Evolution falsifies God/s?

Taken from Open letter to all Atheists.Welcome to the fray Faceman,I think this deserves it's own thread; So the validity of evolution is a falsification test for belief in god/s?Or is it just a test for your particular belief\interpretation re god/s?And do you mean god/s would be a liar for

1. creating the book that tells you (your interpretation) that evolution doesn't occur ... or
2. creating the evidence that evolution does occur ...?

Just askin. Logical fallacy, as has been pointed out. Yes. A supernatural creator could create the universe in a manner that would cause life to form and evolve. Notice that this invalidates your argument re atheism. There are many religions that do not conflict with evolution. See the Clergy Letter Project, also see Catholic Church comments. So you don't vote on the validity of the Rigveda but you choose fundamentalist Christianity instead. Curious.

quote:

---

Nasadiya Sukta (Rigveda Creation hymn)

​

"Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?"
RV, 10:129-6 [1][2][3]

---

No conflict with evolution there eh?

1. The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
   ​
2. The process of phyletic speciation involves the continued process of evolution over several generations, where the accumulation of changes from generation to generation becomes sufficient for the breeding population to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population (and because such phyletic change in breeding populations are a continuous process, determining when the changes are "sufficient" to be deemed a new species is a subjective observation, this is frequently called arbitrary speciation).
   ​
3. The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations due to loss of gene flow between the daughter populations, which are then are free to diverge from each other independently via the process of evolution.
   ​
4. The process of forming nested hierarchies occurs when multiple speciation events produce a branching pattern of genealogical history, where multiple offspring daughter species are descended from the same common ancestor population (Note that a clade is formed by the common ancestor population and all of their descendants).

This is evolution, these processes have been observed and documented and they are scientific facts.Also, I note that "original kinds" and descendants ("after their kind") meet the definition of clades ... so I don't see much conflict there.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added Nasadiya SuktaEdited by RAZD, : kindsEdited by RAZD, : liar list

So you are saying that god/s capable of creating the universe complete with all the laws that govern physics, chemistry, biology, etc., so that it develops all according to plan, is less powerful\complex than god/s that need to tinker with their creation to correct mistakes? (*)Fascinating.

---

(deleted0Edited by RAZD, : notesEdited by RAZD, : removed notes

So, given all the problems you are having explaining yourself with other replies, I guess you will be happy to learn that evolution does not "declare that thick-boned, scaled theropods eventually morphed into hallow-boned, avian feathered flying things" yes?"You may be less happy to learn that theropods had hollow (as opposed to "blessed") bones and feathers, and that birds and theropods share a common ancestor ... with feathers and hollow "pneumatized" bones.Enjoy.

Agreed. The origin of life is still an open question. IIRC Darwin did not claim anything involving the origin of life, just the origin of species via natural selection ... and the formation of nested hierarchies from common ancestor populations. Yes, imho, it does, as does any creationist that believes in descent from original kinds forming the diversity of life we see.Of course I also need to ask what you mean by "macro-changes to animal kinds" -- is this some other kind of change from evolution? Well part of the problem is a proper understanding of macro-evolution, how you use it vs how science uses it. For science speciation and nested hierarchies are the elements of macroevolution. Or it is a matter of degree rather than type of evolution.Perhaps a foray into cladistics can clarify the discussion:Clade - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A clade (from Ancient Greek κλάδος, klados, "branch") or monophylum (see monophyletic) is a group consisting of an ancestor and all its descendants, a single "branch" on the "tree of life".[1] The ancestor may be an individual, a population or even a species (extinct or extant). Many familiar groups, rodents and insects for example, are clades; others, like lizards and monkeys, are not (lizards excludes snakes, monkeys excludes apes and humans).

​

​

Cladogram (family tree) of a biological group. The red and blue boxes at right and left represent clades (i.e., complete branches). The green box in the middle is not a clade, but rather represents an evolutionary grade, an incomplete group, because the blue clade at left is descended from it, but is excluded.

​

Increasingly, taxonomists try to avoid naming taxa that are not clades.

