Genesis Creation v. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Whales didn’t become bears

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Organisms can evolve thru Darwinian processes. An inorganic construction like a keyboard is not alive and cannot.

Organic material tends to disappear on Earth, due to decay and erosive actions in the environment. After just a thousand yrs, most will have just disappeared. Creationists have problems understanding evolution, because they can’t recognize the magnitude of a thousand years v. 100K yrs v. 1M years v. 10 M yrs v. 100 M yrs and so on. So every potential fossil of transitional species, is going to be exceedingly rare, if available somewhere at all.

Luckily, there are some transitions that we can see happen in real time historical time.

https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

This post is now out of moderation. It’s the one with the tree graphic if the link doesn’t take you there.

https://centerforinquiry.org/forums/topic/genesis-creation-v-darwins-macroevolution-myth/#post-316436

 

 

Alter2Ego wrote:

There are no transitional fossils showing how one creature evolved into something entirely different (macroevolution)


Stardusty Psyche said:

Right because there are no two creatures living today that entirely different from each other. All living thing have similarities with all other living things.


Stardusty Psyche:
You are confirming what I stated in my OP, namely, that there is no evidence of Darwin’s macroevolution in which he (and present-day evolutionists in academia) claim that every single organic creature that has ever walked this earth evolved from a single biologic ancestor. If that were the case, there would be ample evidence of this in the fossils record.

 

Alter2Ego


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

This really comes down to what you call “ample” Alter2ego. Look around on that site that I linked. It’s pretty ample.

Alter2Ego wrote:

“Romer’s gap is an example of an apparent gap in the tetrapod fossil record used in the study of evolutionary biology. These gaps represent periods from which no relevant fossils have been found. Romer’s gap is named after paleontologist Alfred Romer, who first recognized it. Romer’s gap spanned from approximately 360 to 345 million years ago, corresponding to the first 15 million years of the Carboniferous Period.”

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/18%3A_Evolution_and_the_Origin_of_Species/18.5%3A_Evidence_of_Evolution/18.5C%3A_Gaps_in_the_Fossil_Record


Stardusty Psyche said:

So what? Do you want a fossil for every species for every year? How about every day? Sorry, nearly all individual organisms disintegrate over time. Very few fossilize. Worse for us, the vast majority of fossils are still buried in rock or soil and not accessible to us. We typically find fossils only due to erosion at the surface or when we dig or mine.


Stardusty Psyche:

Right. They disintegrate over time aka missing links. But that hasn’t stopped you and other skeptics (including those in academia) from insisting that various creatures evolved from creatures that no longer exist. In fact, Darwin’s entire macroevolution myth is based upon the unproven belief that every single biologic creature that ever walked this earth evolved from a single common biological ancestor. Never mind that there is no evidence to prove any of this, since–as you were forced to admit–“nearly all individual organisms disintegrate over time.”

 

Alter2Ego


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

Alter2ego. The theory of evolution is solid without fossil evidence. DNA, breeding, living creatures with variations. All you need to add is millions of years.

TimB said:

Organisms can evolve thru Darwinian processes. An inorganic construction like a keyboard is not alive and cannot.

Organic material tends to disappear on Earth, due to decay and erosive actions in the environment. After just a thousand yrs, most will have just disappeared. Creationists have problems understanding evolution, because they can’t recognize the magnitude of a thousand years v. 100K yrs v. 1M years v. 10 M yrs v. 100 M yrs and so on. So every potential fossil of transitional species, is going to be exceedingly rare, if available somewhere at all.

Luckily, there are some transitions that we can see happen in real time historical time.

https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos


TimB:

Providing weblinks without quoting your source usually will not get a response from me, because I don’t do empty links. Notice, whenever I present a weblink, I always briefly quote the relevant portions of my source along with the weblink.

Fortunately for you, the weblink you provided actually describes what supposedly occurred. So while I will not click on the link and waste my time searching for what you are referring to, I will tell you that the finches Charles Darwin claimed had evolved actually did not evolve. What Charles Darwin saw was merely variations of the exact same birds (finches, in this instances). Variation of the same creature does not qualify as “evolution.” Humans come in an array of skin colors. Are you suggesting humans evolved into the rainbow of colors that we see today?

 

Proof that the finches and songbirds Darwin saw were nothing more than variations of the exact same birds is confirmed by many sources. Below is just one source:

"Research on bird beaks delivers powerful insights on variation

Evolutionary biologists have long held up songbirds, particularly the Galapagos finches first described by Charles Darwin, as an example of natural selection at work. In order to exploit different environments and food sources, the birds developed a startling variety of beak shapes—from short, blunt beaks ideal for cracking seeds and nuts to long, slender beaks designed to sip nectar from flowers. The assumption was that natural selection was the primary, if not the sole, cause for the variation.

But while that variation can be tied, in part, to the way the beaks develop, Harvard researchers say that common developmental mechanism is also a powerful constraint on new beak shapes.

