My Epiphany

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
No. Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand evolution.

A caterpillar does not mutate in order to become a moth. Becoming a moth is something that was genetically encoded in it from the beginning. A caterpillar turning into a moth isn't mutating in the same way that a child going through puberty isn't mutating.

You say "mutating", I say "has mutated".

Not to split hairs, but your sin remains presuming to manipulate the tense in which Evolution occurs?

The caterpillar's survival hinges on transitioning to moth successfully, as does the child going through puberty - what cannot happen is the reverse, for a "single" mutation!

I think what is happening is that your sense of the correct "context for Evolution" is crowding out the necessary changes that that Evolution entails - you have set the bar too high and are now scrambling to make the implied changes fit the more inflexible model (of one mutation, to so many adaptations).

Just bring it back to a more level footing: a cluster of adaptations, does not need individual mutations to guide every possible "Evolution", only that the more successful cluster is one that has greater internal consistency.

If you accepted that, I would believe in Evolution, in almost the same way you do?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,698
5,251
✟302,626.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes it is! That shows the power of Evolution is moderated (not absolute).

You will have to try harder than that, to elide the relevance of God (who is beyond need of being moderated)?

You can't argue against evolution when you don't even know what it is. You repeatedly make errors that show you do not understand what evolution is.

There is NOTHING that says that evolution must be able to make large changes with a single change of the genetic code. In fact, evolutionary theory says quite the opposite. By studying evolution, we know that any single large change is likely to be catastrophic. Instead, evolution makes lots of little changes, and it is those many little changes in many different generations that add up over many years that lead to variation.

And, as other people (and myself) have told you many times before - a single individual does not evolve.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,698
5,251
✟302,626.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You say "mutating", I say "has mutated".

Not to split hairs, but your sin remains presuming to manipulate the tense in which Evolution occurs?

What are you going on about? You think the process of evolution cares about wordplay like this?

The caterpillar's survival hinges on transitioning to moth successfully, as does the child going through puberty - what cannot happen is the reverse, for a "single" mutation!

Neither a caterpillar becoming a moth or a child becoming an adult is caused by a mutation. I don't know where you got such a ridiculous idea, but you need to abandon it. It's simply not true.

I think what is happening is that your sense of the correct "context for Evolution" is crowding out the necessary changes that that Evolution entails - you have set the bar too high and are now scrambling to make the implied changes fit the more inflexible model (of one mutation, to so many adaptations).

You don't even understand evolution, so you've certainly got no place to tell me how I have it wrong.

Just bring it back to a more level footing: a cluster of adaptations, does not need individual mutations to guide every possible "Evolution", only that the more successful cluster is one that has greater internal consistency.

If you accepted that, I would believe in Evolution, in almost the same way you do?

Again, I don't know what you are going on about, but your ideas about evolution are absolutely ridiculous. You're never going to understand evolution unless you stop trying to figure it out for yourself and actually learn what people are telling you.

Really, you're like a kid who gets a Lego set, puts together the minifigure and assumes that he's now an expert on Lego and then tosses away the rest of the instructions and tries to put it together himself. And then he doesn't understand why people tell him the jumbled mess he made isn't what the model is supposed to be.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
[...]
And, as other people (and myself) have told you many times before - a single individual does not evolve.

So the entire population of butterflies would have to have the same mutation?

That is still suggesting that that a single mutation is enough?

There is NOTHING that says that evolution must be able to make large changes with a single change of the genetic code. In fact, evolutionary theory says quite the opposite. By studying evolution, we know that any single large change is likely to be catastrophic. Instead, evolution makes lots of little changes, and it is those many little changes in many different generations that add up over many years that lead to variation.

You seem to be excusing yourself on the basis that the change has to be "little".

That's fine: but how do little changes make an aggressive monkey, become a talkative man?

You clearly have to choose to protract both differences as if you have the power to marry them?
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
What are you going on about? You think the process of evolution cares about wordplay like this?

The difference is between you saying "I presently am mutating into something else" and my saying "I have mutated, but the difference was benign, not procreative".

Neither a caterpillar becoming a moth or a child becoming an adult is caused by a mutation. I don't know where you got such a ridiculous idea, but you need to abandon it. It's simply not true.

That's not fair, Evolution says every adaptable function starts with a response to mutation; I have shown that internal consistency between a number of adaptations, is far more likely to result in the intelligent design we see today.

The proof is the absence of the power of mutation, to change what we see as already coherently manifest.

You don't even understand evolution, so you've certainly got no place to tell me how I have it wrong.

You are - in your head - trying to mash the button "hurt", in context with just about everything I say; who is hurt, is either you or me, but it's no easy light lesson for both of us. Don't be hurt; be constructive.

