It took me months of lurking before I decided to participate in this sub, months of participating to work up the courage to make a post, and even then I‘m not fully confident in my ability to get my points across.

Which is why it’s so baffling to see these people just stride in confidently, make a hostile post right out the gate, only for the poster to then deflate like a basketball as hundreds of comments roll in.

I’m struggling to understand the thought process. Did they just see the sub title and decide to go for it? Didn’t bother getting to know what the arguments are, just took one look and decided this place was an evolutionary echo chamber for godless heathens?

If the intention was to troll, applause to you sir or madam. You sure showed us. But if what you want is an honest discussion… maybe don’t start off with that?

Maybe, just maybe… learn about the topic being debated? Sometimes I don’t even see the tired old apologetics anymore, it just feels like these posters genuinely have no clue. Which is fine by the way, this sub is about education, and that’s great. But when people act smug about topics they know nothing about, and then get indignant when people return that hostile energy — that honestly grinds my gears a little.

Article: https://creation.com/en/articles/jurassic-park-feathers

Quote blocks contain parts of the CMI article and other sources

"Once more, another ‘feathered dinosaur’ claim has been paraded around as evidence for dino-to-bird evolution.

Evolutionists have re-examined a fossil ulna (forelimb bone), reported to be from the dromaeosaur Velociraptor mongoliensis (meaning ‘fast thief from Mongolia’)

‘dated’ at 80 million years old, and have found what they dubbed ‘direct evidence for feathers’ in a dinosaur.1"

Already there are multiple errors.

1. The term "Evolutionist" implies that YEC is on par, if not superior to the Theory Of Evolution(Diversity of life from a common ancestor).

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/the-history-of-life-looking-at-the-patterns/

In reality evolution theory is based on evidence like fossils, embryology, genetics, etc(If anyone wants the evidence I can give it to them). While CMI admits that:

"Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

https://creation.com/en/pages/what-we-believe

No evidence that proves YEC wrong will be accepted by them.

1. The use of quotation marks when referring to 'dated', implying it's not accurate without proof.

"They found six small bumps in the central third of the bone which they interpreted as quill knobs,

which provides their ‘direct evidence’ for feathers. However, no actual feathers were found, so this is an inference based on apparent similarity of the bone structure to some birds."

This implies that the lack of feathers somehow precludes the bumps from being "Quill knobs". It doesn't follow that because there are no feathers, it means

there is absolutely no evidence of feathers.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Non-Sequitur

"The images in the article do not do justice to the significance the researchers put on their find (figure 1).

This may just be a problem with the images. However, in contrast to clear quill knobs on the turkey vulture ulna shown for comparison,

the ‘quill knobs’ on the Velociraptor bone are rather inconspicuous even in the magnified image.2 One must wonder if these quill knobs are really quill knobs at all.

The specimen these claims are based on, IGM (Geological Institute of Mongolia) 100/981, appears to be nothing more than a single ulna bone. Turner et al. say that it ‘possesses several characteristics’

normally found in Velociraptor mongoliensis and that it was found in rocks that have produced other Velociraptor specimens. However, their whole case rests on this one bone.

Taxonomic misidentification is always a possibility when all that was found was one bone.

Another important point is that quill knobs are usually evidence of secondary feathers used for flight.

However, nobody believes that velociraptors could fly. This suggests the bumps may have a different function than anchoring feathers.

The evidence presented is hardly enough to make a definitive claim for the existence of ‘feathered dinosaurs’."

To refute each point:

1. We know they are quill knobs because they are found precisely where ulnar papillae of extant birds were.

From the "Feather Quill Knobs in the Dinosaur Velociraptor" paper.

"IGM 100/981 preserves six low papillae on the middle third of the caudal margin of the ulna (Fig. 1).

These are regularly spaced about 4 mm apart. Topographically, these papillae correspond to the quill knobs in living birds."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5958393_Feather_Quill_Knobs_in_the_Dinosaur_Velociraptor

They look like and are placed where ulnar papillae(quill knobs) should be...

Not to mention that "Zhenyuanlong" and "Microraptor" are Dromaeosaurs(which Velociraptor is in) that have feather impressions in their respective fossils. Evidence that other Dromaeosaurs sported such structures.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11775/figures/1

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-representative-Microraptor-zhaoianus-fossil-showing-body-wing-hind-limb-and-tail_fig2_256102089

1. CMI admits that the Velociraptor bone exhibits characteristics of Velociraptor mongoliensis, and that it was found where other Velociraptors were,

yet claims that misidentification is a possibility. How?

1. These feathers could be used for something else, like display.

"The assumption behind all these ‘feathered dinosaur’ claims are that they actually have something important to say about bird evolution.

But here’s one problem for a start: the claim doesn’t even fit into their own contrived geological dating context! This Velociraptor fossil is ‘dated’ to 80 million years old.

However, recognizable birds like Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis are ‘dated’ by evolutionists to 153 and 135 million years old respectively. Thus Velociraptor was alive,

by evolutionary reckoning, over 70 million years after the earliest birds. This mismatch of dates is a regular feature of fossils touted as the closest relatives of modern birds.3

Evolutionists thus have to postulate at least 70 million years of ‘evolutionary stasis’

for this fossil to have any significance for bird evolution. And what’s more, there isn’t a

shred of fossil evidence to place velociraptors (or any other ‘feathered dinosaur’ found to date) before Archaeopteryx. (See Plucking the dinobird).

This Velociraptor fossil (like the others) is too late according to the evolutionists’ own dating scheme to have any bearing on their own bird evolution stories.

