Down the rocky road of debate

The conversation mentioned in my previous post has become so confused there is no point in continuing so I ended it, but I thought I'd bring some of it over here just to finish it off for myself.

(PB said) The founder effect and the population bottleneck, a special case of the founder effect, are the loss of genetic variation, but some genetic variablility will remain.

(Faith said) You really don't read well at all. I've over and over affirmed that SOME genetic variability ALWAYS remains, but that the overall TREND is to decrease and ultimate depletion. And bottleneck and founder effect are merely extremes of the trend, not special cases.

Faith, the problem here is your reading skills.

If I state something that you have said, even over and over again, it is because I need to remind you of it to continue further. There is no need to get excited like you do. You misread again if you think I said bottleneck and founder effects are special cases of a TREND. What I said, read it again, is that bottleneck is a special case of founder effect.

How can he think I thought HE "said bottleneck and founder effects are special cases of a TREND?" Obviously he didn't say that, I did. That's MY argument, with which I am answering his.

I've also not been "excited" at any point in the discussion; I can't imagine what he thinks amounts to that. When communication gets this difficult it becomes an exercise in futility to continue.

The point I've been trying to make is that there is a trend toward genetic depletion which accompanies ALL the processes that are considered to contribute to evolution. This is fact, not speculation, and it is recognized particularly by conservationists because it causes problems for particular species, or for human interest in particular species -- as food perhaps.

These processes I sometimes sum up as "selection" processes although Natural Selection is the only one officially named as a selection process. This term is used to emphasize the adaptedness of the new "species" as something positively selected by the environment for that effect, while I use the term to describe them all because they all lead to the same end, although Natural Selection is survival-determined and the others are random. I haven't yet been able to find a term for the whole package that says the same thing. "Isolating" perhaps comes closest, as it refers to a fact that describes all these scenarios -- that a part of a population becomes cut off from another part so that new genetic potentials become expressed at the expense of old ones.

This isolating effect or selection, whether random or focused on a particular trait as in Natural Selection, occurs in many forms. In Natural Selection something in the environment, perhaps a predator, perhaps a dietary restriction, kills off some number of the population, leaving others to continue to proliferate. Sometimes these others have a feature that adapts them to the diet or other formerly hostile element in the environment so they thrive, sometimes they don't appeal to the predator or are poisonous to it, so they thrive for that reason. Evolutionists call this "speciation" or the formation of a new species. The term is acceptable to a creationist up to a point, because we know that such changes occur frequently in all living things.

But most events that bring about such changes are less severe. Simple migration of a part of a population to another geographic area can bring about changes or "speciation." A new diet in the new area may discourage the settling in of a bird with a certain kind of beak but a kind that is adapted to it will thrive. The change in the bird beak could have come about simply randomly, simply because the gene for the old type was left behind in the original population so that a new type could emerge in the new population. All population splits bring about new genetic expressions, often simply randomly, that may have some particular use in the new environment or simply be a visible variation unrelated to requirements of the environment. When a small population of chipmunks splits off from a larger one to establish a new territory, it develops new characteristics that visibly set it apart from the old, markings, stripings, size of ears, facial features, tails, colorings etc. may all express differences between the populations brought about by the "speciation" which was brought about by the simple fact of a small number of chipmunks from a large population moving to a new location. The same thing happens with human beings. If a small group moves to an isolated place and inbreeds for generations they will come to have an appearance peculiar to themselves. This is how "races" are formed.

"Bottleneck" is the situation where an extremely small number of individuals splits off from the mother population; "founder effect" I always thought referred to a single individual who "founds" a new population, so that it is a special case of the bottleneck and not the other way around as my debate opponent has it. But such distinctions are trivial. The point is that the smaller the new population the more drastic will be the differences that come to characterize it in relation to the mother population. If a large population were to divide almost equally into new isolated areas, both new populations would develop new characteristics in relation to each other.

