After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered

[EarthScienceguy]

After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered the most basic questions of theist?

Charles Hodge Systematic theology copywrite 1870.

Although Strauss greatly exaggerates when he says that men of science in our day are unanimous
in supporting the doctrine of spontaneous generation, it is undoubtedly true that a large class of
naturalists, especially on the continent of Europe, are in favour of that doctrine. Professor Huxley,
in his discourse on the Physical Basis of Life, lends to it the whole weight of his authority. He
does not indeed expressly teach that dead matter becomes active without being subject to the
influence of previous living matter; but his whole paper is designed to show that life is the result
of the peculiar arrangement of the molecules of matter. His doctrine is that the matter of life is
composed of ordinary matter, differing from it only in the manner in which its atoms are
aggregated.2 If the properties of water, he says, may be properly said to result from the nature
and disposition of its component molecules, I can find no intelligible ground for refusing to say
that the properties of protoplasm result from the nature and disposition of its molecules.3 In his
address before the British Association, he says that if he could look back far enough into the past
he should expect to see the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter. And although
that address is devoted to showing that spontaneous generation, or Abiogenesis, as it is called, has
never been proved, he says, I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to
suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis has ever taken place in the past or ever will take place
in the future. With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and
every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to
say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call vital, may not some
day be artificially brought together.4 All this supposes that life is the product of physical causes;
that all that is requisite for its production is to bring together the necessary conditions.

The theist argument has not changed in 150 years.

In 1870, the full problem in the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion had still not been fully realized.

In 1870 an equation to calculate rate of beneficial mutations in organisms, which makes it impossible for the cambrian explosion to happen through naturalistic means.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 29 by DrNoGods]

Why do you think there are "limits" to science? Science is about learning, and if there is any limit I suppose it would be related to the mental capacity of humans to come up with new experiments, new instrumentation, new ideas, new theories, etc. so that nature can continue to be investigated and understood more comprehensively. It builds on itself now just as it always has, and doesn't have to have any particular limits, whatever that actually means. Do you think humans are somehow going to reach a point where we can't learn anymore?

So a scientist can have a successful experiment without being able to observe it? One of the greatest challenges in science is determining how to observe a phenomenon. For example how do you measure the gravity waves? The idea of how to measure gravity waves was the great leap of understanding when they were once measured.

How would have astronomers discovered that quasars show no time dilation in their pulses without being able to observe them?

So are you trying to express the idea that we do not need to observe a phenomenon do experimentation on it?

From you comments you seem to be a materialist that would mean that you do not believe in anything that cannot be observed. I would think that it would mean that you believe in nothing but the line of cause and effect all the way back to creation. But what then? This universe had to be made by something that we cannot observe or measure.

Nonsense. Determining what happened in the past by observing things as they are now is done all the time. Tectonic plate theory is a perfect example of this. It is a process that is happening now and that we can observe, and it explains many observations besides just the current positions of the continents (eg. why common fossils are found on both sides of the Atlantic ocean as if Europe and North America were connected at some time in the past; why the "ring of fire" exists around the Pacific rim; why earthquakes zones occur where they do; why certain mountain ranges exist where they do, and on and on).

Creationist also believe in the movement of the plates for the very reasons you sited. The difference the amount of time that the plates moved.

Now according to Old Earth plate tectonics the plates move at about plates move at an average speed of 8 cm per year. This means it would take around 2 million years for 100 miles of crust to subduct.

But why is it that we can still detect old tectonic plates in the mantle after millions, or hundred of millions of years in the mantle. Detecting tectonic plates in the mantle would make sense if there were a runaway tectonic event but it does not make sense if they were millions or even billions of years old. Mountains and oceans can still be detected on these plates, millions of years really. If someone believes this that tell me because I have some ocean front property near Las Vegas that I want to sell them.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10 ... e-thought/

This theory explains many observations, consistently, and as a result we can be confident that it is correct. As a result, we can make inferences on things that happened in the distant past that are highly likely to be correct (eg. the existence of the supercontinent Pangaea). This example of observation and analysis is how real science works (as opposed to "creation science"), and claims made about the past are not baseless or untested when they are consistent with a theory like this. There are many other examples such as radiometric dating, the geologic column, etc.