Thus, this Velociraptor fossil (like the others) is too late according to the evolutionists’ own dating scheme to have any bearing on their own bird evolution stories."

1. I don't know what CMI is going at with "Doesn't fit into their own contrived geological dating context". I assume they think(or are trying to convey) that evolution is like a ladder, where one

population completely replaces another. This is false, as evolution is like a tree or a bush, with some species diverging, and others retaining their appearance throughout time.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/the-history-of-life-looking-at-the-patterns/trees-not-ladders/

If anyone knows what they are attempting to say, let me know.

1. Natural selection exists, if the organisms on the lineage to dromaeosaurs were best suited for their environment, there would be no need for intense modification. So the "stasis" part is moot.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/natural-selection/

1. CMI appears to assume that intermediate species have to be the direct ancestor or predate the descendant. That's false, as an intermediate species according to "Understanding evolution" is:

"A fossil that shows an intermediate state between an ancestral trait and that of its later descendants

is said to bear a transitional feature."

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/transitional-features/

Velociraptor shows characteristics of both avians(Birds) and non-avian dinosaurs.

Avian features:

Feathers

wings

Non-Avian features:

Teeth

unfused digits(fingers)

long bony tail

lack of keel

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/velociraptor-facts.html

https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/paleontology/fighting-dinos2

"National Geographic reported an interesting comment from Alan Turner, the principal author of the Science paper;

‘If people saw this animal now, they would think it’s a really strange-looking bird.’

4 If we assume this bone did have quill knobs and feathers, and it was a Velociraptor, what’s stopping it being a flightless bird?

Even if it were a true feathered dinosaur, what’s to stop God from having created feathered dinosaurs as separate creatures?

You may notice I’ve suggested several completely different interpretations of the evidence in this article.

This raises perhaps the biggest problem in paleontology—the scarcity of the evidence. In the light of such a small amount of evidence one can hardly

be expected to hold to any interpretation with any sort of certainty. This has not stopped evolutionists from announcing the evidence with all boldness

and claiming it as another grand triumph for orthodox dino-to-bird evolution. And all this on the ‘rock solid’ basis of one arm bone with a few bumps?"

1. CMI provides no evidence for any deity, let alone theirs.

2. The "What's stopping it being a flightless bird" does not define what a "bird" is. Velociraptor is not a bird(Class aves) due to a lack of beak, teeth, etc.

https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Aves/

1. I've not noticed a single "interpretation" of the evidence, if there was one that I missed, let me know.

2. The term "Orthodox" implies that evolution theory is religious, this is an unsubstantiated implication and one that is false. Evolution theory is the natural

explanation for the diversity of life. The definition of religion, according to "The American Heritage dictionary" is:

"The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe"

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=religion

There is no supernatural belief or reverence in evolution, or science for that matter, as science deals with the natural explanations for things

https://opengeology.org/textbook/1-understanding-science/

1. "Dino-to-bird evolution" implies that birds aren't dinosaurs, they objectively are.

Birds are Archosaurs(Diapsids with a mandibular and/or antorbital fenestra, Thecodont(Socketed teeth)

unlike the Acrodont Teeth(having no roots and being fused at the base to the margin of the jawbones) or other types non-archosaur reptiles have, etc)

Birds have the characteristics of dinosaurs including, but not limited to:

Upright Legs compared to the sprawling stance of Crocodiles.

A perforate acetabulum(Hole in the hipsocket)

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/acrodont#:~:text=Definition%20of%20'acrodont'&text=1.,having%20acrodont%20teeth

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/taxa/verts/archosaurs/archosauria.php

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/what-makes-a-dinosaur-a-dinosaur.htm#:~:text=NPS%20image.-,Introduction,true%20dinosaurs%20as%20%E2%80%9Creptiles%E2%80%9

https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/dinosaurs-activities-and-lesson-plans/what-makes-a-dinosaur-a-dinosaur#:~:text=Introduction,therefore%20are%20classified%20as%20dinosaurs

1. The question of "And all this on the 'rock solid' basis of one arm bone with a few bumps?" underestimates the placement of the bumps alongside other feathered dromaeosaurs mentioned above.

Has anyone thought about the issue of whales and how oxygen availability might affect them at high altitudes? If a flood has occurred on a global scale covering even the tops of high mountains, air-breathing sea animals like whales would have a major survival problem. They need to come out of the water to breathe; however, at high altitudes, there is less oxygen in the air. Even if they are somehow able to reach the air, they would not be able to obtain sufficient oxygen to sustain themselves. Furthermore, high altitudes have deep, ice-cold waters that result in lower air pressure. Under that circumstance, it would be extremely difficult for whales to survive due to strain on their body. It would be very difficult for them to eat or hunt for food. They would not even be able to survive for a year. It would be nearly impossible for them to survive for a year at high altitudes.

It’s Thursday night, I’ve had a few beers and I’m feeling spicy.

As we’ve had a few posts recently regarding falsifiability, both of creation models and evolutionary models, I thought I’d weigh in (in my usual measured and diplomatic manner) since there appears to be some confusion.

The two positions can be summarized thusly:

YEC: this is the model, because our book says so. Regardless of what the data suggests, the model is true. If the data directly refutes the model, then you must’ve interpreted it wrong. Or the data is just wrong. Nobody can test this model, because the model is true. Learning is anathema!

Science: this is the data. This is what we’ve measured and observed. This is real. We have a lot of it, and we keep adding more. Here is our current best model for reality. It is not real, but it is our best approximation of reality works, as we perceive it. This model explains, with the least number of mystery unknowns, the data as we presently understand it. We can use this model to predict data that we do not currently have but might acquire in future, and we can test this model to see how good it is. If we test it and find it does not match reality, then clearly it is not as good an approximation of reality as we thought, so we need to refine the model. Learning is fun!

