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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 102 by EarthScienceguy]

How can someone start with a conclusion when the conclusion is unknown.

Ask Russell Humphreys, or any of these creation "scientists." Their answers are given in the bible, and to try and gain legitimacy they attempt to come up with scientific explanations for things that are consistent with the bible stories. AIG's ark exhibit in KY is a perfect example of this, where they try to explain how humans and dinosaurs coexisted, or how Noah's flood was a real event and compatible with modern science. Do you really think AIG would have hoodwinked taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars to put on this farce if the science community actually believed it already?

Humphreys' goal with his planetary magnetic field "theory" was to try and show that a 6000 year old Earth was feasible, but again you keep missing (or ignoring) the fundamental reason why that article is complete nonsense. His two primary assumptions are not supported, and are known to be wrong. They form the basis of his entire argument, yet he provided no support for them at all and simply made them up, and we know they are both wrong. How you think this is legitimate science is a mystery. It clearly is a joke no matter how lucky he gets at a few other field numbers. But you can't seem to grasp this key fact.

READERS TAKE NOTE

Humphrey's magnetic field predictions are never said to be incorrect. But simply that Humphrey's somehow magically manufactured his numbers from values that had not yet been measured. That is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Also notice that it is not just one value but many all were correct.

Here's another definition for you:

coincidence noun
co·​in·​ci·​dence | \ k�-ˈin(t)-sə-dən(t)s
, -sÉ™-ËŒden(t)s \
Definition of coincidence

1 : the act or condition of coinciding : correspondence … a perfect coincidence between truth and goodness …— Robert South
2 : the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection … causal connection requires something more than mere coincidence as to time and place …— Wayne R. LaFave also : any of these occurrences

Humphreys' assumptions were wrong (planets did not begin as balls of H2O, and no god swooped in and aligned all the H-atom nuclear spins to create an initial magnetic field). Therefore, it is irrelevant what numbers Humphreys' predicts from this model of his. You should really change your handle and get the word "science" out of it if you think this is how science works.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

A hypothesis states a presumed relationship between two variables in a way that can be tested with empirical data. It may take the form of a cause-effect statement, or an "if x,...then y" statement.

The cause is called the independent variable; and the effect is called the dependent variable.

Relationships can be of several forms: linear, or non-linear. Linear relationships can be either direct (positive) or inverse (negative).

In a direct or positive relationship, the values of both variables increase together or decrease together. That is, if one increases in value, so does the other; if one decreases in value, so does the other.

In an inverse or negative relationship, the values of the variables change in opposite directions. That is, if the independent variable increases in value, the dependent variable decreases; if the independent variable decreases in value, the dependent variable increases.

In a non-linear relationship, there is no easy way to describe how the values of the dependent variable are affected by changes in the values of the independent variable.http://web.csulb.edu/~msaintg/ppa696/696vars.htm

A hypothesis is one's conclusion as to why the independent variable changed the dependent variable. A "presumed relationship" is a conclusion. Now if you are speaking of the conclusion of a lab the discussion turns to whether or not the hypothesis was correct. If it was not correct a new hypothesis with a new conclusion should be present.

How can someone start with a conclusion when the conclusion is unknown?


Ask Russell Humphreys or any of these creation "scientists." Their answers are given in the bible, and to try and gain legitimacy they attempt to come up with scientific explanations for things that are consistent with the bible stories. AIG's ark exhibit in KY is a perfect example of this, where they try to explain how humans and dinosaurs coexisted, or how Noah's flood was a real event and compatible with modern science. Do you really think AIG would have hoodwinked taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars to put on this farce if the science community actually believed it already?

You did not answer the question. How can someone start with a conclusion when the conclusion is not known?

Of course, they would not have spent the millions of dollars if the philosophy of naturalism had not taken over the scientific community. All naturalists believe that the earth under a major catastrophe in the past. That is actually a point everyone agrees with. What is disputed is the number of catastrophes and when they occurred.

For example, some catastrophe killed the dinosaurs, that is an observation that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the type of catastrophe that caused this extinction. Creationists assume a flood and point to the observation that all fossils had to be created in a water environment. Naturalists assume asteroid impact and point to the Chicxulub Crater. One thing is for certain there has been events or event that killed most of the organisms that have existed on this planet.