This is just the way genetics works. A population carries many alternative genetic possibilities within it, alleles for different characteristics of particular genes. There can be a variety of characteristics potential in a large population, for body type, size, shape, markings, colorings, eye colorings, facial features and much much more. As long as they stay together in a large population freely interbreeding, a certain collection of traits will generally characterize the whole population, but when part of it goes somewhere else they will carry with them a mix of alleles in a different proportion from those of the mother population, and these will eventually develop new characteristics in the new population as it interbreeds.

Although the founder effect can affect the population far into the future, itds effect may be overtcome in deep time, the possibiliy of which you reject on biblical grounds.

No I reject it on scientific grounds. Deep time would only lead to extinction, as already said, and this is because the trend is inexorably to genetic depletion. And by the way, the only way deep time COULD overcome the problem is if you put mutation into the mix, which is what my usual opponents argue, but you've already quite rightly shown that mutation couldn't do that anyway[s].[How interesting: I wrote "anyway" not "anyways" but in his quote he has me using the illiterate "anyways."]

You are misreading, again. What I said you reject on biblical grounds is not the overcoming of the effect, but the possibility of deep time.

How strange, and clearly he's misreading me here, not the other way around. I was clearly saying that I reject deep time, but not on biblical grounds, on scientific grounds, because deep time would lead to extinction given the facts I am describing -- and they ARE facts, they are not speculations.

Populations can't go on indefinitely splitting and changing or speciating, because these processes all involve a corresponding loss of genetic variability with each such event. That's what I mean by "evolution defeats evolution." There is a natural limit to the changes that are possible. Each new population that develops from a small number has fewer genetic possibilities than the population it split from. As new groups continue to be formed new changes emerge along with fewer genetic possibilities for further change. This is because for new traits to emerge, competing traits must be suppressed or eliminated altogether. This is the way you get speciation. This is the famous "change in gene frequencies" that is sometimes used as the definition of evolution. Speciation IS change in gene frequencies. These DO bring about changes, but you don't get change unless competing traits are suppressed or eliminated. (This really only describes the more drastic population reductions. It is possible for change to be more gradual even within a population without the absolute loss of genetic potentials from the population as a whole (this would be one form of genetic drift), but Natural Selection and migration of small populations and certainly founder effect and bottleneck DO eliminate genetic potentials in bringing about the new characteristics of the new population).

It is quite possible for a population with very little genetic variability to go on surviving indefinitely, but it will have less ability to form new different types or "species." The hypothetical end point of this trend is complete homozygosity or only ONE allele for a particular trait, for many different traits. This is in fact reached in nature sometimes, as with the cheetah. Total homozygosity for ALL traits probably never occurs, although PB wants to insist this is a necessary condition of my argument. It's not, it's merely the hypothetical end point, while the trend toward it is my argument).

Deep time would only lead to extinction, I said, if your theory were true. But it doesn’t, so it ain’t. Everyone sensible, and beamish, too, accept that the earth is billions of years old. Hence your theory does not hold up. Flood geology does not hold water.

Yup, I'm totally not sensible. But my theory isn't a theory. I've been describing what actually happens in reality as populations split in reality, and conservationists KNOW this happens. They deal with it every day.

Mutation does have a non-negligible effect in deep time, not in biblical time. Most mutations are selected out, but in the long run some are bound to be beneficial. Mutation is another random source of variation that does not come to an end when genetic variability decreases.

The problem is that the selection processes, the isolating processes, the population-splitting processes, beat mutation to it by a long shot. These are wrongly considered to be the motor that drives evolution, whereas in simple actual reality-based fact they bring about new "species" (varieties of a species or Kind to a creationist) at the expense of genetic variability, which gradually over many such events reaches a dead end beyond which further speciation is simply impossible. And this occurs in what PB calls "biblical" time. All species would be extinct long before we get anywhere near "deep time" or millions of years. The extremely rare beneficial mutation could hardly save the day.

you get strikingly more or less common variants, psi bond, and my overall point is that you get REDUCED GENETIC DIVERSITY IN ALL CASES. YOU DO NOT GET PHENOTYPIC CHANGE WITHOUT CONCOMITANT REDUCED GENETIC POTENTIAL.

"I don’t believe that point has been proven. Repetition is not proof. Nor does uppercasing augment the case for its validity."