“What this study suggests is that for songbirds which use a conical-shaped beak … even though they show amazing adaptive diversity, they all generate their beaks using the same developmental mechanism, and that puts constraints on the kind of variation they are able to produce,” said Abzhanov. “Ultimately, it shows how efficiently nature can work, because these birds have been able to squeeze as much as they can from the level of variation they can actually produce.” "

https://phys.org/news/2014-06-bird-beaks-powerful-insights-variation.html

Notice that I underlined the word “VARIATION.” I did that to make a point: Variation is not evolution. Variation refers to an inborn ability that was endowed upon various creatures at birth. The finches that Darwin discovered were not different “species.” They were the exact same “species” of finch. All of them had the ability to adjust their beaks to suit their environments. Darwin saw these birds with different beaks on different islands and assumed they had evolved into different species of finch. In reality, they had merely demonstrated an inborn mechanism endowed upon them by Jehovah.

The Genesis creation account informs us that that creatures would be able to produce creatures like themselves “according to their kind,” thereby allowing for variation within each kind of creature.

Alter2Ego


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

Variation refers to an inborn ability that was endowed upon various creatures at birth.
That's not a real ability
Alter2Ego said,

Variation refers to an inborn ability that was endowed upon various creatures at birth.


And by “endowed” you mean of course that each creature has slightly different DNA, each a result of mutation and natural selection. That is how diversity occurs, and debunks the argument that Darwinian evolution does not happen.

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories. English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term Darwinism in April 1860.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

You cannot conveniently dismiss hard evidence of genetic diversity being responsible for the appearance of diverse characteristics in same species and when sufficiently divergent, the creation of new (but related) species.

Six against one, and Alter2Ego is still standing strong. No blows landed on the feisty black girl yet. Her face is unmarked and looking as pretty as Muhammad Ali’s. The thing I don’t get about her is the Jehovah bit. I have watched Dawkins chew up and spat out creationists like a wood chipper that can swallow a tree whole and reduce it to dust in seconds.

 

Alter, here is some text from the link https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos that you choose not to click on:

"For the first time, scientists have been able to observe something amazing: the evolution of a completely new species, in the wild, in real-time. And it took just two generations.

Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin’s finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird.

There are at least 15 species of Darwin’s finches, so named because their diversity helped famed naturalist Charles Darwin figure out his theory of evolution by natural selection - that is, mutations can help species become better adapted to their environment, and be passed down to subsequent generations.
It’s two of these species that came together in what is called species hybridisation to create an entirely new one."

___

“Variations” ARE an essential element of evolution, whether those “variations” occur due to mutations, or to hybridization, if the “variations” are present at reproduction (i.e., they helped the organism survive to reproduction) then those “variations” can become so many and so great that a newly identifiable species is produced. And that happened in just a couple of bird generations!

In a million years, how many “variations”, might this new species of Big Bird, develop? In a million years the “variations” could add up to a species that looks like the Sesame Street Big Bird.

 

Six against one, and Alter2Ego is still standing strong.
I don't think you understand how to score debates. Certainly not how to evaluate scientific evidence.

Maybe I need some clarification. I understood Alter to say that “variation” meant a species of bird could somehow decide what kind of beak it had, maybe some environmental clue, but that there is one species, with the ability to vary itself somehow. I got from her saying,

Variation refers to an inborn ability that was endowed upon various creatures at birth. The finches that Darwin discovered were not different “species.” They were the exact same “species” of finch. All of them had the ability to adjust their beaks to suit their environments.
Alter2Ego said,

Next you will be arguing that if the various parts to your computer are left to themselves for billions of years, at some point, the computer parts will hook up in just the right places, and a working computer that was “individually unlikely” to be the result will “occur eventually.”


But that is exactly what happens. There is no magical programmer sitting at a universal keyboard. The universe has its own dynamic properties without needing the help of a causal intelligence.

You are mixing up “computer parts” with “information processing”. If you allow self-processing of chemical information over billions of years you get exactly what you see today.

You computer analogy should ask if information is constantly entered and processed by a universal computer, can it come up with “stuff”?

The Table of Elements consist of sef-assembled atomic patterns and the subsequent evolutionary mineral pattern formation and interactive processes prove the continuing evolutionary process of greater complexity from simplicity.

Have you seen how beautiful a fractal can be? It works via a very simple mathematical command and can extend that simple mathematical function for an infinity. No one is necessary for the fractal to self-organize into ever more complex patterns.

Fractal, noun

Mathematics, Physics.
a geometrical or physical structure having an irregular or fragmented shape at all scales of measurement between a greatest and smallest scale such that certain mathematical or physical properties of the structure, as the perimeter of a curve or the flow rate in a porous medium, behave as if the dimensions of the structure (fractal dimensions) are greater than the spatial dimensions.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fractal

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Romanescu.JPG/250px-Romanescu.JPG

This vegetable pattern did not need a programmer behind a computer. It formed all by itself.

@ Sree,

Let’s get one thing straight. Genesis (the bible) is Mythology, Darwinian Evolution is scientific fact.