Humphreys' goal with his planetary magnetic field "theory" was to try and show that a 6000-year-old Earth was feasible, but again you keep missing (or ignoring) the fundamental reason why that article is complete nonsense. His two primary assumptions are not supported and are known to be wrong.

Naturalists claim they do not know the original conditions of the universe so how can a naturalist make any claim about the beginning of the universe. Naturalists say "they do not know", so this claim that Humphrey's two primary assumptions are not supported cannot be claimed because naturalist philosophy does not make any claims about the initial conditions.

Matter is simply condensed energy or energy in matter form. The Bible not only gives a source for the energy of the universe but also the form in which the energy was in.

They form the basis of his entire argument, yet he provided no support for them at all and simply made them up, and we know they are both wrong. How you think this is legitimate science is a mystery. It clearly is a joke no matter how lucky he gets at a few other field numbers. But you can't seem to grasp this key fact.

He did not make up the ball of water that came from the Bible itself. I understand that you do not believe that the Bible describes reality. But the laws of physics make it impossible for this universe to be formed strictly from the laws of physics.




Quote:
READERS TAKE NOTE

Humphrey's magnetic field predictions are never said to be incorrect. But simply that Humphrey's somehow magically manufactured his numbers from values that had not yet been measured. That is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Also notice that it is not just one value but many all were correct.

Here's another definition for you:

coincidence noun
co·​in·​ci·​dence | \ k�-ˈin(t)-sə-dən(t)s
, -sÉ™-ËŒden(t)s \
Definition of coincidence

1 : the act or condition of coinciding : correspondence … a perfect coincidence between truth and goodness …— Robert South
2 : the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection … causal connection requires something more than mere coincidence as to time and place …— Wayne R. LaFave also : any of these occurrences

"Accident: an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause."

Mercury, Mars, Neptune, Uranus, Galaxies, one could be an ancient, 5 defy the idea of an accident.

Humphreys' assumptions were wrong (planets did not begin as balls of H2O, and no god swooped in and aligned all the H-atom nuclear spins to create an initial magnetic field). Therefore, it is irrelevant what numbers Humphreys' predicts from this model of his. You should really change your handle and get the word "science" out of it if you think this is how science works.

Are you saying his mathematics are wrong? When a theory makes accurate predictions those predictions prove its assumptions. Can you name a time when this has not been the case?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 108 by Clownboat]

You once again failed to address the questions asked of you.

The Question!!
"Do you believe that such a collision occurred?" This was the question.


The answer!!
Oh my! No, I do not believe that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid impact just like another naturalist that does not believe that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. This is not even a creation question because it is not even settled in evolutionary circles.

The evidence!!!!

The newest research, led by Gerta Keller of Princeton University in New Jersey, and Thierry Adatte of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, uses evidence from Mexico to suggest that the Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary by as much as 300,000 years.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648

The scientists also found evidence that the Chicxulub impact didn't have a dramatic impact on species diversity that has been suggested.

At one site at El Penon, the researchers found 52 species present in sediments below the impact spherule layer and counted all 52 still present in layers above the spherules.

"We found that not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact," says Keller.

This conclusion should not come as too great a surprise, she says. None of the other great mass extinctions are associated with an impact, and no other large craters are known to have caused a significant extinction event.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 108 by Clownboat]

You once again failed to address the questions asked of you.

The Question!!
"Do you believe that such a collision occurred?" This was the question.


The answer!!
Oh my! No, I do not believe that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid impact just like another naturalist that does not believe that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. This is not even a creation question because it is not even settled in evolutionary circles.

The evidence!!!!

The newest research, led by Gerta Keller of Princeton University in New Jersey, and Thierry Adatte of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, uses evidence from Mexico to suggest that the Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary by as much as 300,000 years.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648

The scientists also found evidence that the Chicxulub impact didn't have a dramatic impact on species diversity that has been suggested.

At one site at El Penon, the researchers found 52 species present in sediments below the impact spherule layer and counted all 52 still present in layers above the spherules.

"We found that not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact," says Keller.