---

And as new species continue to arise from existing species, cladistics is more flexible in categorizing the new diversity of life than traditional taxonomy.Blue plus green is a clade and so is blue plus green plus red.As can readily be seen from this diagram is that this is precisely (imho) how "kinds" would descend from a parent original kind. The question between creationism and evolution then becomes what and how many original kinds were involved.So is Red a kind and Blue/Green another kind or are all three one kind?A difference in degree ... or difference in kind?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : kind

That would appear to be a problem for your particular all or nothing approach (which is not my problem). See the Clergy Letter Project, also see Catholic Church comments regarding evolution. It would appear that many Christians have no problems with evolution. There are plenty of choices, so I always wonder why anyone would choose a flavor of belief at odds with reality observed in the world around us. So the validity of evolution is a falsification test for belief in god/s?Or is it just a validation test for your particular belief\interpretation re god/s?And do you mean god/s would be a liar for

1. creating the book that tells you (your interpretation) that evolution doesn't occur ... or
2. creating the evidence that evolution does occur ...?

Just askin.But we may be getting a little ahead of the debate here, as I am not convinced that you really understand what evolution is ...

1. The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
   ​
2. The process of phyletic speciation involves the continued process of evolution over several generations, where the accumulation of changes from generation to generation becomes sufficient for the breeding population to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population (and because such phyletic change in breeding populations are a continuous process, determining when the changes are "sufficient" to be deemed a new species is a subjective observation, this is frequently called arbitrary speciation).
   ​
3. The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations due to loss of gene flow between the daughter populations, which are then are free to diverge from each other independently via the process of evolution.
   ​
4. The process of forming nested hierarchies occurs when multiple speciation events produce a branching pattern of genealogical history, where multiple offspring daughter species are descended from the same common ancestor population (Note that a clade is formed by the common ancestor population and all of their descendants).

This is evolution, these processes have been observed and documented and they are scientific facts.Also, I note that "original kinds" and descendants ("after their kind") meet the definition of clades ... so I don't see much conflict there.What do you think evolution is that makes it so antithetical to your belief/s?Enjoy.

Indeed, that would mean hyper-evolution on a scale not even remotely considered by scientists.Presumably you also believe in a delusional flood and that the world is young.You realize that these beliefs are falsifiable yes?Enjoy

Well one of the reasons that I think you don't really understand evolution is your comment Now I guess you will be happy to learn that evolution does not "declare that thick-boned, scaled theropods eventually morphed into hallow-boned, avian feathered flying things" yes?"You may be less happy to learn that theropods had hollow (as opposed to "blessed") bones and feathers, and that birds and theropods share a common ancestor ... with feathers and hollow "pneumatized" bones.Nor does evolution occur by "morphing" ...So perhaps you need to explain what you think evolution is ... before you go around claiming it doesn't exist. Curiously evolution occurs in every generation in every species observed on earth.Denial is not refutation. So far all you have stated is opinion, and opinion has been demonstrated to have no affect on reality.Enjoy.

Well I would like to keep this thread about your misconceptions regarding evolution. Thus we could take these discussions to: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS?Meanwhile you can provide what you think evolution is.Enjoy

Actually I started this thread to discuss evolution v creationism, leaving theology to the riVeRrat thread.

