Today, I found two more pieces of scientific data that cause me to continue to doubt evolution as a believable mechanism for origins.
The first was on today’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross, in which Beth Wictum, Acting Director of The Veterinary Genetics Lab at the University of California at Davis discussed forensic uses of animal DNA in solving crimes. Wictum mentioned that people would love to be able to develop DNA tests for dog pedigree, but that it is very difficult. Why? (listen at 18:25)
"Most dog breeds have evolved in the last few hundred years, so they are not that genetically different – between a chihuahua and a doberman, there is not that much difference."
Translation? Almost all dogs came from a common ancestor within the last few hundreds (or thousands) of years – i.e. exactly what creationists have predicted when they say that Noah could have taken all known animals because they, like humans, all came from a representative of their KIND, and speciated from that point. So genetics seems to affirm such. No surprise here.
Second, ID the Future has a nice post entitled Curious Molecular Signatures, in which they discuss recent publications, including a recent study in Science magazine:
It is now well known that the explosion of genome data in recent decades has made its own unique contribution to the ever-growing list of falsified evolutionary predictions. High conservation of functionally unconstrained sequences, nonsensical evolutionary trees, molecular clocks that do not run right, and phylogenies that do not resolve are all contributing to a reevaluation of tree thinking. From superoxide dismutase to glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, incongruities are common. And novel designs in similar species, once assumed to have arisen only once and then passed on via common descent, now must be assumed to have evolved multiple times. So it is hardly surprising that a substantial molecular study, recently reported in Science magazine [310:1933], revealed yet more curious results….
So what went wrong? The researchers explored several possible reasons, including the choice of taxa, particular data issues, and mutational saturation. But none of these seemed to pose a problem. So the study was left with only one conclusion: there must have been "a radiation compressed in time." In other words, the new species appeared in rapid fire sequence.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
Well, screw it. God is proved, Christianity is right, and why on Earth are we even wasting our time? God snapped his fingers and created everything. (Except gays. They're a mutation. Of God's design. He who designed EVERYTHING else.)
Dog breeds haven't speciated. They look different, but they're genetically identical (almost).
God snapped his fingers and created everything.
As long as you don't believe that God literally has fingers, I suppose. The closest metaphor for God is light, which is a likeness that is not like anything else. What metaphor shall we use for light itself?
(Except gays. They're a mutation. Of God's design. He who designed EVERYTHING else.)
Actually Jesus uses natural things as metaphors for evil, e.g. scorpions and vipers. But God still created organisms he knew would be twisted and turned just as God allows an unfolding of wills and events in which I came to be. If God did not allow evil, I would not exist. Shall I desire my own non-existence? That does seem to be what atheists are engaged in, thus their higher rates of suicide.
Mynym,
What? I'm just saying that Christians who claim that God created everything, but not gays, are dumb.
I've addressed this simplistic view before – you assume that if God made everything, then everything must be as intended – so gays must be ok, and to say otherwise means my view is in conflict w/ itself.
The problem is, that view is not mine, nor any Christian's – that's YOUR straw man, and it's foundational assumption is incomplete.
Christians claim God made everything, but man corrupted it through sin, and the judgement that came with it. Sickness and disease now corrupt the creation, and homosexuality is part of that corruption, so nature as is does not really represent what ought to be. That's one reason why we can't just say "homosexuality is practiced by other animals, so it must be ok," because lots of even more unsavory things are a practiced in the animal kingdom, including infanticide.
That may sound dumb to you, but it's not logically inconsistent, and it is consistent with what we see in nature.
It is logically inconsistent Seeker. Why on Earth would God, in all of his, or its, or whatever we're pronouning God these days, infinite wisdom not have the foresight to not allow for what he, it, whatever, doesn't like?
That makes no sense. Unless you're subscribing to the God does stuff to test us theory of nonsense. Why? Why would he do that? What in the hell would that accomplish?
You cannot ask us those of us who think your God is silly to turn around and believe if your explanation of his decision making changes from situation to situation, based on your own hates, dislikes, etcetera. This is particularly true if you're going to wholesale ignore whatever parts of the Bible you don't like Seeker. You can't have it both ways.
Except, apparently, you can. You can hate gays but not shellfish, and God can create everything, but not homosexuality. Evolution can not have occurred, except when it has. You simply pick and choose what you do and don't like, and there is absolutely no consistency – unless I am willing to count consistency as "Christians pick whatever they're feeling that day to believe in."
Actually, I think christianism is quite consistent within its hermetically sealed little box. Anything they don't like occurs because of "sin" and, therefore, their god is off the hook. He has no responsibility for his creation because anything that goes wrong is all our fault. And, of course, homosexuality is perverse and corrupt because…well, because it is.
Of course, you can only believe this if you completely ignore reality.
On topic, has anyone tried to argue with the fact that these two genetic stories seem to indicate that creationists are correct, and evolution is not?