Do you realize that this is the VERY FIRST time you've even acknowledged my argument? That is the reason for the uppercase and the repetition, to bring it to your attention. Now, please try to keep it in mind.

Well, I’m sorry you feel I have slighted your theory. However, the way you fiercely preach it, I could not help but have it in mind.

I don't know what he has in mind but it isn't my "theory." This really is the first time I've seen him acknowledge it.

And I go on to spell it out AGAIN. Yes I know it gets repetitive but it's not easy to grasp and I'm probably neglecting to include some necessary information to make it more accessible, simply because I'm so IN the argument I forget what someone who isn't may need to know to get oriented to it.

The proof is a simple matter of THINKING IT THROUGH, another thing I haven't been able to get you to do. You cannot get the expression of a particular allele in a population UNLESS ALL THE OTHER ALLELES for that trait are somehow suppressed. Natural Selection sometimes completely eliminates them from the population -- the snake eats the newts that aren't expressing the poison factor. Bottleneck and founder effect "select" randomly rather than for survival benefit but WHAT they "select" is what remains AFTER ALL THE OTHER ALLELES for a given trait are ELIMINATED. Remember this is a kind of genetic drift. Genetic drift of a quieter sort also eventually drives out some alleles as a random allele comes to expression. Sometimes it merely becomes latent. THIS IS WHAT I AM REFERRING TO AS LOSS OF GENETIC VARIABILITY. If the variability remained you would not have the new trait, you would not have speciation. Speciation REQUIRES the elimination of genetic competition, speciation REQUIRES genetic depletion.

I’m afraid, Faith, that you have fallen into the error of thinking the patterns of nature are necessarily as simple as armchair speculating prefers to make them.

I have NO idea where this put down came from. I'm aware that I'm talking in generalities. Everybody talks in generalities about these things; there's really no other way to talk unless you get into such complicated technical territory the forest gets lost for the trees. There's no denial of the complexities of nature involved in generalities; if the generality is correct it remains correct no matter what the details.

And here he goes off on another round of mischaracterizations:

Speciation does not require the elimination of each alternate of every allele that is selected.

I never said it did. I've been talking about a TREND -- the reduction of genetic diversity with each speciation, not total elimination. I've said alternatives must be SUPPRESSED OR eliminated and I've tried to be very clear which processes actually eliminate, such as founder effect, bottleneck and some Natural Selection. Clearly he is simply not in a mood to understand what I'm saying and this makes continuing the conversation useless.

Speciation does not require homozygosity.

I certainly never said that it did. Again, he just doesn't want to think it through, doesn't care what I'm saying, is quite content to sloppily misstate it.

Loss of genetic variability due to a decrease in genetic diversity is not loss of the capability of genetic variation.

I thought I had made it clear that you can have MANY events of speciation still retaining enough genetic variability for the capability of further speciation -- such processes can repeat many many times before total loss becomes a real threat. The only times it happens rapidly are with the more drastic processes like founder effect and bottleneck where the reduction in population is so acute the genetic variability is drastically reduced in one fell swoop. It STILL may not be reduced to total loss, however. Again, I'm talking about a TREND in the DIRECTION of genetic decrease, an inexorable trend in that direction.

You ALWAYS get decreased genetic variability, however slight, however localized or limited, you NEVER get an increase.

---CJA

Evolution defeats evolution debate

Got into a debate with poster psi bond at another message board here It starts a ways down and it does go on and on and on. I may wade through it and try to pick out the best posts sometime.

My argument is very simple:

Change or variation (or "evolution") in living things is always accompanied by a reduction in genetic capacity to change further, or reduced genetic variability or reduced genetic diversity or however that should be put. On out to the ultimate extreme of complete genetic depletion or fixation at a particular characteristic beyond which change is absolutely impossible. But at any point along the line the trend is in the direction of genetic reducttion. The more "new species" you get the less GENETIC ability to change further you also get. This is a trend that may occur slowly over generations, but it may sometimes occur rapidly through events that drastically reduce a population. The point is that change is ALWAYS in the direction of genetic decrease, NEVER in the direction of genetic increase, and that means there is an ultimate end point even if it is only rarely reached. And if there is an ultimate end point to the processes of change, or variation, or evolution, this spells the end of all hope for the Theory of Evolution.