This conclusion should not come as too great a surprise, she says. None of the other great mass extinctions are associated with an impact, and no other large craters are known to have caused a significant extinction event.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648

Do you believe that an asteroid impact took place roughly 66 million years ago?
(Dinosaurs and birds are irrelevant to this question).

Starting with faith in a book, you believe in a young earth it seems. (If not the Bible, what was it that convinced you that the earth is young?)

You cannot believe in this impact event from 66 million years ago and a young earth, therefore the 2nd question comes in to play: (please correct me if I'm wrong)
"If not, how do you refute the evidence that leads to that conclusion?"

If you believe in the 66 million ago event, that would conflict with a young earth (unless you have some explanation that you are unwilling to share with us for some reason). I have painstakingly attempted to get you to first, confirm that you don't believe in a 66 million year ago impact event and secondly, assuming what I'm currently assuming about you to be true due to your lack of being willing to clarify the first point, trying to figure out how you would refute the evidence for this event we are both speaking about (Chicxulub).

What is staggering to me is that you continue to refer to the Chicxulub impact event that took place 66 million years ago. Something is not adding up and you are not helping to clarify.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

I guess you could think of it this way:

If evolution is false, why is it still around?
It is a scientific premise, were it wrong, it would be abandoned.

Just like scientists abandoned the creation idea.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 111 by EarthScienceguy]

A hypothesis is one's conclusion as to why the independent variable changed the dependent variable.

A hypothesis is not a conclusion, and no matter how many times you try to redefine the word it is still an explanation offered up for further confirmation (or not), by observation, measurements, experiments, etc. No need to get too pedantic and discuss independent and dependent variables. Most people, and certainly those in the science field (which would exclude most creationists, of course), know full well what a hypothesis is.

Now if you are speaking of the conclusion of a lab the discussion turns to whether or not the hypothesis was correct.

You almost made sense, but someone managed to avoid it. If a lab is carrying out observations, doing measurements, thinking up new experiments, etc., then they are testing a hypothesis for validity. The goal in this case is to determine whether or not the hypothesis (a potential explanation) is correct. But it doesn't have to be a lab making the effort to confirm the hypothesis ... it is a generic process whereby the hypothesis is tested for validity, or falsification. You can't skirt the issue when it comes to Humphreys' two nonsensical assumptions with his magnetic field "theory" by trying to restrict tests to a lab, and somehow give him a pass because he's a YEC. Do you seriously still not get the point that because his two fundamental assumptions with that "theory" (which I put in quotes because it is anything but) are known to be dead wrong, that anything he arrives at via those assumptions is by default meaningless? You've yet to comment on this point, and (as usual) just change the subject.

You did not answer the question. How can someone start with a conclusion when the conclusion is not known?

You posed that question after exiting the freeway on an unrelated off ramp. It is obvious that someone can't start with a conclusion if the conclusion is not known, but that wasn't the original topic. It was that creationists start with conclusions derived, inferred, or made up completely (eg. Humphreys' balls of H2O) from the bible, and work backwards from those to build their case. It is exactly backwards from how real science works, and you're getting nowhere trying to redefine the meaning of the word hypothesis to support this nonscientific approach. Can you show that the planets in our solar system started out as balls of H2O, and that at some instant in time (about 6000 years ago), the nuclear spins of all the H atoms in the water molecules were magically aligned to create an initial magnetic field? Of course you can't, and neither could Humphreys. He didn't even try.

Of course, they would not have spent the millions of dollars if the philosophy of naturalism had not taken over the scientific community.

The "philosophy of naturalism" has taken over science? That is funny.

Creationists assume a flood ...

No ... they believe this happened because their holy book says so. The fact that science has shown conclusively that this event could not have possibly happened as described in the holy book, at the time implied, is irrelevant to creationists. Again, they start with a conclusion (ie. a global flood occurred about 4300 years ago), then try to convince people that this is compatible with modern science. So far, the creationist failure rate is 100%.

Naturalists claim they do not know the original conditions of the universe so how can a naturalist make any claim about the beginning of the universe. Naturalists say "they do not know", so this claim that Humphrey's two primary assumptions are not supported cannot be claimed because naturalist philosophy does not make any claims about the initial conditions.

