After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #131

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 128 by Seth]
Goddidit?
Cool, I think that also.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #132

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 129 by Diagoras]
Well, obviously. The part of the genetic ‘family tree’ which starts from this common ancestor and includes modern chimpanzees, homo sapiens and other primates isn’t just one branch on its own. It has many branches (clades), one of which would later (after many, many generations) give rise to the ‘Genetic Adam’.
Using naturalistic philosophy the genetic "family tree" is impossible. Besides for chimps having 48 chromosomes and not 46 like humans. The Y chromosome in humans is totally different than those in chimps and apes. A human and a chicken's Y chromosome are as similar as a chimps and humans. If humans and chimps are so close together genetically then their Y chromosomes should be similar also. But that is not what is observed.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Post #133

Post by Difflugia »

EarthScienceguy wrote:Using naturalistic philosophy the genetic "family tree" is impossible. Besides for chimps having 48 chromosomes and not 46 like humans.
Genetic sequencing has determined which two chimpanzee chromosomes fused into which human chromosome.
EarthScienceguy wrote:The Y chromosome in humans is totally different than those in chimps and apes.
No. Our Y chromosomes have diverged more than would be expected given the rate that other chromosomal genes have, but "totally different" is a misrepresentation.
EarthScienceguy wrote:A human and a chicken's Y chromosome are as similar as a chimps and humans.
That's a neat trick, considering that birds don't have Y chromosomes.
EarthScienceguy wrote:If humans and chimps are so close together genetically then their Y chromosomes should be similar also. But that is not what is observed.
They are similar, but have diverged slightly faster than other chromosomes have. Enough to be interesting, but not enough to infer where they sat on the Ark.

Seth
Student
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:53 pm

Post #134

Post by Seth »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 128 by Seth]
Goddidit?
Cool, I think that also.
So why do you call yourself a science guy. A god creating stars is in no way scientific.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #135

Post by Diagoras »

EarthScienceguy wrote:Using naturalistic philosophy the genetic "family tree" is impossible.
Thank you for at least not writing “There’s a problem with the genetic family tree�! I consider this progress, of a sort.

I very much doubt that the geneticists who work in this field ever use ‘philosophy’ to create the family tree. They use actual diagnostic techniques such as DNA sampling using capillary electrophoresis, karyotyping and polymerase chain reaction studies.

Contrast this with creationists, who somehow manage to pronounce on such matters without recourse to even a magnifying glass and a pot of pea plants.
Christianity has not changed its belief system to accommodate scientific thought.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #136

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 132 by Difflugia]
Genetic sequencing has determined which two chimpanzee chromosomes fused into which human chromosome.
Oh yea, chromosome 2 right. I love that fairy tale. In fact, I was just talking about this fairy tale with DrNoGods I think. This is the fairy tale that goes once upon a time an ape had a two chromosome that wanted to fuse. They tried and tried but could not find a way to fuse. Then one day some universal consciousness decreed that the ape or chimp or whatever it is you want to call it, the chromosome shall be fused telomere to telomere even though that there are no other mammals have chromosome fused that way. This universal consciousness also degreed that this fusion site would also not contain any ape, chimp or whatever satellite DNA at the fusion site.

To summarize the universe miraculously carried out was create a fusion site in humans that is telomere to telomere which does not occur in mammals because of all the information stored at the end of a chromosome and there is no satellite DNA which always occurs at fusion sites.

That's a great fairy tale but really not believable.


No. Our Y chromosomes have diverged more than would be expected given the rate that other chromosomal genes have, but "totally different" is a misrepresentation.
I really do not think that is the case considering that the humans Y chromosome and chimp Y chromosome are only 43% similar.
That's a neat trick, considering that birds don't have Y chromosomes.
Are you saying chickens do have males? How about man's Y chromosome are 57% different than a chickens Z chromosome will that work for you.

They are similar but have diverged slightly faster than other chromosomes have. Enough to be interesting, but not enough to infer where they sat on the Ark.
43% similar is not similar that would be classified as very different.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #137

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 133 by Seth]
So why do you call yourself a science guy. A god creating stars is in no way scientific.
What? Science is simply a problem-solving process that answers a testable question. The keyword there is a testable question. According to naturalistic philosophy, a star takes millions of years to form. I do not think this would fall into the category of observable or testable.

Besides, there is no workable theory of how stars are formed. I am not even opposed to there being a process of star formation. But this belief is based on Scripture, not because of any workable theory.

Your belief that stars are formed naturally without God's assistance is a belief not based in observation.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #138

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 134 by Diagoras]
Thank you for at least not writing “There’s a problem with the genetic family tree�! I consider this progress, of a sort.
That depends on what part of the tree you are speaking of. In the case of "co-called" whale evolution. The genetic tree has huge problems going from land animals to sea animals.
I very much doubt that the geneticists who work in this field ever use ‘philosophy’ to create the family tree. They use actual diagnostic techniques such as DNA sampling using capillary electrophoresis, karyotyping and polymerase chain reaction studies.
They use there imagination when it comes to places like land animals becoming sea animals or when dinosaurs change to birds.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #139

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 135 by EarthScienceguy]
In fact, I was just talking about this fairy tale with DrNoGods I think.


This was indeed discussed in another thread, but you did the usual of quoting AIG or some other creationists website and relaying their defensive arguments against this fusion, while ignoring the actual evidence that this is the most likely explanation, and why that is so. No need to beat that dead horse again here.

We know that modern humans evolved from a great ape ancestor because genetics tells us this, and the fossil record also supports it, regardless of whether the chromosome 2 fusion happened as is currently thought to be the case (and there is good, actual evidence that it did). This explanation is infinitely more believable than that an invisible god being that has never been demonstrated to exist in any form, just poofed fully-formed humans into existence a measly 6,000 years ago. Now that is a real fairy tale, which has far less evidence to support it (ie. none) than the chromosome 2 fusion event.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #140

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 138 by DrNoGods]
We know that modern humans evolved from a great ape ancestor because genetics tells us this, and the fossil record also supports it, regardless of whether the chromosome 2 fusion happened as is currently thought to be the case (and there is good, actual evidence that it did). This explanation is infinitely more believable than that an invisible god being that has never been demonstrated to exist in any form, just poofed fully-formed humans into existence a measly 6,000 years ago. Now that is a real fairy tale, which has far less evidence to support it (ie. none) than the chromosome 2 fusion event.
Now, wait a minute. In both fairy tale stories, I gave specific facts that refuted the chromosome 2 fusion story. And no one has addressed the FACTS that I presented.

When facts cannot be refuted then the argument has been won!!!!

Post Reply