I'm sure the folks at the Panders Thumb have something to say, but I haven't wandered there yet.
Yep, creationism has been proved Seeker. Conversation over. Oh, sure, the rest of science isn't remotely explained, but two cases sort of suggest something along the lines that you believe, so you're right, and we're wrong.
Also, thanks for the solid debate.
Sam, if I may address your points.
Why did God do it the way He did? – No one knows exactly for sure, but it seems more logical than most other ideas. God wanted fellowship with creation. None of the animals were capable of that. He created humans that were, but He did not want humans to be forced to worship, love and obey Him. How can it be real worship, love and obedience if it is forced? If someone is holding a gun to your head, demanding that you bow down before them or say that you love them, would that action be real? God wanted us to choose Him and the only way to accomplish that would be to give us free will – to choose or reject Him. It does allow for negatives, but it allows for the most positives as well.
The shellfish thing, you really like that example don't you? ;) I think it has been looked at before, I know not to your liking, but… When Jesus came, He fulfilled the ceremonial law and much of that become pointless. Paul talks about this in Romans – much of that was there to simply let us know that we are sinners and to show us our need for Jesus. The purpose of the law was to point to Christ.
As to why some things are carried over and some not – shellfish vs. ban on sex outside of marriage. Most of the things that have been carried over are specifically mentioned in the New Testament. But the purpose of living "right" is completely changed once Christ enters the scene. Before people did what God commanded because they were scared of Him and wanted to please Him, after Jesus' sacrifice we no longer have to work to please God. We do the things He asks us to and we don't do the things He asks us to not do because of our love and grattitude to Him. We want our relationship to be as close as possible and when we do things that He has asked us not to they get in the way of our relationship.
I'm not sure where you are going with the evolution statement, but I think most of the consistent opinion by Christians here is that microevolution happens, has happened and happens all the time. We see variations within groups all the time, but we never see a change from a dog to a non-dog. That is where we would differ. Not that "evolution" happens, but that macroevolution across animal kinds happens.
I hope that answers somewhat your questions or comments.
Sam, I didn’t use the word “proven”, you did. I said that this data seems to indicate that the creationist, and more specifically, the Noahic flood story, may be correct.
And your well argued response is – sarcasm, the last resort of someone with no real argument. Bzzt. Try again please.
Okay Seeker,
On topic, has anyone tried to argue with the fact that these two genetic stories seem to indicate that creationists are correct, and evolution is not?
That’s what you wrote – and let me see if I can understand your argument.
You look at the whole of science, which is quite a lot, and find the cases that don’t explicitly prove evolution and ask us to believe that evolution is wrong. (Although perhaps you do this implicitly, it is clear that if evolution was ever PROVEN, you’d still never accept it. In fact, if you went to Heaven and God throttled you and said, “I like gays, and yes, evolution occurred,” you’d walk away and wonder if you ended up in the right Heaven. But whatever.) Anyway, you look at all the evidence, find the exceptions, and say that evolutions seems to be wrong.
But what do you offer those of us who believe in evolution? The exceptions. You have no explanations for the VAST MAJORITY OF ALL SCIENCE. You have your exceptions. Don’t you owe us more than breeding dogs and your own conjecture? Don’t you owe us an incredibly huge body of scientifically proven evidence if you’re going to allege that, these two genetic stories seem to indicate that creationists are correct, and evolution is not?
Maybe not. Evidence has never been your strong suit. Nor mine. At least I’m honest about that.
Aaron,
If God gave us free will, why do Christians oppose gays using that free will to get married? In no way do gay marriages affect the free will of Christians. Isn't this a giant hypocrisy?
As for the shellfish thing, I find it odd that Christians look at the Bible, the word of God, and claim to know which principles are still worthwhile and which are worthless. That strikes me as strangely hypocritical. I mean, if God is all powerful, should the account of his word be all powerful?
Or, to put this another way, aren't the most fundamental Christians, the one who follow the Bible in the strictest fashion, the most accurate Christians, since they don't question?
Sam, I think you would benefit from reflective listening, where you are not allowed to comment until you have repeated back what you heard, and get the OK from the original speaker. When I hear back what you thought I said, it is extraordinarily exxagerated, and taken to some bizarre point at the nether-regions of rationality – i.e. you or your unconscious mind twist what you hear.
You said "let me see if I understood your argument" then paint some outlandish representation of that argument. My answer? No, you most certainly did not understand my argument. But I don't think you intend to sometimes.
That's strange Seeker, because when I carefully read what you write, I am pretty sure that you're a gay-hating Christian who wants your religion taught to my daughter in a public school because there is allegedly a case here and there that evolution can't explain.
All I'm saying is that you don't offer up the reams of evidence for Creationism. We point to the body of evolutionary science and without even considering it, you brush it aside saying, "Yeah, but here's a case that doesn't prove your story. You're wrong."