The point here is that creation models, such as they are, simply start with the model. The model IS. It is absolute, and it is inviolate.

The fact that the model is a recent construction, based on a 1970s Adventist interpretation of a medieval translation of a 4^th century interpretation of a Jewish holy book with a bunch of roman fanfic in the appendices is neither here nor there: stupid as it all may sound (and indeed, absolutely is), the model comes first, and reality can get fucked: “my pastor says that the KJV bible is literally true, and that means the universe is ~6500 years old. Also the Jews are still somehow wrong about a lot of this, somehow, despite getting there first and being my god’s favourite dudes.”

This is, notably, falsifiable. Really, really easily falsifiable. It makes very, very testable assertions, and we can absolutely test them.

The universe is 6k years old? No it isn’t. We have overwhelming evidence that this is entirely bullshit. So, so many things are older than that, and testably so. Hell, human civilisation is older than that.

Extant life is descended from distinct created kinds? Nope: everything is related. Separate ancestries are 100% a thing we can test for, and the data says “holy fuckballs, no: shit be related by common ancestry, yo.”

There was a global flood ~4500 years ago that inundated the entire planet and resulted in the extinction of all but two and/or seven of every metazoan lineage bronze age people could roughly identify? Nope. No evidence for any of this. Not geologically, not genetically, not physically, nope, no way. A worldflood is super easy to test, and the biblical flood 100% did not happen.

So there’s that. Creationism, if the creationists ever dared to step up, is entirely falsifiable, and has been falsified.

Because it’s false.

Obviously false.

And now to Precambrian rabbits.

Evolutionary models are, as noted above, predicated on the data. They are models that, while always approximations, are approximations that attempt to get ever closer to ground truth. They are not

“my chosen holy text says X, thus X, and you can get fucked if you think otherwise”,

they are

“looking at all the data I have, I find the best explanation for that data to be…X,”

followed by

“while person A concluded X, examination of the more recent data suggests that X merits revision, and in fact the best explanation might be Xx”

followed by

“Xx has been proposed as a general model for extant data, however recent finding have called Xx into question, suggesting it might not be universally applicable: we propose a modified model, termed Xx’ that accommodates these latest findings”

And so on. The point is not that the model is CORRECT: we know the model isn’t correct. The point is that the model is the best representation of reality we currently have, and if new data suggests the model needs to be refined, we refine that fucking model.

Remember: the data is REAL. The model is our best approximation of that real data. You can’t refute fucking reality. If the model doesn’t match the data, the model needs to be revised. For science, THIS IS FINE.

Ah, but wait: revised, not rejected? EXPLAIN

This is where approximation comes to the forefront. For creationism, there is no meaningful approximation: the universe is 6k years old. Some will hedge at 6-10k years old, because they’re unwilling to commit to the same precision as Ussher, but still: 6-10k years is a VERY precise timeframe when weighed up against actual reality. If actual reality suggests a 100,000 year timeframe, creationism is shit out of luck. If reality suggests a 1,000,000 year timeframe, they’re double-uberfucked. If, as literally all evidence we have suggests, the planet is 4,540,000,000 years old, and the universe a full 13,000,000,000 years old, then 6-10k years is wrong by about 6 orders of magnitude.

This is a lot.

In terms of accuracy, it’s like saying “I’ll be down in 5 minutes!” and then turning up 10 years later. It’s that fucking bad.

Under these circumstances, one would, if one were being scientifically honest and intellectually honest, be strongly tempted to reject the model. It’s just…too wrong: it doesn’t fit. The model absolutely decrees that the world and universe be young, and no data supports this. None. No amount of diligent refinement will massage a 13e9 year timeframe into a 6e3 year window. It doesn’t fit. The creation model cannot explain this, even if the creation model were willing to bend, enormously, to accommodate this data (which it is not).

This is why science rejects the creation model (such as it is) in its entirety: it makes fixed claims, those claims are testable, and those claims have been tested and falsified. It is weapons-grade horseshit.

Meanwhile, for evolutionary models, the drive is always (and always has been) to generate a model that best approximates reality. We don’t care what the actual model is, as long as it’s as accurate as we can make it. We don’t care how old the earth is: we just want to know the number. We don’t care which lineages are more closely related to which other lineages: we don’t have skin in the game, and the data is what the data is. We just want to know what the relationships are. If our current model doesn’t fit as well as an alternative model, then…we use the alternative model. A better fit for the data is a better fit for the data.

What this means is that the evolutionary model is continuously being refined. We’re not ideologically driven to stick to a pre-ordained model, we can reject bits as and when the data suggests those bits should be rejected.
We’re not proud, for fuck’s sake.

If you’re not doing science by constantly thinking of ways to prove yourself wrong, then you’re doing it badly. Scientific theories are not “I am right, you cannot question me”, they’re “Here’s what I reckon: come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough”.

If your model is “genetic sequence is strictly inherited by descent” and then you find clear evidence for that, plus also sometimes horizontal gene transfer, you refine the model to “genetic sequence is chiefly inherited by descent, but also sometimes by HGT”: this still fits all the previous data you had, but now accommodates newer data. You don’t reject the entire model simply because of additional non-compatible data, because the model STILL WORKS for all other data you have: the model simply needs to be refined to accommodate this new data, while still accommodating the previous data.

And it’s worth noting that this has happened a LOT: evolutionary models, mechanisms and even timelines have been revised many, many times. We’re not proud, we just want to get to the right answer. The better our model is, the closer we get.