Again, I don't know what you are going on about, but your ideas about evolution are absolutely ridiculous. You're never going to understand evolution unless you stop trying to figure it out for yourself and actually learn what people are telling you.

Really, you're like a kid who gets a Lego set, puts together the minifigure and assumes that he's now an expert on Lego and then tosses away the rest of the instructions and tries to put it together himself. And then he doesn't understand why people tell him the jumbled mess he made isn't what the model is supposed to be.

As I've said before, you are like someone looking at a baseball pitch, who suggests that if you change the batting order, the nature of the diamond will change. It's not "wrong" to say the batting order has an affect, it just is never a change to the diamond.

In this context, Jesus is like the diamond and the batting order is determined by the Devil. The more the team has faith in Jesus (the diamond), the greater the score they will achieve - maybe not every time, but significantly enough.

The emphasis here, is playing the game the way it is meant to be played.

As you can see, I arrive at the same conclusion as you do regarding "lego" but I don't make the mistake of thinking I have delusional powers to change the outcome.

Maybe when you are old and you look back at all the things you took pleasure in for no other reason than you thought you were right, you will realise there are people suffering and dying waiting to be told where they stand meaningfully and all you said was "at least I was lucky"?

I'm not saying they are going to string you up to die, just that when they get to Heaven and they get all the good things that are in Heaven, there will be no reason to come back and get you, you will already have made your mind up!
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,698
5,251
✟302,626.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So the entire population of butterflies would have to have the same mutation?

That is still suggesting that that a single mutation is enough?

I've already told you - A caterpillar turning into a moth is NOT a mutation!

You seem to be excusing yourself on the basis that the change has to be "little".

That's fine: but how do little changes make an aggressive monkey, become a talkative man?

You clearly have to choose to protract both differences as if you have the power to marry them?

Because there are lots and lots of these little changes, and they all add up over time.

I'm fairly certain that this also has been explained to you.

The difference is between you saying "I presently am mutating into something else" and my saying "I have mutated, but the difference was benign, not procreative".

No no no, a million times no.

I could live to be a billion years old and I will never evolve, I will never mutate.

A mutation is a change from parent to child.

I have a daughter. Some of my genes were transferred to her when she was conceived. In that process, some of those genes were changed so the copy of the genes that she got was not exactly the same as the copy I have. But once she has that copy, they won't change any more.

That is what a mutation is.

Please try to understand this. If you don't understand this, you will never be able to understand evolution.

That's not fair, Evolution says every adaptable function starts with a response to mutation; I have shown that internal consistency between a number of adaptations, is far more likely to result in the intelligent design we see today.

The proof is the absence of the power of mutation, to change what we see as already coherently manifest.

Again, a million times no.

Stop trying to fit evolution into what you think it is, because what you think evolution is, is wrong.

What you are saying here makes no sense at all.

You are - in your head - trying to mash the button "hurt", in context with just about everything I say; who is hurt, is either you or me, but it's no easy light lesson for both of us. Don't be hurt; be constructive.

Does what you post even make sense to you? Because it sure doesn't make any sense to me.

As I've said before, you are like someone looking at a baseball pitch, who suggests that if you change the batting order, the nature of the diamond will change. It's not "wrong" to say the batting order has an affect, it just is never a change to the diamond.

In this context, Jesus is like the diamond and the batting order is determined by the Devil. The more the team has faith in Jesus (the diamond), the greater the score they will achieve - maybe not every time, but significantly enough.

The emphasis here, is playing the game the way it is meant to be played.

As you can see, I arrive at the same conclusion as you do regarding "lego" but I don't make the mistake of thinking I have delusional powers to change the outcome.

Maybe when you are old and you look back at all the things you took pleasure in for no other reason than you thought you were right, you will realise there are people suffering and dying waiting to be told where they stand meaningfully and all you said was "at least I was lucky"?

I'm not saying they are going to string you up to die, just that when they get to Heaven and they get all the good things that are in Heaven, there will be no reason to come back and get you, you will already have made your mind up!

Again, you have no idea about evolution. You need to understand the basics before you start trying to figure it out. Since you have not grasped the basics, you are not in a position to say anything about the way it is "meant to be played."

Again, you're like a kid who gets a Lego set, puts together the minifigure and assumes that he's now an expert on Lego and then tosses away the rest of the instructions and tries to put it together himself. And then he doesn't understand why people tell him the jumbled mess he made isn't what the model is supposed to be.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
I've already told you - A caterpillar turning into a moth is NOT a mutation!

There's just no reason that all creatures don't do it?

Because there are lots and lots of these little changes, and they all add up over time.

I am new to the idea that micro-Evolutions add up to macro Evolutions. My concern would be that the micro and macro have to be compatible, for that to work.