I pointed out to PB at one point that it's interesting he never brought up mutation in answer to my argument, since that's the usual recourse of evolutionists faced with the idea of inevitable genetic depletion caused by evolution itself. This was his answer:

Although it cannot be dispensed with, mutation is n ot as great a factor in evolution as natural selection and genetic drift (which was unknown to Darwin). I did not include mutation in my presentation because, in my computer simulations of evolution, mutation must be set at a very low percentage, yet it cannot be set at zero. Of course, the majority of mutations in nature are lethal or neutral and will be eliminated by natural selection.

[Sept 10 4:12 AM]

Gigantic insects in the pre-Flood world

I just found this page on giant insect fossils by the way. I enjoy getting a sense of what the world was like before the Flood. Of course the poor scientists don't have a clue:

Giant Fossil Sea Scorpion Bigger Than Man:

"Dr Simon Braddy from the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol, co-author of an article about the find, said, 'This is an amazing discovery. We have known for some time that the fossil record yields monster millipedes, super-sized scorpions, colossal cockroaches, and jumbo dragonflies, but we never realised, until now, just how big some of these ancient creepy-crawlies were.'"

Poor things. They find this sea life all over the dry parts of earth and STILL they refuse to consider the Flood as an explanation. Sigh.

However, whether this gigantic life was normal or not has become a question for me recently as I've been following some of the teachings about the fall of the angels in Genesis 6, which is expanded in the Book of Enoch. Not only did the angels corrupt the seed of humanity, an action aimed at preventing God's promise about salvation through the "seed of the woman" coming to fruition, but also the seed of animals.

Something to ponder.

Evolution defeats Evolution

Back to the topic of the Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes briefly.

I think it can be summed up simply:

All Darwin did was observe microevolution, something known for millennia already, certainly in the practice of domestic breeding which was his model, and extrapolate from it to macroevolution without any evidentiary foundation, just imagination.

That's all he observed in the Galapagos turtles, all he observed in the finches.

Darwin put Natural Selection in the place of human selection or Domestic Selection as the engine to drive Evolution, and failed to appreciate sufficiently that Domestic Selection leads to dead ends, not to open-ended opportunity for change. If he didn't have the genetic knowledge for that, we do have it nowadays: Both in nature and in domestic breeding selection leads to change leads to less ability to change, ultimately to dead ends genetically, often to disease proneness and extinction. Selection eliminates unwanted genetic possibilities in domestic breeding, and in nature it eliminates the genetic possibilities that are not adaptive. That's how the change is brought about. Sometimes the selected form is strong enough anyway, but the ultimate end is weakness.

They haven't yet faced that Natural Selection and all the other forms of selection that operate on populations decreases the capacity for change. It's rudimentary, just look at the extremes of domestic breeding, also look at some of the extremes in nature that have been similarly refined out to the point where they are vulnerable and genetically reduced. But they still act as if these processes somehow promote change, you will still find them defined as "processes of evolution."

If you point out the problem to them, that these processes actually decrease the possibility of change, to try to save it they add in prodigious quantities of Time, which is nothing but a diversion, and Mutation, which is fantasy. Mutation couldn't possibly save it even if mutation were ever beneficial.

To sum up: the more change there is in a population the less change is possible genetically. Evolution defeats evolution.

Big mean Council of Europe warns against us cute fuzzy little creationists

http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1580.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Resolution 1580 (2007)1

The dangers of creationism in education

(My comments in blue)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The aim of this resolution is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

Of course they aren't antagonistic to belief as THEY define it but to TRUE Biblical belief they are indeed antagonistic, because the God of the Bible made the universe and has given enough of a clue to how He did it that science must subordinate itself to His revelation to be true.

2. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life.

Of course they go on to define what religious belief is in such a way that their idea of science is not antagonistic to their idea of belief, and anything we say about the Bible's authority as the Creator's own revelation is defined as unscientific. No, they aren't antagonistic to this phony definition of belief but they are antagonistic to true Biblical belief. I guess we're safe from the lions as long as we accept their definition, huh?

Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

Possible ill effects of the spread of God's truth worries them, and somehow God's truth is anti-democratic TOO! And a threat to HUMAN RIGHTS! My my aren't we the enemies of society. But so the early Romans called the early Christians too, and threw them to the lions for their anti-social and atheistic ways. And so the Nazis called the Jews too, as well as Christians who wouldn't toe their line. Ever does Caesar repeatedly rear his ugly antichrist head, and the final one is surely coming soon.

3. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

Nice to know America still leads in honoring God's truth, but it's also nice to know there are a few Christian Europeans left too. (Unless, hm, yes it's possible, the European creationists are Muslims, since that group is growing so rapidly there. That would be enlightening information to have).

4. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are of the Christian or Muslim faith, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabuses. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

Well, what we actually claim is more that it reveals scientific truth rather than a scientific discipline as such, and above all we claim that evolution is not science and we know that because of God's revelation, but there is genuine creationist science that is conducted by creationists as well.

Yes, I suspect it probably is the Muslims who are mostly giving them a hard time over there, since European Christianity pretty much died a long time ago. Another case of God's judgment on the apostate churches, and just as with the head covering, He's using the Muslims to model what Christians have failed to do.

5. Creationists question the scientific character of certain areas of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, creationists defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

Actually it does but they are blinded by their prejudices.

6. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

What on earth are they so afraid of? Good grief, they can't tolerate leaving people alone in this world to compete with their ideas from a radically different point of view? Well, we know their crazed urgency to deprive us of our freedom is driven supernaturally of course. There is nothing rational about it.

7. There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.

OUR children? Wouldn't want their children to suspect there might be a Creator God would they? Can't trust the next generation to make a rational decision, they have to force THEIR definition of science versus "belief" on them, brainwash them, but of course they do this in all sincerity because they are so convinced of the rightness of their own beliefs. Thus have tyrants always risen to rule.

8. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.

Well, the Jews of Germany were also considered dangerous, so they had to be wiped out; and the Christians of the early Roman Empire were also considered dangerous, so they had to be wiped out, and so on. This is the nature of the thinking here but as with all oppressors they are so locked into their own feverish paranoid view all they know is they've got to get rid of the Enemy.

9. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a rather significant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

The theory of evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the kind of TRUE science that has brought about the technological and economic improvements in life. Even if evolution were TRUE this would be the case because how things came about in the past DOES NOT AFFECT practical science. But they are blind to this, alas.

10. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In reality the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and spread doubt and confusion in their minds.

Paranoid ravings.

11. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research, aiming at combating infectious diseases such as Aids, are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

I suppose they believe this but it's absolute nonsense. The power of a delusion is truly amazing.

12. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human and civic rights.

Perhaps Islam rejects science but Biblical Christianity certainly does not. There would have been no science at all without the Biblical revelation. We'd still be back in paganism which defined the earth as the center of the universe (which got into the Catholic church through Aristotle and Aquinas) among other unscientific beliefs. Only the law-making God of the Bible could show us a rational universe that could be studied and understood and used more efficiently than pagan society could ever have discovered.

13. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

Islam certainly is, but the Christian worldview supports separation of church and state, rightly understood (yes it does) -- not the warped idea of separation of church and state now held by American leftists but the original idea of the American Founders.

14. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

Yes, well of course the Antichrist is going to support evolution, anything against the true God.

15. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculums, and especially in the science syllabuses, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

That is "microevolution" not evolution, and it is of course recognized by Christians, though the term is objectionable.

As a Christian who sees what's coming from all this, oppression by the establishment followed by total domination by Islam, I do have a strong urge to find some safe zone to flee to, but there is no such safe zone, and I couldn't flee to it if there were, and the Lord wouldn't have us flee anyway. No, we're being set up for persecution and we're going to have to rise to the occasion spiritually.

16. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

I doubt they are even going to allow this much. It sounds good at the moment but as soon as the creationist position is spelled out in all its truth under any title whatever they are going to clamp down on it.

17. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.