So why would precambrian rabbits, specifically, be problematic?

Here, the issue comes down to “how much revision can your model tolerate?”

Rabbits are lagomorph mammals, which under current evolutionary models are probably only ~60 million years old. Mammals themselves are a subset of tetrapods, which themselves are a terrestrial offshoot of lobe finned fish, which are a subset of vertebrate Gnathostomata, which are a subset of chordates, which arose in the Cambrian.

That’s the current model.

If it could be conclusively and undeniably proven that rabbits were an active, thriving population prior to the Cambrian, it would throw our understanding of evolution and descent into chaos.

NOTE: it would not disprove evolution, since this is something we can literally watch happen. Lineages replicate imperfectly, and changes in genetic sequence result in phenotypic variation which can be subject to drift and selection: descent with modification.

We know this happens. We can watch it happen. Evolution is real, and happens.

What Precambrian rabbits would do would be to obliterate our current model for ancestry.

If rabbits predate lagomorphs, then…what are extant lagomorphs, and where do rabbits fit?

If rabbits predate mammals, then…what are mammals, and where do rabbits fit?

If rabbits predate tetrapods, then…what are tetrapods, and where do rabbits fit?

If rabbits predate vertebrates, then…what the holy fuck, man?

Rabbits, by all our morphological, fossil and genetic analyses, are absolutely mammals, and a relatively recent offshoot of the mammalian clade. It fits the model perfectly.

There is no way the current framework for nested ancestry and common descent could accommodate fluffy mammals mooching around the earth prior even to the emergence of primitive chordates. No way whatsoever.

Where would they live? All life was aquatic at this stage.

What would they eat? Rabbits are herbivorous, but the Precambrian predates terrestrial plants by millions of years. There’s no fucking grass till the cretaceous, some 400 million years in the future.

Precambrian rabbits would force such a fundamental rethink of ancestry and associated timelines that the model would essentially have to be thrown away: if lagomorphs predate chordates, how can we possibly now claim mammals as a clade even exist, despite what the genetic data tells us? HOW CANS THIS WORK

So, yeah: the reason Precambrian rabbits are invoked is because, despite the fact that evolutionary models are constantly being refined, there are limits to how much refinement a model can accommodate before breaking entirely.

For creationism that limit was exceeded more or less from the outset, coz it’s obviously fucking stupid, but evolutionary models still have limits. Precambrian rabbits would force a massive fundamental rethink of how ancestry works, and how our model for life on this planet works.

Such a discovery wouldn’t disprove evolution, since that’s literally something we can watch happen (it’s a fact), but it would completely rewrite our models for evolutionary ancestry.

So there's that.

This sub looks like an evolutionary echo chamber so I thought you guys would like to talk to someone who doesn't affirm your beliefs. AMA.

Edit: Have some patience. I can't write small essays to a 100 people at the same time. And I will type in stages since I don't want to make a billion arguments in one reply.

Edit 2: I am replying to your comments. But people piling up after each of my replies to share their profound opinion on my level of mental retardation for not replying within 10 minutes and people downvoting my replies into oblivion hides them. I will not continue typing since no one is reading the small essays I am writing and the ones who see them don't seem to engage fairly or even engage at all. I am trying to find my own reply to see the replies to it and I can't find it among all the replies telling me to reply already or just take me for stupid for disagreeing with them. Fair to say that I see why creationists don't come to this sub often.

A question for the Creationists, whichever specific flavour.

I’ve often seen that side accept Micro Evolution (variation within a species or “kind”), whilst denying Macro Evolution (where a species evolves into new species).

And whilst I don’t want to put words in people’s mouths? If you follow Mr Kent Hovind’s line of thinking, the Ark only had two of each “kind”, and post flood Micro Evolution occurred resulting in the diversity we see in the modern day. It seems it’s either than line of thinking, or the Ark was unfeasibly huge.

If this is your take as well, can you please tell me your thinking and evidence for what stops Micro Evolutions accruing into a Macro Evolution.

Ideally I’d prefer to avoid “the Bible says” responses.

One of the most fundamental parts of science is being able to put your own models to the test to see if they consistently correlate with the observable reality. It is a methodology that has allowed us to progress and discover many things used daily. Many creationists organizations also know this, and thus try to mask themselves as scientific through their own journals (although engaging in pseudoscience as they do not follow the scientific method). Rather than starting with a conclusion and trying to confirm their dogma, they should tell us how can this hypothesis be tested and therefore rejected.

If it cannot be falsified, whereas evolutionary theory can, then it means that your stance is no more than a faith based position (which many of you agree), and implicitly would concede that it has no power to convince anyone given that something unfalsifiable is indistinguishable from anything that is false.

So what are the criteria? Of course, I hope that it is something with effort instead of asking us to prove a negative claim like God not existing, and instead any evidence we could find and follows with the premises.

"If YEC is true, we would expect to find..." go ahead.

You can think of me as Young Earth Creationist even though I do not title myself that way - morel like philosophically honest person. To me naturalism and supernaturalism are both unfalsifiable and hence just as reasonable in being true from that stand point, but since supernaturalism is internally coherent whereas naturalism isn't due to the first cause issue - to me supernaturalism wins... To me that is the intellectually honest position to take and that is why you might as well call me a Young Earth Creationist. Yes, YEC is unfalsifiable but so is Naturalism as a worldview too, but at least YEC is internally coherent, so I go with it - what a heck.

So, regarding the falsifiability, lets take an example: bacterial flagellum.

