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 2 by Bust Nak]

Most basic questions as in where did life come from? Quite simply because we do not have the luxury of just making answers up due to our commitment to finding the verifiable truth. As for the theist arguments, perhaps it is time to change them? 150 years of the same old debunked arguments is getting a bit stale.

That's my point. Creationist still use these arguments because they have yet to be debunked.

Let's start with a simple one. Science is based on OBSERVATION. Can you give an example of one organism changed into a new kind of organism?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 8 by Difflugia]

OK, you think, that's a bit garbled, but you patiently explain that the Trinity is actually God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The theological discussions that have taken place over the last 1500 years or so are a bit more complicated and subtle than can be put into one forum post, but here's a link to a book you can read. By the way, Moses traditionally lived sometime between 3000 and 4000 years ago.

The trinity issue was settled around 3 or 4 hundred AD. Those that do not believe in the trinity are not believed to be orthodox. There are not any new ideas that have not been debated through. Since that time belief in the trinity is a choice to be made. Debate over this issue ended over 1500 years ago.

Quote:
But you can't even know what the Bible says! All the existing Bibles are just translations of translations! If Christianity were true, wouldn't we expect to have at least a few of the Sumerian scrolls? There's no evidence that the Bible even existed before the 1700s.

Now that is a new one that Bible did not exist before the 1700's. The King James Bible was translated in 1611, the Wycliffe Bible was translated from the latin vulgate in 1382. The Latin Vulgate was translated in the 4th century.

Besides for all of the Early Greek manuscripts we have that all correspond to each other.

Oh well. You explain that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and we have lots of manuscripts. There are differences between them and there has probably been some loss, but textual critics have done a pretty good job of reconstructing probable originals. Modern translations are done by experts from original language sources. Again, there are some passages that are unclear or ambiguous, but for the most part, what we're reading is at least close to what the original authors intended. By the way, we do have some Sumerian texts and though they have interesting implications for Bible studies, they aren't the Bible per se.

Quote:
But what about Nostradamus saying in Revelations that there would be a nuclear war in France started by Gog, Magog, and Gorbachev?

Really? You can't be serious.

Moderator warning: please don't imply that your fellow posters aren't serious

Now multiply that by the number of atheists that have read a list of "questions for christianists" and think they have the ultimate gotcha argument. Some days you can take a breath and answer them straight. Some days, it's tongue-in-cheek. Some days, you can't deal with them at all.

Answering creationist questions is kind of like that.

I have no idea the point you are trying to make here.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 10 by EarthScienceguy]

"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

The answer to this has to be no, because the god being referred to in this statement (or any of the other thousands of gods humans have invented) has never been shown to exist in the real world. Something that doesn't exist can't possibly "make foolish" anything ... especially the "wisdom of the world" which comes from the scientific endeavors of humans over the centuries ... not religious holy books. This collective scientific wisdom has laid waste to the bronze age myths you continue to try and support under the guise of science.

If you want an example of one "organism" changing into another via evolution, there are just too many to list. A good book on evolutionary biology would help you to get started catching up on the last 150 years of fossil analysis, as well as the last 50 years of genetics analysis, which have converged to drive the last nails into the creationist coffins.

[Bust Nak]

Let's start with a simple one. Science is based on OBSERVATION. Can you give an example of one organism changed into a new kind of organism?

Sure, wolves to dogs. Consider another creationist argument debunked.

While we are here, let me complain about your choice of words, "one organism" doesn't change into a new kind of organism, groups of organism change. One can never tell if a creationist is just careless about their words, or if they have some "Pokémon" style of evolution in mind.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 13 by DrNoGods]

The answer to this has to be no, because the god being referred to in this statement (or any of the other thousands of gods humans have invented) has never been shown to exist in the real world. Something that doesn't exist can't possibly "make foolish" anything ... especially the "wisdom of the world" which comes from the scientific endeavors of humans over the centuries ... not religious holy books. This collective scientific wisdom has laid waste to the bronze age myths you continue to try and support under the guise of science.

