. He was physically disabled, mentally retarded and disfigured. A large tongue made his speech difficult to understand, he was bald by the age of 35, and he died senile and wracked by epileptic seizures. He had two wives but being impotent, he had no children and thus, no heirs. Which is what happens after 16 generations of inbreeding.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... hannellink

Good analogy, but I've seen multiple "graphics" featuring the true family tree of the Habsburg dynasty. I've wondered if there are any other as well documented family trees suffering a similar fate. It certainly does create a haze over the creation view of humans starting with Adam & Eve IMO.

[Intrepidman]

...
Good analogy,

Thanks.

but I've seen multiple "graphics" featuring the true family tree of the Habsburg dynasty. I've wondered if there are any other as well documented family trees suffering a similar fate. It certainly does create a haze over the creation view of humans starting with Adam & Eve IMO.

There is a haze only if Adam & Eve had a flawed, natural beginning. Some believers of the creation view believe that Adam & Eve were created 'perfect' (whatever that means), the assumption being that since God made them, they must have been flawless.

[micatala]

...
Good analogy,

Thanks.

but I've seen multiple "graphics" featuring the true family tree of the Habsburg dynasty. I've wondered if there are any other as well documented family trees suffering a similar fate. It certainly does create a haze over the creation view of humans starting with Adam & Eve IMO.

There is a haze only if Adam & Eve had a flawed, natural beginning. Some believers of the creation view believe that Adam & Eve were created 'perfect' (whatever that means), the assumption being that since God made them, they must have been flawless.

This is quite an assumption. It is also one it seems to me you would need your time machine to verify, unlike the assumptions underlying evolution, which are at least observable today. We can observe reproduction today. We can observe geological processes today. We assume that these processes operated similarly in the past, just as we have observed them throughout history.

We have NOT observed any flawless human beings in the present. We have NOT observed any instances of special creation in the present.

In addition, before we assume Adam and Eve are perfect, we have to assume they even existed. All we have to support this assumption is the book of Genesis. To assume Adam and Even existed literally as described we have to assume Genesis should be and was meant to be interpreted literally, and we have to assume what is written is correct.

We know that some of what is written does not square with other evidence we have. One notable example is that the write of Genesis is writing from a flat-earth world view and assumes the sky is a 'dome', or solid substance and is holding "the waters above" from the "waters below." This would be the plainest understanding of what is written.

We have to assume that what is written was not meant metaphorically or allegorically, despite indications that this WAS the way it was intended. At this point, we have no way, without using a time machine to either go back and visit the author or attempting to visit Adam and Eve, to directly ascertain if any of these assumptions are valid.

[Intrepidman]

...
Good analogy,

Thanks.

but I've seen multiple "graphics" featuring the true family tree of the Habsburg dynasty. I've wondered if there are any other as well documented family trees suffering a similar fate. It certainly does create a haze over the creation view of humans starting with Adam & Eve IMO.

There is a haze only if Adam & Eve had a flawed, natural beginning. Some believers of the creation view believe that Adam & Eve were created 'perfect' (whatever that means), the assumption being that since God made them, they must have been flawless.

This is quite an assumption. It is also one it seems to me you would need your time machine to verify, unlike the assumptions underlying evolution, which are at least observable today. We can observe reproduction today. We can observe geological processes today. We assume that these processes operated similarly in the past, just as we have observed them throughout history.

This cannot be proven, since catastrophes have a nasty way of messing up the data.

We have NOT observed any flawless human beings in the present. We have NOT observed any instances of special creation in the present.

In addition, before we assume Adam and Eve are perfect, we have to assume they even existed. All we have to support this assumption is the book of Genesis. To assume Adam and Even existed literally as described we have to assume Genesis should be and was meant to be interpreted literally, and we have to assume what is written is correct.

We know that some of what is written does not square with other evidence we have. One notable example is that the write of Genesis is writing from a flat-earth world view and assumes the sky is a 'dome', or solid substance and is holding "the waters above" from the "waters below." This would be the plainest understanding of what is written.

We have to assume that what is written was not meant metaphorically or allegorically, despite indications that this WAS the way it was intended. At this point, we have no way, without using a time machine to either go back and visit the author or attempting to visit Adam and Eve, to directly ascertain if any of these assumptions are valid.

I think we agree on most points. The things we disagree on would be best discussed in a different sub-forum.

[micatala]

...
Good analogy,

Thanks.

but I've seen multiple "graphics" featuring the true family tree of the Habsburg dynasty. I've wondered if there are any other as well documented family trees suffering a similar fate. It certainly does create a haze over the creation view of humans starting with Adam & Eve IMO.

There is a haze only if Adam & Eve had a flawed, natural beginning. Some believers of the creation view believe that Adam & Eve were created 'perfect' (whatever that means), the assumption being that since God made them, they must have been flawless.

This is quite an assumption. It is also one it seems to me you would need your time machine to verify, unlike the assumptions underlying evolution, which are at least observable today. We can observe reproduction today. We can observe geological processes today. We assume that these processes operated similarly in the past, just as we have observed them throughout history.

This cannot be proven, since catastrophes have a nasty way of messing up the data.

Catastrophes also typically leave evidence behind.

A global flood, for example, had it occurred would have left lots of evidence behind. All the evidence we have indicates a global flood did not occur.

There have been lots of catastrophes including local floods that we can find evidence for. No global flood, though.

There have even been catastrophes that have had a global impact, like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This left what I believe is called the "irridium layer" which can be found all across the world. It forms what is called the K-T boundary in the geological record.