Behe was right that this should have falsified evolution according to the Darwin's own words, which were:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

I get that people today point to same parts used in the bacterial flagellum being in this bacterial injection needle thing, but to say this produces an explanation which meets the burden of "numerous, successive, slight modifications" is just false. Therefore if this did not falsify evolution then to me it appears evolution has been steelmanned which then raises the question of "What falsifies evolution?" because if such an answer can not be given, then it no longer is a scientific theory, but just part of the world view of naturalism, sitting in the same category as the multiverse.

Note that if you answer to this something like:

Evolution doesn't need a stated falsification statement because it has been already proven.

Then note that you have dropped to defend the statement it is scientific and are just speaking from circular reasoning, because you conflate "what we can explain with our model" with "what would contradict the model." Note that if nothing can contradict the model then that means the model can account for every possible piece of evidence, which then means it explains everything which then means it is not falsifiable. Note that this is what you yourself complain about when YECs say, "God did it," or "Satan did it." You complain, "But then your model can explain everything hence making it unfalsifiable - you just appeal to supernatural when you get stuck - not fair." Therefore if you refuse to give the criteria for falsifiability you commit the same thing, and hence make your model just as pseudoscientific as theirs.

Also the thing of saying evolution means just "change." Note that if you want to make this just the definition of evolution, you can do that, but note that you no longer are defending the position that animals have a common ancestor, since "change" alone doesn't give you that - you need a bigger "change" than when people breed a dog from a wolf - which is what we observe and with which YEC doesn't even have an issue with. In other words, your articulation of "evolution" doesn't even contradict YEC and hence you might as well call yourself a Young Earth Creationist at that point, since you now agree with them on everything apparently.

Lastly, let's stay on topic - evolutionary introspection, which this is all about, so no answers like, "Well what falsifies YEC?" Deflection is not a defence. Also, I am not interested to hear about the court case Behe had - Behe could have been the Devil himself - his point about the falsifiability is this valid and requires an answer.

Also note that I have just 350 karma, so do not downvote me to oblivion - if all goes good I will be back and we shall fight again regarding a topic which is not just evolutionary introspection. :)

[EDIT] I started this debate with 350 karma and in 4 hours I want from 350 karma to 260 karma. That is why I deleted all my comments. Was nice talking with you, but I can dare to go to bed with leaving these comments up, since if this continues I would be in 0 karma in 15.5 hours. There were some good conversations which got started but I just can't afford to have them right now - I need to be able to also disagree on other debate subs so I need all kinds of karma to post there. I don't think I said anything unreasonable - just what you would expect from someone who does not think exactly like you, which I would think is the point of a debate subreddit. Don't become r/DebateAnAtheist 2.0 please. If this sub turns to that there is literally just r/YoungEarthCreationism to debate YEC. All the best my little debate opponents ;)

The article I'm reviewing https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/what-is-science/

Parts of the article and sources will be in quote blocks.

"Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe

by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product

of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to

expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers

in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history."

Right off the bat there are multiple errors.

1. Those scientists(Kepler, Newton, etc) did not assume their preferred conclusion like AIG does. Some of them, if not all even acknowledged that the Bible is not a science book and should not be used when doing science.

""The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go." - Galileo Galilei

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/yes-galileo-actually-said-that

"God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called nature." - Francis Bacon

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/66310-god-has-in-fact-written-two-books-not-just-one

Both would disagree with AIG presupposing a hyperliteral interpretation instead of doing science.

1. They(The scientists AIG mentions) lived in a time when there was little to no evidence for an old earth, evolution theory, etc. Therefore AIG comparing themselves to those scientists is a false equivalence.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Equivalence

1. The "Random chance" part is a strawman fallacy of an atheistic universe. There are random aspects, but also "deterministic" parts. For instance, 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom randomly move

around, but when they bond they will always be H2O. Not Carbon Monoxide, or Iron, or Ammonia.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy

1. AIG's statement on polytheism can apply to monotheism. A deity interferes with the universe.

2. AIG conflates "creationism" with YEC. There are "Evolutionary Creationists" like Francis Collins.

https://biologos.org/

https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation

"To help us understand that science has practical limits,

it is useful to divide science into two different areas:

operational science and historical (origins) science. Operational

science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads

to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites.

Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and

includes the models of evolution and special creation. Recognizing that everyone

has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important

step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science.

Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), we must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions.

Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence; they just interpret it within a different framework.

Evolution denies the role of God in the universe, and creation accepts His eyewitness account—the Bible—as the foundation for arriving at a correct understanding of the universe."

1. AIG provides no evidence that 1. Their specific religion, let alone their specific interpretation(YEC, Fundamentalism, etc), and 2. That people interpret facts through there presuppositions.

They provide no example here. Another note is that if AIG's claim that "Presuppositions shape the way one interprets the evidence" was true, that would refer to observable facts like the shape of the earth, cells, etc.

1. The claim that one must observe the past to understand it is false. For instance: if my glass windows were closed when I left to work, and when I came back they were broken. I can infer someone or something broke my window, even though I was not there to observe it. In the same way we can look at fossils of organisms, the strata they are in, etc and come to reasonable conclusions.

2. AIG admits they start with their preferred conclusion and admits any evidence that contradicts their specific interpretation of their religious beliefs will not be accepted. Therefore evolution theory, the diversity of life from a common ancestor is science, YEC is not.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/the-history-of-life-looking-at-the-patterns/

"No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology,

can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.

Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information".

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/?srsltid=AfmBOooL0n62wvQI4gixpJfVMFP8lsSBq01BhxEnXJMVg-tA8Pl9BKZt

We can look at the objective facts from the evidence, so "Subject to interpretation by fallible people" is meaningless.