[...]No no no, a million times no.

I could live to be a billion years old and I will never evolve, I will never mutate.

Little evolutions stop building up, for some reason?

A mutation is a change from parent to child.

I have a daughter. Some of my genes were transferred to her when she was conceived. In that process, some of those genes were changed so the copy of the genes that she got was not exactly the same as the copy I have. But once she has that copy, they won't change any more.

That is what a mutation is.

Please try to understand this. If you don't understand this, you will never be able to understand evolution.

And how does the parent, hand down a little Evolution to a little child? Without protracting the little Evolution, in a big way?

Again, a million times no.

Stop trying to fit evolution into what you think it is, because what you think evolution is, is wrong.

What you are saying here makes no sense at all.



Does what you post even make sense to you? Because it sure doesn't make any sense to me.

Have I said "stop reading my words"? Have I said "go home and use your own words"?

Words are nothing, unless they are from the Lord. I am waiting for you to grasp that not understanding Evolution, does not make me an enemy of common sense.

Again, you have no idea about evolution. You need to understand the basics before you start trying to figure it out. Since you have not grasped the basics, you are not in a position to say anything about the way it is "meant to be played."

Again, you're like a kid who gets a Lego set, puts together the minifigure and assumes that he's now an expert on Lego and then tosses away the rest of the instructions and tries to put it together himself. And then he doesn't understand why people tell him the jumbled mess he made isn't what the model is supposed to be.

And once again, you seem to think that if you just change the batting order, the diamond of the pitch will change.

The Devil is not going to care, if I don't believe he was a better monkey than he used to be! To him, it's a three card monte that I will wager something of God, for something of Earth, simply because I don't know how to "watch" carefully enough!

Don't let the Devil dupe you? Ask him what he plans to be next: he doesn't know!

And Devil, if you are listening, just remember one day you will give an account of all you deceived (not because they believed in Evolution, but because when they believed in Evolution, they lost sense of how to trust Evolution in each other)!
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,698
5,251
✟302,626.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There's just no reason that all creatures don't do it?

There IS a reason all creatures don't do it, and that is because they do not have the genes to do it.

You don't seem able to grasp the simple fact that a caterpillar turning into a moth does NOT mean that the caterpillar has mutated.

I am new to the idea that micro-Evolutions add up to macro Evolutions. My concern would be that the micro and macro have to be compatible, for that to work.

Microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same process. The only difference is that one is over a short time, and the other is over a long time.

Little evolutions stop building up, for some reason?

No, they do not.

But I am an individual. Mutations only happen when genes are copied from the parent into the child at conception. Since I have already been conceived, mutations will not affect me any more.

And how does the parent, hand down a little Evolution to a little child? Without protracting the little Evolution, in a big way?

Okay, first of all, get rid of the idea of big evolutions and little evolutions. Like I said, the process is the same.

It's like how walking across the room and walking across the country are the exact same process - you just put on foot in front of the other. Evolution is the same.

When a parent produces a child, the parent gives copies of her genes to the child. But as these genes are copied across to the child, small changes can occur. So that the gene the child gets might not be exactly the same as the copy that the mother has.

It's like if I had a book and you asked for a copy. I could copy the book out, but I might make a few mistakes. The word CAT might change to BAT, for example. So your copy (which is the child) has a mutation that my copy (the parent) does not have.

Have I said "stop reading my words"? Have I said "go home and use your own words"?

Words are nothing, unless they are from the Lord. I am waiting for you to grasp that not understanding Evolution, does not make me an enemy of common sense.

What you are saying about evolution has nothing to do what evolution actually is. It would be like me constantly trying to figure out when Jesus walked on the Mississippi River because I was under the erroneous belief that the Bible took place in North America.

And once again, you seem to think that if you just change the batting order, the diamond of the pitch will change.

The Devil is not going to care, if I don't believe he was a better monkey than he used to be! To him, it's a three card monte that I will wager something of God, for something of Earth, simply because I don't know how to "watch" carefully enough!

Don't let the Devil dupe you? Ask him what he plans to be next: he doesn't know!

And Devil, if you are listening, just remember one day you will give an account of all you deceived (not because they believed in Evolution, but because when they believed in Evolution, they lost sense of how to trust Evolution in each other)!

I have no idea what in the world you are talking about.

Trust evolution? That's got nothing to do with anything I was saying.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,207
1,975
✟177,801.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
There IS a reason all creatures don't do it, and that is because they do not have the genes to do it.

You don't seem able to grasp the simple fact that a caterpillar turning into a moth does NOT mean that the caterpillar has mutated.
...
Microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same process. The only difference is that one is over a short time, and the other is over a long time.
...
No, they do not.