However, the main point would be that we can observe non-catastrophic geological processes operating in the past. We can typically tell when either short term catastrophes (local floods, fault slippages, etc.) have occurred as well as longer term and slower techtonically induced movements.

We have NOT observed any flawless human beings in the present. We have NOT observed any instances of special creation in the present.

In addition, before we assume Adam and Eve are perfect, we have to assume they even existed. All we have to support this assumption is the book of Genesis. To assume Adam and Even existed literally as described we have to assume Genesis should be and was meant to be interpreted literally, and we have to assume what is written is correct.

We know that some of what is written does not square with other evidence we have. One notable example is that the write of Genesis is writing from a flat-earth world view and assumes the sky is a 'dome', or solid substance and is holding "the waters above" from the "waters below." This would be the plainest understanding of what is written.

We have to assume that what is written was not meant metaphorically or allegorically, despite indications that this WAS the way it was intended. At this point, we have no way, without using a time machine to either go back and visit the author or attempting to visit Adam and Eve, to directly ascertain if any of these assumptions are valid.

I think we agree on most points. The things we disagree on would be best discussed in a different sub-forum.

Fair enough. The THeology Forum would probably most important for this line of discussion or debate.

[Intrepidman]

I gotta go with Wyvern on this one. To propose such a change in the meaning of a word can't be shown to be anything other than wishful thinking. Had a proper term been applied, we would then be hearing about how accurate such term was.

I do agree on the issue that the rabbits were observed to eat often, and how the confusion can come about. However, in considering the Bible is so often proposed as the inerrant word of God, and as scientifically supporting itself, the issue of cud chewing rabbits belies this notion. (not that Intrepidman is a literalist)

Put simply, they were wrong.

If you were reading a book, and the book said,"The computer was 5'2", 110 pounds with blue eyes. She has been married for 5 years and has 2 children, 1 and 3."

Is the book wrong?

[Gonzo]

There is a haze only if Adam & Eve had a flawed, natural beginning. Some believers of the creation view believe that Adam & Eve were created 'perfect' (whatever that means), the assumption being that since God made them, they must have been flawless.

Now if the human population started with just two individuals, how do we account for the genetic variation we see today? (given that they could only possess a total of 4 alleles per gene). This means that mutations occurred to account for this variance (unless you have evidence for another mechanism that is).

And then we get to the problem you brought up before, regarding recessive alleles and how they should be stacking up to produce non-viable offspring, which would mean everyone should possess the same 4 alleles for each gene if the Adam and Eve story is true.

[Intrepidman]

There is a haze only if Adam & Eve had a flawed, natural beginning. Some believers of the creation view believe that Adam & Eve were created 'perfect' (whatever that means), the assumption being that since God made them, they must have been flawless.

Now if the human population started with just two individuals, how do we account for the genetic variation we see today? (given that they could only possess a total of 4 alleles per gene). This means that mutations occurred to account for this variance (unless you have evidence for another mechanism that is).

Since we are talking within the boundaries of the creation story there are at least 3 possible sources for mutations.
1 & 2) When Adam and Eve were ejected from Eden
3) The mark of Cain.

And then we get to the problem you brought up before, regarding recessive alleles and how they should be stacking up to produce non-viable offspring, which would mean everyone should possess the same 4 alleles for each gene if the Adam and Eve story is true.

[Gonzo]

Since we are talking within the boundaries of the creation story there are at least 3 possible sources for mutations.
1 & 2) When Adam and Eve were ejected from Eden
3) The mark of Cain.

So only those three became mutated or their subsequent descendants were also subjected to mutations?

Regardless, this brings up natural selection for how traits are selected for or against. I'll ask again, doesn't it make sense that future generations of animals initially in the same population will vary greatly over time if the environments they are exposed to vary greatly? YEC put the time span of humanity around 7000 years, if I'm not mistaken, and yet we have a tremendous amount of diversity in the human population that developed from mutations in this short period of time(relative to how old others think the earth is).

[Intrepidman]

Since we are talking within the boundaries of the creation story there are at least 3 possible sources for mutations.
1 & 2) When Adam and Eve were ejected from Eden
3) The mark of Cain.

So only those three became mutated or their subsequent descendants were also subjected to mutations?

Regardless, this brings up natural selection for how traits are selected for or against. I'll ask again, doesn't it make sense that future generations of animals initially in the same population will vary greatly over time if the environments they are exposed to vary greatly? YEC put the time span of humanity around 7000 years, if I'm not mistaken, and yet we have a tremendous amount of diversity in the human population that developed from mutations in this short period of time(relative to how old others think the earth is).

If you'll indulge me to start again.

According to the YEC view (as I understand it), Adam & Eve were created directly by God in an ideal environment. This would mean that if they had not 'sinned' and been ejected from Eden then they could procreate forever in 'Eden'.

Brothers, sisters, mothers, cousins, the familial relationship would not matter because the genes would remain 'perfect'.

After the fall they were no longer in 'Eden'. For a bit the genes remained close to 'perfect' (that's why Cain could marry his sister), but as time progressed cosmic rays bombarded the genes of humankind and introduced errors. This might not take long at all.

All it would take is a ray to the sperm, or ovum DNA of a single individual to potentially add a new error to the population (assuming that error was not so profound it killed the child)

At some point these errors accumulated until such point that familial relationships produced children with profound problems.

If there are any YECs who wish to amend or alter my post, please let me know.