And yet these plates after tens of millions of years still are brittle enough to cause deep tectonic activity. The only way these predictions make sense is if these plates were recently subducted.

Sure ... the less evidence there is, and/or the less reliable it is, the more likely there can be mistakes in the analysis. Nothing unusual about that. But when the evidence is plentiful, reliable, and overwhelming against an explanation, the more likely it is to be wrong. For this reason, we can say with a very high degree of certainty that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years, and that a global flood covering the highest mountains and killing off all but 8 humans a mere 4,300 years ago did not happen.

Far from it.

Plate tectonics
Genetics
Magnetic fields of planets
Radioactive material
Cambrian explosion


There are more but these are the ones that currently on my mind.

But, of course, creationists done't need any actual, real evidence to support their claims of these events. They are given in a perceived holy book and believed to be true purely for that reason. This has nothing to do with science. But, for some strange reason, there are people who try to argue that these myths are compatible with science rather than simply admitting they believe the stories on pure faith, and that this is sufficient (for them). That would be a perfectly acceptable explanation ... no need to try and do the impossible and attempt to justify these myths as being scientifically supported.

They are compatible with observations.

Go find Lady Justice and put the few cherry-picked anomalies where genetics has "caused difficulty" for evolution on one side, and put the instances where it supports evolution on the other side, and see what her verdict is.

Far from cherry-picking Muller's Ratchet is a real problem for evolutionary theory.

There is only one type Y chromosome 70% different than chimp's Y chromosome. How is this possible? The Bible predicts one type of Y chromosome coming from Noah.

There are 3 types of mitochondrial dna. This is what the Bible predicts because of the 3 wives that Noah's sons had. How could this be possible if we evolved from chimpy's.

This is not cherry picking these are major problems for evolution.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 28 by Diagoras]

I dont remember the exact biblical verse that describes the ice age after the flood. Of course, youll be able to supply this evidence, wont you?

I do not know of any Bible verse that mentions any volcanic eruption either. Are you trying to say that the Bible is describing a world in which there are no volcanic eruptions? The Bible does not mention hurricanes does that mean there were no hurricanes in Bible times. No, it simply means that these events did not effect the people in the Biblical narrative.

What the biblical view of the world does have is a mechanism for an ice age unlike the naturalist view of the world.

[Yahwehismywitness]

I have a bunch of rocks looked through microscope how long should I wait for them to show some sort of life? Have never observed any growth thought these fossils grow? Since this theory was in my biology text book thought I would try to look at this theory. However, concluded it is flawed from the beginning.

Simple cell biology is vibratory and harmonious our DNA is 99% the same yet 1% difference is hard for Evolution theorists to explain.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 30 by Purple Knight]

Since I was the one who addressed this in the Amazon Molly, what do you think I don't understand about it?

Amazon Molly is evidence for a recently creatio of animal life. Because these fish could not be alive if unless they were created recently because muller's rachet would have caused their extinction.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 33 by Yehwahismywitness]

I have a bunch of rocks looked through microscope how long should I wait for them to show some sort of life? Have never observed any growth thought these fossils grow? Since this theory was in my biology text book thought I would try to look at this theory. However, concluded it is flawed from the beginning.

You either misunderstood your biology text book, or it was not a biology text book you were reading. What made you think that looking at rocks under a microscope would yield some kind of living thing? Rocks aren't fossils, and fossils don't grow because the living creature that is represented by a fossil is long dead and is not going to come back to life no matter how long you look at it under a microscope.