But I am an individual. Mutations only happen when genes are copied from the parent into the child at conception. Since I have already been conceived, mutations will not affect me any more.
...
Okay, first of all, get rid of the idea of big evolutions and little evolutions. Like I said, the process is the same.

It's like how walking across the room and walking across the country are the exact same process - you just put on foot in front of the other. Evolution is the same.

When a parent produces a child, the parent gives copies of her genes to the child. But as these genes are copied across to the child, small changes can occur. So that the gene the child gets might not be exactly the same as the copy that the mother has.

It's like if I had a book and you asked for a copy. I could copy the book out, but I might make a few mistakes. The word CAT might change to BAT, for example. So your copy (which is the child) has a mutation that my copy (the parent) does not have.
...
What you are saying about evolution has nothing to do what evolution actually is. It would be like me constantly trying to figure out when Jesus walked on the Mississippi River because I was under the erroneous belief that the Bible took place in North America.
...
I have no idea what in the world you are talking about.

Trust evolution? That's got nothing to do with anything I was saying.
Screen Shot 2022-07-02 at 5.40.21 pm.png

Cheers .. & respect.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Kylie
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
We are running out of time, here. This whole conversation revolves around being ready to believe. I already believe, I have the words of belief - as Jesus gave them. Discussing what you think is an accurate picture of the exercise of reason, for the purpose of survival, doesn't get us any "readier" for anything else?

There IS a reason all creatures don't do it, and that is because they do not have the genes to do it.

So mutation has nothing to do with genetics?

You don't seem able to grasp the simple fact that a caterpillar turning into a moth does NOT mean that the caterpillar has mutated.

You seem to forget that it is said "monkey's mutating, lead to us being human"? Exactly what difference is there from a caterpillar's mutations, to a monkey's (mutations)?

Microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same process. The only difference is that one is over a short time, and the other is over a long time.

What context conflates them? You don't need to specify?

No, they do not.

You've never heard the statement "take baby steps"?

But I am an individual. Mutations only happen when [...] Okay, first of all, get rid of the idea of big evolutions and little evolutions. Like I said, the process is the same.
[...]

What you are saying about evolution has nothing to do what evolution actually is. It would be like me constantly trying to figure out when Jesus walked on the Mississippi River because I was under the erroneous belief that the Bible took place in North America.

I think I get what the problem is: to you, when you see your offspring, you see a population. I can tell this, because you seem to trust everything a child would have to say. The difference between your trust and what other children have to say, is that your child is never more than something you take for granted. To you, all of your children mean the same thing, just repetitions of it.

I think this is naive. Like for example, which are you more in favour of: your child or you? Or what do you give as an example of what the both of you are: what you were or what you will be? Does another population have nothing in common with your population: or do you compare or parallel?

All of the answers to these questions might confuse you, but to me they are simple. You trust the child until they grow up, what you were matters more to the child and a knack for parallels is a personal taste. At no point do I wait for these things to make sense, they already do because I am intelligently designed.

You can't pretend to know how the child will be when they grow up, so a vain statement like "they will change, the same way the rest of them do" is cheap and unhelpful. Don't just take my word for it, ask your child!

The point I am trying to make, is that you are making no effort, to vary what you consider "sound instinct" in ways that your children will grasp. You are just assuming they will all have the same instinct. Not good enough!

I want to proceed in steps: either to what you believe, or what you think your children will believe - I am motivated by love, I don't want to treat your children as carbon copies of you, nor do I think you have nothing to contribute on the basis of who you used to be. There was a time when we all waited for God, that's why I am waiting for you.


I have no idea what in the world you are talking about.

Trust evolution? That's got nothing to do with anything I was saying.

You keep saying "trust the process" and when I say "trust Evolution?" you say "That's got nothing"?

What we are discussing is difficult, I appreciate that; all the more reason to be careful about how much we claim to be true, before we have cleaned what we can.

I think one day you will want to laugh, that you took Evolution so seriously, but you never backed it up with works for the poor or something like that. Part of that is my fault, I have not communicated in a way that you have found strong internal consistency - because in part I did not consult God, as to where He would want me to start. Not that He does not use what I say to His Glory, just that obedience requires more than obedience to the past.

I think we are alike in that sense, both obedient to what we think the past was most. You have been told you came from the trees, I have been told I have come from the stars.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,444
2,802
Hartford, Connecticut
✟299,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crises.

My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould’s Ten Little Piggies. I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children’s book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought that was quite a zinger.)

I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals’ ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, “Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38.” That’s it. That’s all it said. But it was about to make a huge impact on me.