Are you trying to say that science does not have limits? If science has limits what are the limits of science?

I would think at the very least it would have to have it limits at material matter that follows the laws of this universe.

If you want an example of one "organism" changing into another via evolution, there are just too many to list. A good book on evolutionary biology would help you to get started catching up on the last 150 years of fossil analysis, as well as the last 50 years of genetics analysis, which have converged to drive the last nails into the creationist coffins.

Nothing in the fossil record were observed. Fossils are simply snapshots of organisms that died quickly in a watery environment. The connections that are made between these snapshots are simply from man's imagination.

The death nail may be being driven but I do not think it is into the creationist coffin. Evolution has some major problems.

A huge problem is Muller's Ratchet paradox.

Background: The Amazon molly (Poecilia formosa) is a small unisexual fish that has been suspected
of being threatened by extinction from the stochastic accumulation of slightly deleterious
mutations that is caused by Muller's ratchet in non-recombining populations. However, no detailed
quantification of the extent of this threat is available.


Results: Here we quantify genomic decay in this fish by using a simple model of Muller's ratchet
with the most realistic parameter combinations available employing the evolution@home global
computing system. We also describe simple extensions of the standard model of Muller's ratchet
that allow us to deal with selfing diploids, triploids and mitotic recombination. We show that
Muller's ratchet creates a threat of extinction for the Amazon molly for many biologically realistic
parameter combinations. In most cases, extinction is expected to occur within a time frame that is
less than previous estimates of the age of the species, leading to a genomic decay paradox.


Conclusion: How then does the Amazon molly survive? Several biological processes could
individually or in combination solve this genomic decay paradox, including paternal leakage of
undamaged DNA from sexual sister species, compensatory mutations and many others. More
research is needed to quantify the contribution of these potential solutions towards the survival of
the Amazon molly and other (ancient) asexual species.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 8-8-88.pdf

Along with the fact that evolution has never been observed. Only change within a kind has been observed. Darwin finches stayed finches.

Same is true of Lenski's e-coli experiment. After 70,000 generations they are still e-coli and the adaptation rate has decreased over time.

The way Professor Tyndall puts the matter is this: “These evolution notions are absurd,
monstrous, and fit only for the intellectual gibbet in relation to the ideas concerning matter which
were drilled into us when young. Spirit and matter have ever been presented to us in the rudest
contrast; the one as all-noble, the other as all-vile.�

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 14 by Bust Nak]

Sure, wolves to dogs. Consider another creationist argument debunked.

According to geologic time that I am assuming you subscribe to, dogs evolved from wolves 40,000 years ago. Who was alive 40K years ago and wrote down their observations?

This is a belief statement.

[Bust Nak]

According to geologic time that I am assuming you subscribe to, dogs evolved from wolves 40,000 years ago. Who was alive 40K years ago and wrote down their observations?

No one I am aware of, but we don't need that since we can observe this scientifically right here, right now.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 17 by Bust Nak]

No one I am aware of, but we don't need that since we can observe this scientifically right here, right now.

No documentation. I see. We are to believe this on faith. I get it.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 17 by Bust Nak]

No one I am aware of, but we don't need that since we can observe this scientifically right here, right now.

No documentation. I see. We are to believe this on faith. I get it.

We have DNA from dogs from 4,700 and 7,000 years ago.

Exactly who domesticated these wolves, when, and how many times, is still a mystery,...

Today’s study disputes those findings, however, arguing instead that a single group of dogs were probably first domesticated between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/18/1599 ... ion-wolves

There is much that is not known, but to call this faith is only something the faithful would do. I just wish the faithful could be as honest as the scientists when it comes to things we yet understand.

We know that dogs came from wolves. We may not know who did this or when. If you want those kind of made up answers, then look to religion.

[Purple Knight]

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!!!