I'll cover a couple of posts to consolidate replies.Note that I am throwing a number of threads at you rather than copy the material here, in part to keep the discussion here fairly clean, but also to demonstrate the depth of information available from science. There is objective evidence to back up science, and that evidence contradicts several of your claims.For instance in "Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1" Message 2 we start off with a single tree that is 5,060 years old.In "If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS?" we have evidence that show that the Grand Canyon was not formed by flood outflow.The problem for you is not just whether evolution is true, but whether geology, physics and other sciences are true. Care to show us your calculations used to come to that conclusion?Again it is easy to make assertions. It is also silly to make assertions that are demonstrably wrong.Take the Peppered Moths as an example of extreme natural selection removing deleterious traits from the population in response to changing ecological conditions. Rather obvious that natural selection was more than capable of keeping up, even when the ecology changes dramatically and selection pressure was intense. More at Peppered Moths and Natural Selection.Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next.Now if mutations are a mixture of deleterious, neutral and beneficial, the deleterious ones will tend to be removed by selection. As natural populations produce many more offspring than are needed to maintain the population size it follows that a significant number are eliminated by the selection process. The moths were more than capable of producing sufficient offspring that the species did not go extinct. Again, your use of the term "horizontal" here shows a lack of understanding of evolution science. In evolution science horizontal transfer means sharing of traits between lineages, as occurs sometimes in unicellular organisms, while the evolution of variations in traits occurs within a lineage from generation to generation. And dogs will always be dogs ... that hoary old PRATT ... you say that as if we should be surprised ...... while in evolution all descendants from a breeding population will always be expected to be members of the clade starting with that breeding population. Saying "will always be finches" is kind of like saying "well the sky is blue so there" -- a statement of the mundane obvious (at least to those that study the color of the sky).Like I said before the creationist concept of "kind" is essentially the same as the scientific concept of clade, with descent from common ancestor populations in a nested hierarchy, and the issue is not with the evolution of the clades, but with their origins.The question is not what their clade is and always will be, but whether more significant evolution occurs than the evolution of variation in traits and divergent speciation. To answer this question one needs to look at the fossil record rather than try to cypher the future. Curiously I've included my answer to your purported "proof" ... based on actual observation rather than bald assertion of an under informed opinion.You also should know that "Darwinian evolution" -- the origin of new species by natural selection -- is an observed fact. Speciation has been observed in several cases, particularly in plants and single cell life forms.Now if you are talking about the Theory of Evolution rather than the process of evolution then you are mixing up meanings of the word evolution and conflating it with the original theory posed by Darwin (which is only a part of the science of evolution -- science moves on, you know, expanding knowledge as we go). Darwin was unaware of genetics, and genetics is a rather significant part of the modern science -- it helps us treat evolving diseases for instance.Perhaps you will take this opportunity to tell us in your words what evolution is and what the theory of evolution is?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Curiously evolution defends itself ... with actual facts gleaned from actual studies of actual living organisms. Amusingly I figured you would go in this direction, given your fondness for programming comments.A mathematical model, where the abstract actually says that " ... By contrast, experiments using the program Avida have suggested that purifying selection is extremely effective and that novel genetic information can arise via selection for high-impact beneficial mutations ... " and that by altering the input you can get a range of results from survival to extinction. They then proceed to use ones that end up with extinctions.Sadly, for you, mathematical models are only as good as their usage to model reality, and when they end up with results that don't reflect reality it is not reality that is at fault.Surely you know the story of the aeronautical engineer that "proved" that bumble bees can't fly?If the model gives you wrong results there is a flaw in the model or the input -- this is basic logic yes?So in spite of this (pretend? -- see Message 38) paper producing results you claim, I did not find in it any attempt to model an actual known population with actual known measured parameters ... just gabflab about "under biologically relevant conditions" which we are expected to just swallow. They go on to mention " ... potentially prohibitive barriers to the evolution of novel genetic information:"

1. "...selection threshold and resulting genetic decay; ..."
2. "... waiting time to beneficial mutation; ... "
3. " ... the pressure of reductive evolution, i.e. e selective pressure to shrink the genome and disable unused functions. ... "

Curiously I did a google scholar search on these terms

(1) "selection threshold"

​

Thymic selection threshold defined by compartmentalization of Ras/MAPK signalling | Nature ...

​

quote:

---

... The ability to distinguish between self and non-self is called 'immunological tolerance' and, for T lymphocytes, involves the generation of a diverse pool of functional T cells through positive selection and the removal of overtly self-reactive thymocytes by negative selection during T-cell ontogeny. ...

---

​

No mention of genetic decay. Most papers were about electronic issues, not biology.

​

(2) "selection threshold" and "genetic decay"

​

had only one result:

​

http://www.worldscientific.com/...10.1142/9789814508728_0014

​

Which is your paper. This is not a peer reviewed biological journal ... I looked at a couple of the other "papers" from this "symposium" and ran across

​

quote:

---

John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, and John C. Sanford (2013) Can Synergistic Epistasis Halt Mutation Accumulation? Results from Numerical Simulation. Biological Information: pp. 312-337.

---

​

So I can see why you didn't want to provide the source for the paper nor respond to pressie on this question.

​

(3) "genetic decay"

​

A large number of results

​

Google Scholar

​

Several articles that discuss the beneficial results of genetic decay -- you may want to read them. From this it is rather obvious that anything that leads to genetic decay is not necessarily a bad thing for the species.

​

(4) "waiting time to beneficial mutation"

​

Had only two results, your paper again and

​

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-8-9.pdf

​

Another paper by the same John C. Sanford

​

(5) "reductive evolution"

​

Also large number of results

​

Google Scholar

​

Mostly about unicellular organisms and also about how some genomes are reduced by this process leading to the extensive variety seen in the world -- again it seems that this is not necessarily a deleterious\bad thing for the organisms involved.

​

Reductive evolution may also be how eukaryotes evolved from procaryotes ...

​

(6) "pressure of reductive evolution"

​

And once again we have only one result -- your paper again.