Good try, but we can say with 100% certainty that the planets in our solar system did not begin as balls of H2O. We're not talking about the origin of the universe (your go-to always, even when it has no relevance to the topic as in this case), but the formation of our solar system many billions of years later (about 4.6 billion years ago). And the idea what a god swooped in and aligned all the H atom nuclear spins is just utter nonsense. It implies that this god wanted to create an initial magnetic field for some reason.

He did not make up the ball of water that came from the Bible itself.

Really? He found some verse that said that there was water in the heavens, and from that vague reference concluded that the planets in our tiny solar system began as balls of pure H2O. If that kind of license is granted to just make up stuff then it would be easy for these creation "scientists" to become legitimate. But, fortunately, they have not.

Are you saying his mathematics are wrong? When a theory makes accurate predictions those predictions prove its assumptions. Can you name a time when this has not been the case?

Again, you are completely missing the point. Humphreys' cannot show that any of the entities he predicted magnetic fields for started out as balls of H2O, or that a god came in and aligned all the nuclear spins of the H atoms within those water molecules. Therefore, it is all nonsense. The fact that you don't get this just proves that you don't understand how real science works.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Diagoras]
If the human race was bottlenecked down to one male then all males after the bottleneck should have the same y chromosome. Because only males pass on the y chromosome. This is called the scientific method the cornerstone of science.

Are you saying that all men have exactly the same Y-chromosome? If not, exactly what point are you trying to make?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

A hypothesis is not a conclusion, and no matter how many times you try to redefine the word it is still an explanation offered up for further confirmation (or not), by observation, measurements, experiments, etc. No need to get too pedantic and discuss independent and dependent variables. Most people, and certainly those in the science field (which would exclude most creationists, of course), know full well what a hypothesis is.

Are you also saying that a theory is not a conclusion either? Then how are you defining a scientific conclusion? The whole point in a scientific investigation is to understand the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. So how is it not a conclusion?

Quote:
Now if you are speaking of the conclusion of a lab the discussion turns to whether or not the hypothesis was correct.


You almost made sense, but someone managed to avoid it. If a lab is carrying out observations, doing measurements, thinking up new experiments, etc., then they are testing a hypothesis for validity. The goal in this case is to determine whether or not the hypothesis (a potential explanation) is correct. But it doesn't have to be a lab making the effort to confirm the hypothesis ... it is a generic process whereby the hypothesis is tested for validity, or falsification. You can't skirt the issue when it comes to Humphreys' two nonsensical assumptions with his magnetic field "theory" by trying to restrict tests to a lab, and somehow give him a pass because he's a YEC. Do you seriously still not get the point that because his two fundamental assumptions with that "theory" (which I put in quotes because it is anything but) are known to be dead wrong, that anything he arrives at via those assumptions is by default meaningless? You've yet to comment on this point, and (as usual) just change the subject.

So what form did the first energy come in? I thought you said you did not know. Where did the laws of the universe come from? What sets the constants of nature to the values that they have? I thought you said that you did not know the answer to these questions.

The following is a simple hypothesis according to Humphrey's theory.

If all of the protons in the nucleus had the same spin at the time of creation 6000 years ago.

Then the magnetic field of each celestial body will be determined by the number of protons in that body and the degradation of the magnetic field over 6000 years.

Because all of the protons were aligned at creation.

There are all kinds of problems for your coincidence theory. It is just not that the calculation is based on the spin of protons but also on the degradation of the magnetic field over 6000 years within the solar system. Like for example he also dedicated the magnetic field decrease on Mercury.

I am quite sure a naturalist would not like this theory. But one thing is for sure the number of possibilities that magnetic fields could have along with the fact that his predictions were totally different than that of naturalistic predictions makes a coincidence impossible.

You posed that question after exiting the freeway on an unrelated off ramp. It is obvious that someone can't start with a conclusion if the conclusion is not known, but that wasn't the original topic. It was that creationists start with conclusions derived, inferred, or made up completely (eg. Humphreys' balls of H2O) from the bible, and work backwards from those to build their case. It is exactly backward from how real science works, and you're getting nowhere trying to redefine the meaning of the word hypothesis to support this nonscientific approach.