If you live in the world of gods and demons, your encouragement of a person’s false belief is not a noble effort, but the contrary.

Check out a new series on CBS named “Evil” it is really interesting.

https://www.cbs.com/shows/evil/

Alter2Ego said:

Variation refers to an inborn ability that was endowed upon various creatures at birth.


WRITE4U said:

And by “endowed” you mean of course that each creature has slightly different DNA, each a result of mutation and natural selection. That is how diversity occurs, and debunks the argument that Darwinian evolution does not happen.


WRITE4U

You didn’t debunk anything. The mere mention of the word “mutation” in your above reply indicates you are grasping at straws.

I presented a quotation from credible source that confirms the Galápagos finches were nothing more than variations of the same bird. Darwin claimed the Galápagos finches were evidence of evolution simply because they had different beaks, based upon their environment. It turns out all of the finches had the ability to generate their beaks to suit whatever environment they found themselves in.

“What this study suggests is that for songbirds which use a conical-shaped beak … even though they show amazing adaptive diversity, they all generate their beaks using the same developmental mechanism, and that puts constraints on the kind of variation they are able to produce,” said Abzhanov. “Ultimately, it shows how efficiently nature can work, because these birds have been able to squeeze as much as they can from the level of variation they can actually produce.” ”

https://phys.org/news/2014-06-bird-beaks-powerful-insights-variation.html

 

The researchers quoted above credited this ability to generate various types of beaks–by the same birds–to nature, which is in line with the Genesis creation account in which God created various creatures “according to their kind” – indicating they could produce variations of themselves up to a set point. It is similar to humans with different facial features, different eye shapes, and different skin color who are merely variations of mankind, based upon the fact they are all able to interbreed.

“{20} And God went on to say: ‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ {21} And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good. {24} And God went on to say: ‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so. {25} And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good.” (Genesis 1:20-21, 24-25)

 

Alter2Ego

 


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

WRITE4U said:

You cannot conveniently dismiss hard evidence of genetic diversity being responsible for the appearance of diverse characteristics in same species and when sufficiently divergent, the creation of new (but related) species.


WRITE4U:

Is that where you are going next with this? Genetics? Obviously, you fail to realize that genetics is a deathblow to evolution theory, otherwise you would not have raised that issue.

Genetics goes hand in hand with DNA. Each chromosome contains many genes, and all genes are made up of DNA.

Now, here is the problem that you and all evolutionists face when dealing with DNA. DNA is a written code. All codes are written by someone because in order for codes to work, they have to be PRECISE. Codes are a type of language that the author must understand in order to write the correct instructions. The DNA code is the most sophisticated code known to man. And guess what? The DNA code was not written by humans. Notice what is stated in the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

 

"Amazing revelations about DNA

As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite ‘language’ composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. “One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century,” says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., “was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code” (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).

It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and “there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written”

SOURCE: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334

 

QUESTION #1 TO WRITE4U: “Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of ‘letters’ in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could this have happened by chance?”

 

Alter2Ego


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

Alter2 queries of Write, “Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of ‘letters’ in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could this have happened by chance?”

TimB replies: I will predict Write’s answer to that question.

Not by chance but by the laws of nature, including mathematics, as it is an underpinning of our Universe. But obviously, it could happen because it did happen.


“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” ― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

 

 

@ Alter2Ego

Do you realize that cancer is a result of mutation in the DNA coding? Are you suggesting that God is responsible for cancer in children? Or would you suggest that cancer is God’s punishment for some “deadly sin”?

You obviously do not understand the definition of the term “mutation”.

Mutation

In biology, a mutation is the alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA.[1]

Mutations result from errors during DNA replication, mitosis, and meiosis, or other types of damage to DNA (such as pyrimidine dimers that may be caused by exposure to radiation or carcinogens), which then may undergo error-prone repair (especially microhomology-mediated end joining[2]), or cause an error during other forms of repair,[3][4] or else may cause an error during replication (translesion synthesis).

Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to mobile genetic elements.[5][6][7] Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system, including junctional diversity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

And it is true that if left undisturbed the replication of DNA during mitosis happens with exquisite fidelity.

This is explaned in detail by Drew Berry in this excellent illustrative video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFCvkkDSfIU&t=286s

However, in a dynamic environment mutations do happen, by chance or by accident. Which is quite reasonable in view of the sheer number of codes that must be copied every second of every day in every cell in every living organism.

Therefore, if you maintain that mutations are caused intentionally by a sentient motivated deity, then why do so many mutations fail and only a few mutations result in a beneficial advantage? If God is responsible for evolutionary changes in DNA, it is not very good at the job.

Is God responsible for a mutation in DNA coding that causes cancer? If not what is? If you cannot answer that your argument that God is responsible for DNA coding fails miserably. It ignoresthe fact that most mutations are degenerative and only a rare mutation results in a beneficial trait.

OTOH, if we admit that errors in mitosis is a mathematical result of faulty microtubule spindling, or some other catastrophic nano scale event, then we are back to the concept of mutation and natural selection of chance mutation resulting in advantageous abilities.