If you think evolution says that rocks are fossils, or that living things grow from either one of these, you need to go back to the beginning and find a book that properly describes the theory of evolution as you are very clearly confused on what it actually is. There are introductory books available, and web sites, where you can learn something about it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 31 by EarthScienceguy]

How could this be possible if we evolved from chimpy's.

We didn't evolve from chimpanzees (if that is what a "chimpy" is), we share a common ancestor with them. But virtually everything else you said in this post was also wrong. So I won't waste time trying to comment on the various points because they have all been thoroughly debunked many times before in the open literature, on this web site, and on many other web sites.

Repeating the same things over and over again does not make them true. Modern science has discarded these nonsensical ideas of a 6000 year old Earth, and fortunately this kind of junk is not taught in any schools of higher learning anywhere in this country (why do you think that is the case?), or in most other civilized countries where science isn't depressed due (of course) to religion as in many muslim countries. Your ship sunk long ago I'm afraid, while science marches along just fine without religious bias shaping the results.

[Diagoras]

Far from cherry-picking Muller's Ratchet is a real problem for evolutionary theory.

We can add that to the list, then.

There is only one type Y chromosome 70% different than chimp's Y chromosome. How is this possible? The Bible predicts one type of Y chromosome coming from Noah.

<bolding mine>

Id be very surprised to hear that particular bold biblical prediction coming from anyone else but you. The effort required to see something within a Bronze-Age collection of writings that wasnt actually discovered or named until the nineteenth century is considerable; to call it a stretch is to stretch the very meaning of interpretation beyond all reason.

There are 3 types of mitochondrial dna. This is what the Bible predicts because of the 3 wives that Noah's sons had.

This is not cherry picking these are major problems for evolution.

<bolding mine>

Strange that the bible got it spot on regarding mitochondrial DNA, but didnt use that knowledge in Genesis 30:37-39 when breeding distinctly coloured livestock. Our experiences and understanding of the word prediction are clearly vastly different.

I do not know of any Bible verse that mentions any volcanic eruption either. Are you trying to say that the Bible is describing a world in which there are no volcanic eruptions?

No, Im saying that you cant then turn around and claim that the bible predicted any particular volcanic eruption, or that it shows that Bronze-Age shepherds knew about the differences between igneous and sedimentary rocks (for example).

You claim that an ice age occurred after a flood, but offer no biblical evidence to support your claim. Simple as that. Of course, given your predilection for extrapolating theories from the flimsiest of premises (see above re: DNA), I suppose youd be satisfied with finding the word cold somewhere in the bible, and then claiming that it clearly referred to an ice age.

I think even Nostrodamus would have shaken his head in disbelief at the ridiculousness of it all.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 36 by DrNoGods]

We didn't evolve from chimpanzees (if that is what a "chimpy" is), we share a common ancestor with them. But virtually everything else you said in this post was also wrong. So I won't waste time trying to comment on the various points because they have all been thoroughly debunked many times before in the open literature, on this web site, and on many other web sites.

Oh yea right the chum of a chimpy.

So you are saying that there are not detectable tectonic plates in the mantle. Really? That is not even a creationist discovery unlike the research in the RATE project. I am sure you do not want to discuss how 10's of million year plates are still have detectable mountains. Beats me how that could be.

And did you read about the Amazon Molly fish. How is that fish still in existence? In all of our discussions you have not debunked any of my claims. Not chimpy to make evolution, not plate tectonics, not even where radioactivity came from. In fact muller's ratchet is just more evidence to support our very first discussion together entropy.

Repeating the same things over and over again does not make them true. Modern science has discarded these nonsensical ideas of a 6000 year old Earth, and fortunately this kind of junk is not taught in any schools of higher learning anywhere in this country (why do you think that is the case?), or in most other civilized countries where science isn't depressed due (of course) to religion as in many muslim countries. Your ship sunk long ago I'm afraid, while science marches along just fine without religious bias shaping the results.

But that is just it is not the same thing over and over again. Well except maybe the creation of the universe and life. There is so much more evidence of a young earth today than there was even a decade ago.