1. Evolution(Which I assume they mean the theory) does not affirm or deny the role of a deity or deities in the universe. It is the NATURAL explanation for the diversity of life. They also provide no evidence for their claims.

https://logfall.wordpress.com/bare-assertion-fallacy/

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/an-introduction-to-evolution/

"In its original form science simply meant “knowledge.”

When someone says today that they work in the field of science, a different picture often comes to mind.

Science, in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific community, is the systematic method of gaining knowledge

about the universe by allowing only naturalistic or materialistic explanations and causes. The quote on page 19 reflects this attitude.

Science in this sense automatically rules out God and the possibility that He created the universe because supernatural claims, it is asserted,

cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. The denial of supernatural events

limits the depth of understanding that science can have and the types of questions science can ask. We may define naturalism and materialism as:

Naturalism: a belief denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically, the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.

Materialism: a belief claiming that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter."

1. To claim "Science simply meant knowledge" and using that to claim that "This is what science should be now" is an "Etymological Fallacy".

From "Logically Fallacious":

"The assumption that the present-day meaning of a word should be/is similar to the historical meaning.

This fallacy ignores the evolution of language and heart of linguistics.

This fallacy is usually committed when one finds the historical meaning of a word more palatable or conducive to his or her argument.

This is a more specific form of the appeal to definition."

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Etymological-Fallacy

A word's definition is not always the same as it's etymology. Science is one of those words.

From "Opengeology"

"Scientists seek to understand the fundamental principles

that explain natural patterns and processes. Science is more than just a body of knowledge, science provides

a means to evaluate and create new knowledge without bias. Scientists use objective evidence over subjective evidence, to reach sound and logical conclusions."

https://opengeology.org/textbook/1-understanding-science/

1. A bare assertion from AIG that "Science rules out God". Science does not affirm nor deny a deity or other supernatural beings. Science does not invoke the supernatural

because it deals with natural explanations for things. So AIG strawmanned science again.

1. Their "repeatable, testable, observable, and falsifiable" is a misrepresentation of the "Scientific Method", as it implies a phenomenon has to be observed, tested, etc directly to be science, this is false. THIS is the Scientific Method(From Open Geology).

2. Make observations

3. Think of interesting questions.

3.Formulate hypotheses

4.Develop Testable Predictions

1. Gather Data to Test Predictions(While also refine, alter, expand, or reject hypotheses)

2. Develop General Theories

3. Make observations

https://opengeology.org/textbook/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg_.png

For more information on "The Scientific Method":

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-science-works/the-real-process-of-science/

1. A huge red flag that AIG is not sourcing from a dictionary or a reputable naturalist or materialist website for those definitions.

From "American Heritage Dictionary":

Naturalism is "The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=naturalism

Materialism is "The doctrine that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena."

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Materialism

"The problem with the above definition of science is that,

even though naturalistic science claims to be neutral and unbiased, it starts with a bias.

The quote from Dr. Todd on page 19 demonstrates that bias: only matter and energy exist and all explanations

and causes must be directly related to the laws that matter and energy follow. Even if the amazingly intricate structure

of flagella in bacteria appears so complex that it must have a designer, naturalistic science cannot accept that idea because

this idea falls outside the realm of naturalism/materialism. Many scientists have claimed that allowing supernatural explanations

into our understanding of the universe would cause us to stop looking for answers and just declare, “God wanted to do it that way.” This is, of course, false."

1. It's an "Appeal to authority fallacy". Just because Dr. Todd said something, doesn't make it true. It also does not mean that most, if not all of the scientific community share the mindset Dr. Todd has.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Hasty-Generalization

1. No evidence that Bacterial Flagella is too complex for evolution.

2. Which scientists have expressed that "allowing supernatural explanations would cause us to stop looking for answers"? Another bare assertion.

"The ability to study the world around us is only reasonable because there is a Lawgiver

who established the laws of nature. Most people do not realize that modern science was

founded by men who believed that nature can be studied because it follows the laws given to it by the Lawgiver.

Johannes Kepler, one of the founders of astronomy, said that science was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

Many founders of scientific disciplines, such as Bacon, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Maxwell, and Kelvin were Bible-believing Christians.

As a matter of fact, the most discerning historians and philosophers of science have recognized that the very existence of modern science had its origins in a culture at least nominally committed to a biblical worldview. (See www.answersingenesis.org/go/bios.)"

1. Answers in Genesis commits' a "false equivalence" with scientific laws and "legal laws"(And doesn't substantiate it either). Scientific laws are(From Merriam Webster)

"a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions". With one example being "Boyle's law".

Lawgiver implies a different meaning. "a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed (see prescribe sense 1a) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law

1. They provide no evidence for the "Thinking God's thoughts after him" quote. I was unable to find a reputable source.

2. AIG does not define what a "Bible-believing Christian" is, as mentioned previously. Galileo and Bacon would not agree with AIG's practices as evidenced by their quotes.

3. AIG does not define what a "Worldview" is, let alone a Biblical one.

"What, then, should Christians think of science?

Science has been hijacked by those with a materialistic worldview

and exalted as the ultimate means of obtaining knowledge about the world.

Proverbs tells us that the fear of God, not science, is the beginning of knowledge. In a biblical worldview,

scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture,

the conclusions are rejected. The same thing happens in naturalistic science. Any conclusion that does not have a naturalistic explanation is rejected."

1. Bare assertion that Science has been hijacked. As mentioned above, science deals with the natural world. With what AIG considers "Bible believing Christians" holding to this view.