You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to a university library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn’t believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously. But wait. Before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

On my next trip to the library, I found my way to the biomedical journal archive. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles.

I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, one could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together.

I didn’t know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of “facts” actually guesses?

I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies?

Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

How can you explain those mysterious mammal-like reptiles? Reptiles and mammals today are quite distinct from each other. Mammalian features include differentiated teeth (incisors, canines, premolars, molars), double rooted teeth, a distinct jaw joint, three bones in the ear (stapes, incus, malleus), the diaphragm, limbs under the body, a different arrangement of toe bones, and a braincase that is firmly attached to the skull. No reptile has these features. But when we look at ancient fossils, we find a strange series of animals with features in the middle.

They begin 300 Ma (million years ago) in the Pennsylvanian. It was a different world. There were no mammals, flowering plants, or even dinosaurs. According to the fossil record, these would all come later. The world belonged to amphibians and reptiles. Early Synapsids such as Haptodus appeared. Their dentary jaw bones rose in the place where later animals would have a new jaw joint–the mammalian joint.

Then advanced pelycosaurs (270 Ma) like the Dimetrodon had signs of a bony prong for the eardrum. Later, cynodonts like the Procynosuchus (236 Ma) had jawbones more similar to mammals, but they still had the reptile’s jaw hinge.

The Probainognathus (238 Ma) and the Thrinaxodons (227 Ma) have signs of two distinct jaw joints, the reptilian and the mammalian. This allowed some of the bones that had been part of the reptile’s jaw to transmit vibrations to the ear. This was the beginning of the special mammalian ear bones.

By the time the Sinoconodon appears (208 Ma) the mammalian jaw joint predominates, and the reptilian jaw joint is small.

The Morganucodon (205 Ma) has teeth like a mammal, a distinct mammalian jaw joint, and only a tiny remnant of the reptile’s jaw. It’s malleus and incus ear bones remain attached to the jaw.

By the late Cretaceous period (80 Ma) early placental mammals like the Asioryctes had jaws and ears that were transformed to the mammalian type. Two of the reptile’s jaw bones, the quadrate and the articular were no longer part of the jaw. Instead they had become parts of the middle ear, the malleus and incus.

This is only a brief overview of these strange creatures. In reality, there are thousands of species that span many millions of years, with many intermediate stages of many different features.

Now what on earth was God doing? Why was he slowly introducing mammalian features into the fossil record? Why did he progressively change the design of the jaw, ear, teeth, and limbs until the animals look more and more like mammals? Should I just shrug my shoulders? “God moves in mysterious ways.” Problem resolved? No, I shall ask why.

Did God learn from past experience and introduce new creatures with improvement every several thousand years or so? Creationists would cringe at that suggestion. Then why do we find this progression? It is difficult to escape the all-too-obvious conclusion: God must have allowed the first mammal to evolve from reptiles through a process involving many millions of years.

As a Creationist, I finally came to the point where I considered that possibility. It instantly become apparent that this would be a huge change in worldview. For if the first mammal evolved from reptiles, then where did the second mammal come from? If God used thousands of transitions to evolve the first mammal, did he then just copy that design to create the second and third mammals? That makes no sense. These mammals must have evolved also.

In fact, we would need to conclude that all mammals have evolved from these mammal-like reptiles. Think for a minute of all of the varieties of mammals that you know–elephants, tigers, mice, dogs, and whales, to name a few. Did all of these descend from a sequence of mammal-like reptiles? Is there any other way to explain all of these intermediates?

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn’t know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. That was hopeless. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. It was becoming free. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free.

I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation–diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution.

And I was surprised at the convincing answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. I was surprised to see all the arguments they had for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much, much more.

I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me other animals that had lived earlier that had transitional features to this dinosaur. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the broad path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and write less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the issue of the origin of life. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.
---------------------------
This is from my website: Did We Evolve?

And enjoyable read. Welcome! Glad you could join us in our journey. Here's a video that I think helps encapsulate your thoughts on YECism.

 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,207
1,975
✟177,801.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
We are running out of time, here. This whole conversation revolves around being ready to believe. I already believe, I have the words of belief - as Jesus gave them. Discussing what you think is an accurate picture of the exercise of reason, for the purpose of survival, doesn't get us any "readier" for anything else?
...
So mutation has nothing to do with genetics?
...
You seem to forget that it is said "monkey's mutating, lead to us being human"? Exactly what difference is there from a caterpillar's mutations, to a monkey's (mutations)?
...
What context conflates them? You don't need to specify?
...
You've never heard the statement "take baby steps"?
...
I think I get what the problem is: to you, when you see your offspring, you see a population. I can tell this, because you seem to trust everything a child would have to say. The difference between your trust and what other children have to say, is that your child is never more than something you take for granted. To you, all of your children mean the same thing, just repetitions of it.