The idea of evolution gives NO clue to how ANYTHING works. This is the biggest delusion imaginable. It's EVOLUTION that is all about "why things are," SCIENCE is something else entirely. Historically experimental science would never have developed at all without the Biblical revelation of the law-giving God who created all things.

18. Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council of Europe’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

Final Solution anybody?

19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to:

19.1. defend and promote scientific knowledge;

19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

19.3. make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

19.4. firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;

19.5. promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculums.

20. The Assembly welcomes the fact that 27 academies of science of Council of Europe member states signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Assembly debate on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting) (see Doc. 11375, report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, rapporteur: Mrs Brasseur). Text adopted by the Assembly on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting).

Signs of the times, Christians, signs of the times.

Intro to Natural Limitation to evolutionary processes seen in population genetics

Maybe this old thread at EvC will serve as an introduction to my other favorite theme besides the obviousness of this Flood-wracked planet, which is the fact that the processes of "evolution" or the selection of traits that get passed on, involves other traits being passed up and sometimes dying out completely. Although the process may be so slow as to be undetectable over hundreds of generations, it can be very fast, and in all cases the general tendency is the LOSS of genetic potentials, the opposite of what would have to be the case were evolution true.

Here's another old thread at EvC where I was piled on as usual, and where my very simple point was simply flatly contradicted and ignored as usual. Perhaps they absolutely can't see the facts, I guess that's possible, but it's hard to avoid the impression they just refuse to think about it at all. Anyway here's Global Flood Evidence. I'd already presented the evidence but this poster didn't see it so started this thread for the purpose of demanding evidence when I'd already given all I was going to give on the subject.

Faith:

There is so much evidence for a global flood it's staggering. It has to be a very strange blindness that keeps people from acknowledging it. Not even agreeing with it, just acknowledging that the amount of evidence is enormous. Just another case of flat out denial.

Stagger me, then.

He should already have been staggered by what I'd already pointed out. I guess he's blind. The worldwide extent of the fossils and the strata ARE staggering evidence for a worldwide Flood. What mental block do they have that interferes with their even picturing this fact?

So of course I answered:

The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood.

The existence of fossils worldwide is evidence that living things existed worldwide :rolleyes: . In no way can the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of the flood. In fact the localisation of fossil species argues against the flood. I suppose the global existence of extant life today is because of the flood, too?

See, he can't visualize it at all, or won't even try. Perhaps it's simply paradigm-blindness but then he should take extra pains in that case to overcome his prejudice.

The existence of FOSSILS is evidence for a cataclysmic sudden burial, NOT normal life and death patterns of worldwide living things. The incredible quantity of the fossils cannot possibly be explained in terms of NORMAL life and death patterns. Dead things NORMALLY disintegrate, they do not fossilize. It takes special conditions to bring about fossilization.

AND the fact that they are found within strata is staggering evidence for a worldwide Flood. The strata are worldwide, the fossils are worldwide. Strata are normally laid down in water. Look at the stack of them in the Grand Canyon. There are no breaks, there is nothing but a wall, a stack of layer upon layer upon layer of different rocks that were formed from loose sediments. I'd made this point over and over and over but they are blind to this obvious fact.

So I answer again:

Sure you can figure out how to explain this some other way if you have a mind to. But so what? The flood explanation is obviously adequate.

The flood explanation is utterly inadequate. The pattern of fossil forms is contradicted by hydrodynamics. In any flood, the smallest particles separate out last, the largest, first. This means all the large organisms first. What do we find at the bottom of the fossil record, bacteria. Where do we find large organisms? At the top. Exactly the opposite of what you would expect from the flood model. I could go on.

So instead of simply appreciating the obvious implication of the fact itself of the prodigious quantity of fossilized life, he shifts focus to HOW it could have happened. That is changing the subject. We don't have to know HOW it happened to know that the sheer fact of their existence in such quantities over the whole world is in itself tremendous evidence for a worldwide Flood. Also all the Hows of these things are purely speculative; he has no right to treat them as fact the way he does. He has no idea what sort of hydrodynamics would have been involved in such a Flood. All that is speculative.

The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.

Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there

. Funny how there's so MUCH marine life embedded in them, though, don't you think? Embedded in stratifications too.