Actually, it is not different at all as to how science works, in fact, it is how hypothesis and theories are falsified. Take for example the failed theory of inflation.

Inflation predicted that the early universe should produce gravity waves and that these gravity waves should still be measurable. But these gravity waves have not been observed.

Can you show that the planets in our solar system started out as balls of H2O, and that at some instant in time (about 6000 years ago), the nuclear spins of all the H atoms in the water molecules were magically aligned to create an initial magnetic field? Of course you can't, and neither could Humphreys. He didn't even try.

Yes, I can because my hypothesis was tested and confirmed by experimentation. Naturalists, on the other hand, cannot prove that the energy of the universe did not come in the form of water. Humphrey's theory also explains the observation of low entropy in the early universe. Naturalist theories cannot.

Gravity waves were predicted after the inflation theory was already proposed. Cosmologists make predictions on what inflation should produce.

Now if you want examples of starting with a conclusion all you need do is look at the fairy tales told in evolutionary theory.

Take for example so-called human evolution. The fable goes like this. At some point in the distant past, humans and chimpys shared a common ancestor. This ancestor had 48 chromosomes. The people who believe in evolution thought to themselves that cannot be because humans only have 46 chromosomes. So then they came up with an idea that chromosome 2 fused. Forget the fact that mammals chromosomes never fuse telomere to telomere. And there is no satellite DNA around the fusion site. Even though chimpy telomeres are full of satellite DNA but none of this chimpy satellite DNA is found not just in humans chromosome 2 but in the entire human genome.

Now that is an example of starting with a conclusion in mind.

The "philosophy of naturalism" has taken over science? That is funny.

Yes, Naturalism is a philosophy. You have said yourself that you do not know what happens at creation of the universe. If you do not know what happen then it is a philosophy not science.

No ... they believe this happened because their holy book says so. The fact that science has shown conclusively that this event could not have possibly happened as described in the holy book, at the time implied, is irrelevant to creationists. Again, they start with a conclusion (ie. a global flood occurred about 4300 years ago), then try to convince people that this is compatible with modern science. So far, the creationist failure rate is 100%.

How did science conclusively prove this?

The Bible states that the flood was a mass extinction event. The geologic record shows massive evidence of mass extinction.

The Billions of plant and animal fossils are found is massive graveyards which were laid down by water.

There are vast rock layers that were deposited quickly by water that are continent size.

There is evidence that sediments transported long distances.

There is evidence of no erosion between strata separated by millions of years, like Tapeats Sandstone, Redwall Limestone, Hermit Formation, and Coconino Sandstone rock layers

Evidence of many rock layers laid down in rapid succession

Purity of chalk laid down across many continents.

There is a lot of evidence for the flood. So how does science disprove the flood?

Good try, but we can say with 100% certainty that the planets in our solar system did not begin as balls of H2O. We're not talking about the origin of the universe (your go-to always, even when it has no relevance to the topic as in this case), but the formation of our solar system many billions of years later (about 4.6 billion years ago). And the idea what a god swooped in and aligned all the H atom nuclear spins is just utter nonsense. It implies that this god wanted to create an initial magnetic field for some reason.

Then explain the magnetic field of mercury. And why is it decreasing at the same rate as Humphrey's predicted? Why does Mercury have a magnetic field at all?

Bottom line: Until the 1970s, scientists believed Mercury did not have a magnetic field. That was when mariner 10 passed by Mercury.

Really? He found some verse that said that there was water in the heavens, and from that vague reference concluded that the planets in our tiny solar system began as balls of pure H2O. If that kind of license is granted to just make up stuff then it would be easy for these creation "scientists" to become legitimate. But, fortunately, they have not.

He did not find some common view of creation in Christianity.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 116 by brunumb]

Are you saying that all men have exactly the same Y-chromosome? If not, exactly what point are you trying to make?

The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one man alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has out-competed the other strains and is now https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... t_creation

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 117 by EarthScienceguy]

Inflation predicted that the early universe should produce gravity waves and that these gravity waves should still be measurable. But these gravity waves have not been observed.

You need to keep up.

"The first direct observation of gravitational waves was made on 14 September 2015 and was announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_obs ... onal_waves