I think this is naive. Like for example, which are you more in favour of: your child or you? Or what do you give as an example of what the both of you are: what you were or what you will be? Does another population have nothing in common with your population: or do you compare or parallel?

All of the answers to these questions might confuse you, but to me they are simple. You trust the child until they grow up, what you were matters more to the child and a knack for parallels is a personal taste. At no point do I wait for these things to make sense, they already do because I am intelligently designed.

You can't pretend to know how the child will be when they grow up, so a vain statement like "they will change, the same way the rest of them do" is cheap and unhelpful. Don't just take my word for it, ask your child!

The point I am trying to make, is that you are making no effort, to vary what you consider "sound instinct" in ways that your children will grasp. You are just assuming they will all have the same instinct. Not good enough!

I want to proceed in steps: either to what you believe, or what you think your children will believe - I am motivated by love, I don't want to treat your children as carbon copies of you, nor do I think you have nothing to contribute on the basis of who you used to be. There was a time when we all waited for God, that's why I am waiting for you.
...
You keep saying "trust the process" and when I say "trust Evolution?" you say "That's got nothing"?

What we are discussing is difficult, I appreciate that; all the more reason to be careful about how much we claim to be true, before we have cleaned what we can.

I think one day you will want to laugh, that you took Evolution so seriously, but you never backed it up with works for the poor or something like that. Part of that is my fault, I have not communicated in a way that you have found strong internal consistency - because in part I did not consult God, as to where He would want me to start. Not that He does not use what I say to His Glory, just that obedience requires more than obedience to the past.

I think we are alike in that sense, both obedient to what we think the past was most. You have been told you came from the trees, I have been told I have come from the stars.
No offence intended, but I need to resort to a brief YT in order to share how I feel after reading all of that:


There .. I feel so much better now that's off my chest .. (please excuse the slight interruption .. back to your sub-conversation).
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,698
5,251
✟302,626.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
We are running out of time, here. This whole conversation revolves around being ready to believe. I already believe, I have the words of belief - as Jesus gave them. Discussing what you think is an accurate picture of the exercise of reason, for the purpose of survival, doesn't get us any "readier" for anything else?

This is utterly irrelevant to our discussion.

So mutation has nothing to do with genetics?

Yes, mutation involves genetics.

But the point, which I have said several times now, is that a caterpillar transforming into a moth is NOT A MUTATION.

You seem to forget that it is said "monkey's mutating, lead to us being human"? Exactly what difference is there from a caterpillar's mutations, to a monkey's (mutations)?

Again, a caterpillar becoming a moth is not a mutation.

What context conflates them? You don't need to specify?

This is meaningless.

The process that creationists call microevolution is exactly identical to the process they call macroevolution. It is literally the same exact process.

You've never heard the statement "take baby steps"?

Yes I have.

I am saying that the small changes that occur over short time periods do not stop adding up. Over longer time periods, those many little changes can result in a big change.

I think I get what the problem is: to you, when you see your offspring, you see a population. I can tell this, because you seem to trust everything a child would have to say. The difference between your trust and what other children have to say, is that your child is never more than something you take for granted. To you, all of your children mean the same thing, just repetitions of it.

This is utter nonsense.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with what a child says, and it has NOTHING to do with whether I trust them.

I think this is naive. Like for example, which are you more in favour of: your child or you? Or what do you give as an example of what the both of you are: what you were or what you will be? Does another population have nothing in common with your population: or do you compare or parallel?

All of the answers to these questions might confuse you, but to me they are simple. You trust the child until they grow up, what you were matters more to the child and a knack for parallels is a personal taste. At no point do I wait for these things to make sense, they already do because I am intelligently designed.

You can't pretend to know how the child will be when they grow up, so a vain statement like "they will change, the same way the rest of them do" is cheap and unhelpful. Don't just take my word for it, ask your child!

The point I am trying to make, is that you are making no effort, to vary what you consider "sound instinct" in ways that your children will grasp. You are just assuming they will all have the same instinct. Not good enough!

I want to proceed in steps: either to what you believe, or what you think your children will believe - I am motivated by love, I don't want to treat your children as carbon copies of you, nor do I think you have nothing to contribute on the basis of who you used to be. There was a time when we all waited for God, that's why I am waiting for you.

This is all completely irrelevant to evolution.

You keep saying "trust the process" and when I say "trust Evolution?" you say "That's got nothing"?

What we are discussing is difficult, I appreciate that; all the more reason to be careful about how much we claim to be true, before we have cleaned what we can.