My ship will be floating long after the naturalist's has sunk into the abyss. With there had in a bucket of sand claiming they are floating.

[Purple Knight]

Amazon Molly is evidence for a recently creatio of animal life. Because these fish could not be alive if unless they were created recently because muller's rachet would have caused their extinction.

So what part of my post was in error?

Conclusion: How then does the Amazon molly survive?

Put simply I don't believe the hype around this fish.

This is actually my field.

The current research would have us believe that not only are all these fish female and can only clone themselves, but that they solicit the males of other species to mate with them in order to stimulate this process, and that these other males do it because females of their own species see them mating and conclude that they are good mates.

I think it's a very good idea to give theories the smell test as you're doing here, but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Perhaps instead of evolution must be wrong, a better conclusion is that perhaps gynogenesis is incorrectly, or at least not fully, understood.

Early-evolution-stage parthenogenesis seems to result from a conversion of the haploid egg cell to diploid, as is the case with turkeys. This would mean that each daughter turkey, while homozygous for every trait, is not necessarily a clone of the mother.

(Here I'll get into why I believe Muller's Ratchet is not being applied correctly to this fish.)

"But wait, Purple Knight!" a heckler cries, "If each daughter turkey is homozygous for every trait, wouldn't the daughter turkeys of those original daughter turkeys be exactly equivalent to clones of their mothers?"

Yes, they would. And it is precisely because researchers are making the mistake you are that they think this fish is cloning itself. It's not: It's doing something that, when a homozygous parent is assumed, is the exact equivalent of cloning itself.

The daughters test as clones of the parent, but they're not. And in one very important case, this is glaringly obvious.

The daughters of parthenogenesis are equivalent to clones of the mother except in the case of random mutation, which would almost exclusively produce a heterozygous individual. Let's say for the sake of argument that this mutation is a recessive trait, so right now there is no expression.

Now that heterozygous individual will go on to parthenogenerate two sets of homozygous offspring: One set with two copies of the new trait, and one set with two copies of the unmutated gene.

And voila: Selection. Not just selection, but selection with breakneck efficiency. The bad trait gets itself gone with no carriers remaining if every worse fish is eaten and only better fish survive.

Even if a random mutation produces an individual homozygous for the new trait (depends when the mutation occurs) then that individual expresses immediately and if it is a worse fish, it is simply eaten immediately, leaving all her mother's clone daughters unburdened by horrible recessive genetic baggage.

The small assumption here is that there is still meiosis. Well of course there's still meiosis.

...Because this explains how this fish is still alive!!!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 38 by EarthScienceguy]

I am sure you do not want to discuss how 10's of million year plates are still have detectable mountains. Beats me how that could be.

But according to you, there can be no such thing as a "10's of million year plates", because the Earth is only 6,000 years old. You can't conveniently use millions or billions of year old events or items when it suits your argument, then claim they don't exist when that suits another argument. Either the universe is about 6,000 years old, or it isn't, and we positively know the answer to that now (and it ain't 6,000).

In all of our discussions you have not debunked any of my claims.

I disagree completely, but there is no need for me to debunk any of your claims. They have been so thoroughly debunked by the science community at large that they are no longer part of any educational curriculum anywhere in this country. I'll ask again ... doesn't that tell you something? If young earth creationism had any legs to stand on it would not have been jettisoned long ago from educational institutions ... as it has.

There is so much more evidence of a young earth today than there was even a decade ago.

Really? Then why isn't this taught anywhere but in churches or other religious organizations who believe it purely because it is described in holy books written long before humans had any real knowledge of science or how nature works?

My ship will be floating long after the naturalist's has sunk into the abyss.

Take a big picture look at where YECs are relative to where the modern world is regarding science and understanding of nature. If you think your ship is racing ahead of the naturalists you need to get out more, or do some reading. Being 2000 years behind the times is not a goal anyone should chase.