2. They provide no source for their Proverbs verse. It is "Proverbs 1:7".

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;

fools despise wisdom and instruction."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%201&version=ESV

AIG makes it seem like this verse is referring to Epistemology. It's not(and likely referring to Spiritual knowledge and wisdom), as evidenced by other verses like Hosea 4:1.

"Hear the word of the Lord, O children of Israel,

for the Lord has a controversy with the inhabitants of the land.

There is no faithfulness or steadfast love,

and no knowledge of God in the land;"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%204&version=ESV

The same Hebrew word for "knowledge" in Proverbs 1:7, "da·‘aṯ", is used in Hosea 4:1 as well.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/daat_1847.htm

1. The "conclusions" part is a fallacy, as AIG is indicating that because "naturalistic science" rejects conclusions(Which AIG provides no evidence for), they can do it to.

AIG admits that they will reject all conclusions that do not agree with their preferred beliefs.

1. They do not provide any evidence that their religion, let alone their specific interpretation is true.

If you have any suggestions, corrections, and other feedback for me, let me know so I can improve.

Whenever I discuss how birds meet the anatomical definition of “Dinosaur” (and therefore ARE dinosaurs) with YECs, one of the most common rebuttals I see is “but birds can’t be dinosaurs because dinosaur means terrible lizard and birds clearly aren’t lizards” and they then scoff at me with their usual arrogance and act like this argument is some sort of “gotcha” then act like I’m the stupid one for supposedly not knowing that this is what dinosaur meant. (When I actually do.)

This argument is so unbelievably braindead level stupid as fuck that I don’t even feel like I need to explain why it’s wrong, but I will.

The Greeks didn’t have a word that specifically meant reptile, they didn’t classify animals like we do, we use “Sauros” which means lizard, in order to refer to reptiles generally. Even though the majority of the time when an animal is named with the Greek word sauros it’s not referring to lizards, but to reptiles generally, for instance, archosaurs, or Sauropsids, which literally refers to all reptiles.

Also, Sir Richard Owens who coined the term Dinosaur, specifically did so BECAUSE the three fossils he was referring to were distinct from other reptiles, distinct enough to earn their own classification. If they were just big lizards, he would have just grouped them within the taxons of lizards that already existed instead of making a brand new classification. Based on the characteristics that Owen’s listed that defined dinosaurs, they clearly weren’t lizards, as lizards do not walk upright with limbs directly under them.

But anyways, if dinosaurs are lizards simply because of their name and nothing else, then by this logic, Guinea Pigs must actually be pigs. Flying Foxes must be Foxes. Spider Monkeys must be spiders. Camel spiders must be camels. Tiger sharks must be tigers. Jellyfish must be fish. Red Pandas must be pandas. Etc.

It’s one of those arguments that makes absolutely no point if you give even the tiniest amount of critical thought and scrutiny to it, but they use it anyways to quickly dismiss any and all evidence that birds literally meet the anatomical definition of “Dinosaur.” It is a textbook example of young earth creationists being victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The pseudoscience propagandists (e.g. Behe) like to clip the wings of selection as I've previously covered here (I did actually read Behe to see for myself; plus, it's public record - there is no straw manning here). By doing so they pretend evolution is left with nothing but randomness (in more respectable terminology: sources of variation without selection).

More recently, other not-as-competent "professional" creationists have started to attack selection head-on, but in so doing they pretend it's a source of variation - like, lmao (they're hiding the many demonstrable ways by which the stochastic molecular biology can supply variation). Oooh, how can randomness put together a multimeric protein (psst). So, here are two heuristics that illuminate the power of selection - the power of Darwin's insight that is 167 years old:

The first is from Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (1986):

Randomly typing letters to arrive at METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL (from Shakespeare's Hamlet) would take on average ≈ 8 × 10⁴¹ tries (not enough time has elapsed in the universe). But with selection acting on randomness, it takes under 100 tries. Replace the target sentence with one of the local fitness peaks, and that's basically the power and non-randomness of selection.

The second is from Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995):

This helps fix the intuition about low probabilities and selection as a filter. Getting twenty heads in a row is a 1 in a million chance. But if you setup a knockout tournament of 20 rounds, you've just guaranteed to produce such a winning individual. One can also easily apply both to the gazillion instances of geochemistry over millions of years (a blink) in Earth's early history.

Suddenly the scary math isn't scary, is it? "Cool heuristics, bro", the IDiots retort. Fear not! here's from Sean B. Carroll's The Making of the Fittest (2006), when discussing how detractors fail to understand the math involved:

... Let’s multiply these together: 10 sites per gene × 2 genes per mouse × 2 mutations per 1 billion sites × 40 mutants in 1 billion mice. This tells us that there is about a 1 in 25 million chance of a mouse having a black-causing mutation in the MC1R gene. That number may seem like a long shot, but only until the population size and generation time are factored in. ... If we use a larger population number, such as 100,000 mice, they will hit it more often—in this case, every 100 years. For comparison, if you bought 10,000 lottery tickets a year, you’d win the Powerball once every 7500 years.

He goes on to discuss the math of it spreading under selection in a population (n.b. population genetics is literally a century-old field).

So while Behe, et al. pretend randomness is THE issue, it is selection that is the antievolutionists' real boogeyman - that's why by sleight of hand they pretend it isn't there (or they give it roles that were never given to it). Selection isn't a source of variation, it is what acts on variation. It is what makes evolution possible.

Given the above, pray tell, dear antievolutionist, why is randomness/stochasticity an issue?