No, what we are discussing is very basic. The reason it seems difficult to you is because you keep trying to jump ahead before you know what you are talking about. You keep trying to fit your assumptions into the discussion without actually understanding that you're just WRONG. Your assumptions about evolution are wrong. It seems that everything you think you know about evolution is wrong. I have been trying to start with a blank slate, but you start writing down your thoughts before I can get the slate cleared!

I think one day you will want to laugh, that you took Evolution so seriously, but you never backed it up with works for the poor or something like that. Part of that is my fault, I have not communicated in a way that you have found strong internal consistency - because in part I did not consult God, as to where He would want me to start. Not that He does not use what I say to His Glory, just that obedience requires more than obedience to the past.

I think we are alike in that sense, both obedient to what we think the past was most. You have been told you came from the trees, I have been told I have come from the stars.

There is no need at all to invoke God in a discussion about evolution, nor any other science.

There is no point in trying to explain evolution to you while you keep trying to put in your own wrong ideas about it.

Forget everything you have ever thought about evolution, and then we can start. But it is clear that the ideas you have about evolution currently have left you so confused about what it actually is that there's no point in trying to sort it out. Your ideas about evolution are a Gordian knot. It's far better to cut it apart and get rid of the lot of it than it is trying to untangle the mess that's there.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,207
1,975
✟177,801.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
The reason it seems difficult to you is because you keep trying to jump ahead before you know what you are talking about. You keep trying to fit your assumptions into the discussion without actually understanding that you're just WRONG. Your assumptions about evolution are wrong. It seems that everything you think you know about evolution is wrong. I have been trying to start with a blank slate, but you start writing down your thoughts before I can get the slate cleared!
Glad to hear I'm not alone in getting the same impression as yourself there. 'Like a dog's breakfast' just keeps repeating in my mind all the time.

Oh, and @Gottservant keeps defeating my revision edits, which I only ever do to clarify often difficult to express concepts. I wish he'd demonstrate the same respect to others by doing the same, and maybe even go so far as to consider whether he actually understands what he's written and also consider what others have to say in response, rather than just bludgeoning away at his own half-conceptions.
(No need to respond to this .. just me sharing from afar).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
[...]Yes, mutation involves genetics.

In what way?

But the point, which I have said several times now, is that a caterpillar transforming into a moth is NOT A MUTATION.

If it is genetic, then where does the genetics come from?

I am happy to define the Evolution as a "glut of similar DNA" which "becomes internally consistent".

Again, a caterpillar becoming a moth is not a mutation.

But a caterpillar becoming a different caterpillar, is?

The process that creationists call microevolution is exactly identical to the process they call macroevolution. It is literally the same exact process.

No, they qualify differently. You are presuming to much of a singular definition.

[...]I am saying that the small changes that occur over short time periods do not stop adding up. Over longer time periods, those many little changes can result in a big change.

We have a choice in scripture, as regards this: either 'he who is faithful in what is least, is faithful also in much' or 'if you are not faithful in unrighteous Mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?"? You may have thought you have faith in Evolution, before - but have you spent money on it?

[...]No, what we are discussing is very basic.[...]

"Rah Rah, please get the difference".

Stop for a second and ask yourself, what do we say to a newcomer, when we want to introduce the concept of Evolution.

In Christendom, we call that the Genesis question.

There is no need at all to invoke God in a discussion about evolution, nor any other science.

There is no point in trying to explain evolution to you while you keep trying to put in your own wrong ideas about it.

Forget everything you have ever thought about evolution, and then we can start. But it is clear that the ideas you have about evolution currently have left you so confused about what it actually is that there's no point in trying to sort it out. Your ideas about evolution are a Gordian knot. It's far better to cut it apart and get rid of the lot of it than it is trying to untangle the mess that's there.

The fact that we live in a post "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" era, means that to begin with Philosophy has greater influence than Science. You keep talking to me, as if I just forget the difference between good and evil, science will be all I need and I shouldn't think otherwise.

That is a lie.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,207
1,975
✟177,801.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
You guys! One of my preferred efforts (at sharing) is "forethought" (I try to share forethought) and you are saying "you are trying to use forethought" - do you even know what forethought means?

Dictionary:
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
forethought
noun
  1. careful consideration of what will be necessary or may happen in the future.
    "Jim had the forethought to book in advance"
(My emboldenment).
I would be inclined challenge the notion that 'careful consideration' appears in your 'efforts'.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,698
5,251
✟302,626.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In what way?

When a gene is copied from the parent to the offspring, that gene can be changed. That change is a mutation.

If it is genetic, then where does the genetics come from?

I am happy to define the Evolution as a "glut of similar DNA" which "becomes internally consistent".

Remember how I said you need to clear the slate before you can begin learning what evolution really is? This is what I mean.