Yet when we brush aside your few cases as aberrations – although I have no idea if these cases you're presenting actually are aberrations – you suggest a cult of Evolutionary Thinking that excludes your view from the table. Why you can't separate science and religion, why you have to have it your way, is simply beyond me.
I don't even care about science. I can't make heads or tails of it. But I don't want my daughter being forced to sit in Christian class at a public high school, instead of a science class.
As for you constantly insulting me Seeker, well, we do this to one another nonstop. You present your "evidence," I present my "evidence," and then we just yell at one another because at the core of things, we don't like the other persons ideas for what does and does not constitute a great society.
I am pretty sure that you’re a gay-hating Christian who wants your religion taught to my daughter in a public school because there is allegedly a case here and there that evolution can’t explain.
Sigh. This post is not about gays, nor about how you paint anyone who is against the gay agenda as a hater. Go on your merry way with that one.
The fact that evolution is NOT a fact, and that it has other, often negative implications in science, philosophy, and faith, make it important. I can’t help it that you’ve been duped like I was in collge until I learned to think for myself with regards to science.
I don’t even care about science. I can’t make heads or tails of it.
Which is probably why you just trust whatever the scientists tell you – that’s called faith. I don’t dismiss science, I consider it. I listen to both sides. But in Ohio, you aren’t allowed to do that because the people who are in opposition might have religious motives. Now, they may be suspect, but to disregard their arguments because of their motives is logically dumb. And to not even be able to consider criticism from people who are friendly to the cause is just plain fascist censorship.
So excuse me if I don’t blindly follow the oracles of science, whose discernment is skewed by a materialist world view, a press that likes to twist scientific findings to suit their liberal biases, the interests of big money, and a zeal for science unfettered by ethical considerations.
1. “Gay Agenda” – equality. That’s it. Once you treat gays equally Seeker, I will stop bringing it up.
2. Thinking for myself doesn’t mean becoming a Christian Seeker, as hard as that is for you to believe. In fact, I’d almost go as far as to suggest there’s no bigger evidence of groupthink in the world than organized religion. I mean, for Christ’s sake, how many Christians go through life without asking any questions, assuming that anything but blind adherence means ending up in Hell? But no no, accuse me of being the ignorant one, by all means.
3. You know Seeker, I look at science like I look at medicine. If a scientist, who has taken an awfully long time studying something, tells me that it probably happened in a certain why, why disbelieve him? Just as, when I go to the doctor’s office, and she tells me that something’s wrong, I believe her.
Now, is this blind faith? Do I believe it impossible for scientists to be wrong? Of course not – scientists are regularly wrong. But at least they ask questions. At least they offer evidence. And when they’re wrong, they seem to admit that. If evolution is eventually totally disproved, okay. But I doubt it will be disproved by you, or by other Christians who claim that the only real science is Christ, and the Bible, and all of that other nonsense.
4. We just don’t like each other Seeker. You hate my deep and abiding belief in freedom for everyone, and I hate your deep and abiding belief in the superiority of all Christianity. That’s why we fight like this. Because we literally can’t stand each other’s positions. (Or, if I wanted to chide you, you can’t stand how right I am.)
No, I hate your constant mischaracterization of those who disagree with you, painting them in the most negative possible light, and inaccurately. Your behavior is deplorable, of not counterproductive and intellectually dishonest. You constantly misrepresent my position – do I do that with you?
I am sure I have, but I doubt I use your technique of saying “you believe x” followed by my best negative hyperboly of your position. You do that every time, derailing any intelligent discussion. At least I try to characterize a group, perhaps inaccurately, where your attacks are usually very personal, and again, purposely inaccurate based on what you WANT me to believe so you can shoot it down (straw man). You exhibit very little ability to listen accurately.
However, your hate for Christianity and those who believe it is superior is obvious. As said before, you practice the same with your value system – so how does that not make you a hypocrite?
Seeker,
Again, the hypocrisy. My beliefs clearly allow for you to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t harm another person. So believe in Christianity. Believe in Creationism. I don’t care – I’d never take that away from you. I object when you propose to harm others, via the refused offering of things like, oh, I don’t know, equal rights.
Seeker, I look at what you write, and propose, and I think that my characterization of you is very, very accurate. You don’t want gays to be equal. You don’t believe in the extension of freedoms to numerous types of people. You are comfortable with ID being taught in schools. I mean, where have I gone wrong? In assembling those positions into your belief that Christianity is superior to everything else? Is that what offends you?
And as for spinning arguments out and misrepresenting positions. Am I the one who argues that allowing for gay marriage will thus allow for mother/daughter or woman/dolphin marriages? Was that me? Oh, it was you? So you mean, be both take the other person’s arguments, and find the worst case scenario and act then as if we’ve disproved the other person? We do?
Wow.