So we basically have two types of results(I) your paper plus one other by the same author ... and(II) many papers that discuss beneficial and deleterious effects both resulting from the processes involved.Conclusion: the paper is bogus, built on the models intentionally set to produce wanted results rather than real ones, throwing around terminology in a misleading manner, and not really supporting your claim So you have not shown your calculations that validate your claim, but referenced a "bumblebees can't fly" kind of paper without any attempt to model an actual known population with actual known measured parameters ... what a real scientist would do before making your claim. Yes, I picked it because I figured you would be familiar with it and how it demonstrated natural selection (as is agreed by Dr. John Morris, President of ICR ...).The point made is simple: if there is a real problem with surviving deleterious mutations then we should see extinctions in populations under high selective pressure with a known major deleterious mutation. Extinction was not observed, ergo the impact of selection to remove deleterious mutations in individuals on the survival of the whole population is not as you claim ... and would be even less applicable for population with less selection pressure or less deleterious mutations (ie almost all other populations in the world). Now you are moving the goal posts, typical.First you were talking about natural selection and now you are talking about the "creation" of new "information" ... another PRATTObviously natural selection does not "create new information" - so your implication that it should is logically invalid.Mutations are the source of new information -- information that did not exist before the mutations. Curiously whether the mutation is beneficial, neutral or deleterious it is still new information ... whatever "information" means in this context (you should define it). Also see Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments ... You are correct that natural selection only operates on the phenotype ... but the question you need to ask is "what makes a mutation deleterious" ... and the answer is when the mutation is expressed in the phenotype and causes reduced fitness to survive and reproduce.Thus the black allele is deleterious in non-soot covered ecologies inhabited by the peppered moth but beneficial in the soot covered ecologies. Many mutations are lethal during the development of a fetus, and that certainly means they fail to survive and reproduce and thus are negatively selected in the population. This usually results in early miscarriages that then allow further reproduction to occur.You can also have mutations that are neutral in one ecology, beneficial in another, and deleterious in a third. Getting a little testy? No, it is not intentional, it probably comes from your only having a cursory introduction to the science and perhaps from not paying attention (and I am not aware of any biologist who refers to the ToE (theory of evolution) with just the word evolution). Notice that I pointed out the equivocation in terminology to you and that I am very careful to talk about the process of evolution and the theoryt of evolution as two different things ... just as the process of gravitational attraction and the theory of gravitational attraction are two different things. Context can also tell when one is talking about the process of gravity or the theory of gravity ... Nope. Typical creationist pap, but demonstrably wrong on both counts. See I knew you had a poor understanding of actual evolutionary science. Curiously the information is readily and easily available for anyone that truly wants to learn it ...An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution - a good resource for remedial study ...also, you could have referred back to Message 1

quote:

---

1. The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
   ​
2. The process of phyletic speciation involves the continued process of evolution over several generations, where the accumulation of changes from generation to generation becomes sufficient for the breeding population to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population (and because such phyletic change in breeding populations are a continuous process, determining when the changes are "sufficient" to be deemed a new species is a subjective observation, this is frequently called arbitrary speciation).
   ​
3. The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations due to loss of gene flow between the daughter populations, which are then are free to diverge from each other independently via the process of evolution.
   ​
4. The process of forming nested hierarchies occurs when multiple speciation events produce a branching pattern of genealogical history, where multiple offspring daughter species are descended from the same common ancestor population (Note that a clade is formed by the common ancestor population and all of their descendants).

​

This is evolution, these processes have been observed and documented and they are scientific facts.

---

The process of evolution is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level. The process of phyletic speciation, the process of divergent speciation and the process of forming nested clades\hierarchies all occur through the process of evolution, and these are what is usually referred to as macroevolution in evolutionary biology.Mutations to existing hereditary traits (ie for eyes and ears) can cause changes in the composition of hereditary traits for individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations are expressed (and many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism.Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes.The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.For instance there are two (2) populations of black pocket mice in the southwest, each has evolved separately from the parent population of tan pocket mice that live in the desert areas, where tan provides protective coloration. The two black populations have different mutations causing black fur, and this mutation enables these individuals to take advantage of black lava beds in the area -- one at great distance from the other.Those mutations provided the information necessary for survival and breeding within the lava bed ecologies, and is information not existing in the tan mice population. Simple, observed, validated and not contradicted by any known scientific data yet. Hardly a "flawed" theory, unlike your straw man misconceptions.If I was going to argue about the bible interpretations, should I study the bible or the "wizard of oz" ? If you are going to argue about evolution it behooves you to learn about the science from scientific sources rather than "wizard of oz" sources.What's your next dance?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : ...