While some genes the offspring gets from its parents may have undergone mutations, it does not mean that the genetic instructions that cause a caterpillar to change into a moth MUST be the result of a mutation.

But a caterpillar becoming a different caterpillar, is?

That doesn't happen. You can't expect reality to accommodate your imagination.

No, they qualify differently. You are presuming to much of a singular definition.

They.

Are.

The.

Same.

Thing.

The genes that get passed from one generation to the next may undergo small changes.

If you compare Generation 1 to Generation 10, you will see only small changes.

If you compare Generation 1 to Generation 389,896,274, you will see much bigger changes.

This is because over many generations, the changes have had time to build up.

We have a choice in scripture, as regards this: either 'he who is faithful in what is least, is faithful also in much' or 'if you are not faithful in unrighteous Mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?"? You may have thought you have faith in Evolution, before - but have you spent money on it?

Science is not religion. Stop trying to make it behave as though it is a religion. Stop trying to push religious notions onto a scientific process.

"Rah Rah, please get the difference".

Stop for a second and ask yourself, what do we say to a newcomer, when we want to introduce the concept of Evolution.

In Christendom, we call that the Genesis question.

What I would say to a newcomer to the concept of evolution is exactly what I've been trying to say to you.

You don't seem able to comprehend it because you are being confused by your preconceived (and incorrect) notions about what evolution SHOULD be that you are unable to see what it actually IS.

The fact that we live in a post "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" era, means that to begin with Philosophy has greater influence than Science. You keep talking to me, as if I just forget the difference between good and evil, science will be all I need and I shouldn't think otherwise.

That is a lie.

No one is saying that science can answer all the questions. But you are just confusing yourself. We are not talking issues of good and evil here, we are talking about basic genetics and caterpillars turning into moths.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,907
3,282
39
Hong Kong
✟155,182.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
When a gene is copied from the parent to the offspring, that gene can be changed. That change is a mutation.



Remember how I said you need to clear the slate before you can begin learning what evolution really is? This is what I mean.

While some genes the offspring gets from its parents may have undergone mutations, it does not mean that the genetic instructions that cause a caterpillar to change into a moth MUST be the result of a mutation.



That doesn't happen. You can't expect reality to accommodate your imagination.



They.

Are.

The.

Same.

Thing.

The genes that get passed from one generation to the next may undergo small changes.

If you compare Generation 1 to Generation 10, you will see only small changes.

If you compare Generation 1 to Generation 389,896,274, you will see much bigger changes.

This is because over many generations, the changes have had time to build up.



Science is not religion. Stop trying to make it behave as though it is a religion. Stop trying to push religious notions onto a scientific process.



What I would say to a newcomer to the concept of evolution is exactly what I've been trying to say to you.

You don't seem able to comprehend it because you are being confused by your preconceived (and incorrect) notions about what evolution SHOULD be that you are unable to see what it actually IS.



No one is saying that science can answer all the questions. But you are just confusing yourself. We are not talking issues of good and evil here, we are talking about basic genetics and caterpillars turning into moths.
Your friend needs to observe the
changes in a lobster's morphology, and
Insects with partial and complete metamorphosis.

Where most such creatures
go through several steps from egg to adult, others such as a moth pack it into one.

But knowing about such takes actual work, which is too hard for creationists
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,383
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
When a gene is copied from the parent to the offspring, that gene can be changed. That change is a mutation.

Right (let us suppose), so we should see caterpillars turning partially into butterflies and butterflies creating bigger and smaller caterpillars - no? Burning the candle at both ends?

Remember how I said you need to clear the slate before you can begin learning what evolution really is? This is what I mean.

While some genes the offspring gets from its parents may have undergone mutations, it does not mean that the genetic instructions that cause a caterpillar to change into a moth MUST be the result of a mutation.

Right (let us suppose) and if the alternative to a mutation is "strong internal consistency" (among adaptations) then the process (of Evolution) is approximate not forced.

Approximate faith, is ultimately far stronger than any direct forcing (of mutation, for example).

That doesn't happen. You can't expect reality to accommodate your imagination.

Monkeys become Humans, but caterpillars are always caterpillars.

You are in danger of contradicting everything Evolution stands for?


[...]Science is not religion. Stop trying to make it behave as though it is a religion. Stop trying to push religious notions onto a scientific process.

Stop trying to box truth in. Science is not strong enough to determine what truth should or shouldn't be (it is truth that determines science).


No one is saying that science can answer all the questions. But you are just confusing yourself. We are not talking issues of good and evil here, we are talking about basic genetics and caterpillars turning into moths.

Yes but as long as you are in this world, post the fall, you must address good and evil. It's part of our history, not part of our imagination!
 
Upvote 0