Also, let's keep in mind that this is part of the evidence that there were no high mountains before the Flood, but they rose afterward, as the continents moved apart on their tectonic plates.

The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood.

Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification. Why does the bottom of the geologic column not consist of breccia, followed by gravels, sands, muds & claystones, in order of particle size, as it should do if the flood occurred?

Why is he so certain what WOULD HAVE happened? He insists on being myopic about this while I'm trying to make a point about the overall big picture. I'm talking about the SHEER PRODIGIOUS QUANTITY OF FOSSILIZED LIFE AS WELL AS THE WORLDWIDE EXTENT OF THE STRATIFICATIONS. He wants to take a microscope to the bottom layer and ask utterly irrelevant questions considering the overall evidence of a Flood. He's trying to say it couldn't have happened based on some assumption of his own about HOW it would have to happen, instead of considering the staggering evidence that it DID happen which is what I'm trying to focus on.

The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.

Most of them don't exist on the surface. This also is irrelevant to flood evidence.

He wasn't bothering even to think about what I meant. Most of the strata HAD to have been on the surface at one time or other for the geologic time table to have any validity.

The presence of extinct forms of life in the fossil record is a clue to the enormous variety of life that inhabited the pre-Flood world.

Again, this is evidence of extinct forms, & in no way evidence of a global flood.

At this point I begin to suspect some sort of mental incompetence. The prodigious quantity of such life forms and their unusual varieties are GREAT evidence for a single worldwide Flood that wiped out all living things. Living varieties now are clearly related to them but are appreciably different, which is exactly what would have happened if most of the gene pool of each species had been wiped out.

It's all consistent with the Flood story.

As you have learned, the fossil record & stratigraphy is all utterly inconsistent with the fossil record.

So where is this "staggering" evidence of a global flood?

Right in front of his eyes, where it's always been but he just can't see it, and isn't the slightest bit interested in looking for it, just shooting off his mouth.

But I do very much appreciate what Purpledawn wrote, in a few of her posts on that thread. She's the only sane voice in the whole place. Go to message 74 for starters, I can't figure out how to link to it. This is the link to the start of the thread. Go from there to #74.

In post 74, Purpledawn says:

From what I have read of the original off topic post and the OP, Faith has already given you her evidence for a world wide flood.

Faith writes:

The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood.
The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.

The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood. The alternation of different kinds of sediments with different fossil contents is just not at all compatible with the notion of deposition over millions of years, but water certainly can explain it, as some of the scenarios evos concoct even end up conceding.

The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.

The presence of extinct forms of life in the fossil record is a clue to the enormous variety of life that inhabited the pre-Flood world.

In your responses all you've essentially said is that you disagree with her.

Thank you, PD. Then she responds to my opponent:

quote:

In no way can the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of the flood. In fact the localisation of fossil species argues against the flood.

Why can't the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of a world wide flood?

How does the localization of fossil species argue against a world wide flood?

quote:

Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there.

Why is that evidence against the world wide flood.

quote:

Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification.

What are the geological columns and how is the flood inconsistent with that stratification. Also could you explain stratification in simple terms?

quote:

Most of them don't exist on the surface. This also is irrelevant to flood evidence.

Why is surface disturbance irrelevant to the flood?

quote:

Again, this is evidence of extinct forms, & in no way evidence of a global flood.

Why is the presence of extinct forms not evidence of the global flood?

quote:

As you have learned, the fossil record & stratigraphy is all utterly inconsistent with the fossil record.

I assume you mean inconsistent with the flood story, but again you've said it is inconsistent, but you provided nothing I could use to explain why they are inconsistent.

Ultimately a nonscientist like myself would have to digest information coming from someone like Faith and someone like yourself to decide whether I believe the flood to be world wide or not.

So far in this discussion, from the information I think I understand, I haven't seen anything that obviously tilts the scales in either direction.

Her other posts, 169, 176 and 180 continue in this same vein. In 180 she answers the charge that I'm not being scientific by saying:

Fossils, stratification, geological columns, fossil record. Sounds scientific to me.

No opinions or arguments from unbelief. Interesting.

Thank you again, PD.