By comparison you posted a bare link and expected me to read it and respond to it ... so you don't get to complain about length or detail. Department of Sanitation? I'll go with "denial of service" attacks ...Curiously, being shown there are some error/s of your thinking could seem like a denial of service attack to you making the same thinking errors in the future ... or it can be considered education. No, I mean wrong because the results did not match reality, objective evidence, fact.And I provided you with examples of objective evidence that demonstrated that the results were bogus.The point of computer models is that they always need to be checked against reality -- and if they fail to model reality then it is the program input and construction that are in question, not reality. So you alter the program or the input until you get results that match reality.This was not done by the authors of your highly dubious paper.Once you test the program and inputs and correct them to match reality, THEN you can use the program to make predictions, which then can be used to test the program further. In other words a model is like a theory, it is an explanation of how you think reality works, but it is not reality. The map is not the mountain. Reality always outranks theory and models. That is why science continues to test theories and refine models.As you appear to be a fan of computerese and logic I assume you would know these simple facts. Correction: it is not logical to assume there is no flaw in the use of the model until you test it against reality and modify it as necessary to get real results that match the objective evidence of the world around you. An uncalibrated tool doesn't provide accurate information.Say you are driving a car with an uncalibrated speedometer and are pulled over by a cop, you tell him you were going 30 and the cop says that he has evidence from radar, his speedometer and the calculated speed from a helicopter that you were going 50 ... which do you believe the uncalibrated speedometer or the objective evidence from other sources?Do you not agree that a computer model is a theoretical construct?Do you not agree that a machine\device\model\construct needs to be calibrated before it can be trusted to give good results? It's not that I don't "like" them, but that they have no defined meaning in biological evolution, so it leads to confusion and muddy thinking. Which I find somewhat problematic because the "common" (under educated) view of "macro" is quite different from the scientific definition and use, involving rapid large scale change by some kind of transformation\morphing process rather than long term evolution. Yes The website is designed as a teaching aid for high school science, so it should be readily accessible for understanding the basic concepts involved in the science of evolution. It is also self-guided, and you can search for specific terms (like "macro" and "evidence").Certainly if you are going to make a claim about evolution it might be a good idea to check that the site doesn't show it to be some silly misunderstanding. The ToE doesn't create ... evolutionary processes create. The ToE explains how the processes work to create new "information" or -- in the vernacular of science -- different traits.A small step but a good one.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : typosEdited by RAZD, : yes

Nope, scientists match model to data, it is pseudoscientists (creationists\idologists) that match the model to their conclusion. Perhaps you can cite an example of this? Show evidence? Cause you know, in science this is fraud, yes? Sure, once you tell me what information is, how it is measured and how it is quantified.Or see Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments and save yourself some embarrassment.Ready to talk about the age of the earth yet?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

Sure there is. We have social morals because humans are a social species. Morals are defined by the society you live in as the means by which we co-exist within the society.You've already seen how monkeys will be altruistic, but this has also been shown to be an advantageous strategy in a social species by game theory. Good, now all you need to do is show that Christian morals have not changed one iota since the creation of Adam and Eve. But we could agree that murder is wrong even if we disagree on people being stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath, which you consider just punishment for going against the will of god/s and I consider murder. Ah, the moral 'truths' we find in all human societies regardless of faith and origin ... like "do for others what you would like them to do for you" ... yes? And I thought a "good" moral value from our Christian heritage was "spare the rod and spoil the child" ... no?Or do you consider that we have evolved away from stoning people and hurting children?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...

And you still have not defined what you mean by "information" so that it can be measured, quantified and compared. At a basic level one can say that the only "information" involved is the molecules A C G and T, the rest is all arrangement. Net gain in what? Until you define "information" in a way that can measured, quantified and compared your statement is meaningless.Mutations can copy whole sections, and copied sections can be changed by new mutations -- you now presumably have the old "information" still present and different "information" in the modified section "beside" it ... which is not "old" so it must be "new" yes?Curiously, whether or not this is "new" information, this is the way evolution works, so either "information" has been increased or the concept of "information" is irrelevant to evolution. Perhaps it is just the way real life works. Remember ... ... this is how evolution works.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : splng