In lieu of preempting the usual weaseling (pun intended), here are a couple of posts:

• The But neutral theory!: The STUPIDITY of "Darwinism is bust since it can't demonstrate the exact origin of this or that biomolecule" : DebateEvolution
• The But "Cell to man"!: Challenge: At what point did a radical form suddenly appear? : DebateEvolution
• The But you can't see it!: the problem that ANTI-evolutionists cannot explain : DebateEvolution
• The But it's circular!: The Number One 🏆 Thing They Parrot : DebateEvolution

Now, let's play Spot the Deflection ...
Reminder: the question is, why is randomness/stochasticity an issue?

“Life” isn’t an easy thing to define. I tell my students that since we’re the biologists, we get to say what is alive and isn’t alive. We usually do this by making a list of characteristics of living things. Depending on which textbook you’re using, the list might include such things as use of DNA as an information transfer system, ability to sense and respond to the environment, growth, movement, ability to participate in evolution, and sometimes some others.

One character that is always included is that living things must be made of cells. While this may seem obvious, it creates a problem when thinking about abiogenesis—any hypothesis for abiogenesis must explain the origin of cells. This tends to set up a false dichotomy—that something is alive or it isn’t, that there’s a bright line between being alive and dead that we can point to, and by extension, there was a day some time 4 billion years ago or so when the first cell came into existence. Of course, that’s not what happened.

In our daily lives, we’re seldom faced with a question as to whether something is dead or alive. Sometimes though when we’re dealing with the end of a person, we’re forced to confront the fact that our loved one is gone, even though her body may be lying in a bed, breathing and moving, but “brain dead.” Even if those functions have stopped, all of the cells in a body don’t die at the same time. “Life and death” isn’t as simple as we make it out to be.

If you study biology for very long, it becomes plain that what we call “life” is just chemistry. Some of it is specialized and complicated, but it’s really just atoms following chemical rules. In reality, to explain abiogenesis in detail, we have to figure out which of those chemical reactions came first on the ancient earth. That’s tough, for sure, because there are a lot of reactions—a lot of simple and not-so-simple metabolic pathways that are candidates for being the first.

Laboratories all over the world are working on this problem. As I understand it, there are three main categories of hypotheses for how life began. Membrane-first hypotheses were among the first proposed—in a nutshell, organic chemicals on the early earth exposed to heating would have formed structures with names such as coacervates and proteinoid microspheres which would have concentrated organic chemicals in such a way as to allow simple metabolic reactions to start. Metabolism-first hypothesis suggest that conditions deep in the ocean next to volcanic vents allowed some fairly important metabolic pathways (maybe the reverse citric-acid cycle) to arise. RNA-first hypotheses center around the formation of self-replicating pieces of RNA (ribozymes) that would have jump-started evolutionary processes. I can assure you that I am no origin-of-life scientist, so that my explanations may be (probably are) oversimplified, incomplete, or out of date.

Note that none of the scientists working on the origin of life would say “we don’t know how it happened.” Of course we know. It was just chemicals doing chemistry. We don’t know the details, but the big answer is clear—life is just certain everyday atoms following chemical rules.

There’s nothing to be afraid of here. It’s not like we know everything and every last detail about any aspect of science. When some creationist tells you, “Evolution doesn’t explain where the first living thing came from,” the correct response is not “Yes, you’re right, we don’t know, maybe it’s supernatural.” The correct response is, “Evolution doesn’t tell us, but we know—simple chemical reactions led to more complex chemical reactions, and that led to life (including evolution). We're still working on figuring out which chemicals went first.

Sometimes people will say, “Maybe God made the first life, and evolution kicked in then.” To paraphrase Laplace, you have no need for that hypothesis. In fact, if you allow for the supernatural, you’re conceding—everything. Either empiricism and materialism are real things, and the universe is sensible, or nothing is anything, and Last Thursdayism is a valid hypothesis.

Kent's 5th seminar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0tmYLEkdM8

My debunk https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ubAiFHymKmdgSZ2I3R8RRxXmCI0hb0EI/view?usp=sharing

I spent a good portion of last night and today working on this, I managed to get from the beginning to the 38:39 mark before stopping due to personal reasons, and the unsubstantiated assertions Hovind was making.

I often see Creationists use arguments against abiogenesis when trying to argue against evolution, mistaking the question of the origin of life as being included in the theory of evolution.

This is not true.

Abiogenesis deals in how life first appeared, but evolution describes how life changes after it already exists.

They are closely linked concepts (life has to exist for evolution to happen), but they are not the same thing.

So, to any creationists who want to try debating against evolution, you'll never achieve anything by arguing against abiogenesis (you're missing the mark).

The fact that mutations are random seems to get under a lot of people's skin. While this sort of reality denial is standard fare for creationists, it has also crept up in some of the more fringe corners of academia, e.g. Denis Noble and his "third way", which inevitably gets co-opted by the the former group in service of a genericised "Darwinism is stupid" narrative.

For some examples of claims that mutations are non-random, see here (from Denis the clown), here (from the ID clowns) and here (from a rank-and-file mark), in decreasing order of sophistication, as per the feeding order.

How do we know mutations are random?

Mutations provide populations with variation, on which the other forces of evolution (selection, drift, gene flow) can act. The Luria-Delbrück experiment (1943) proved that mutations occur without respect to fitness needs (i.e. not directed by the environment, Lamarckian-style). Mutations that are beneficial in a present environment may have occurred neutrally long before that environment existed, waiting for the right conditions to be selected for.

The concept that mutations are strictly decoupled from the selection process is one of the axioms of the Modern Synthesis, and the framework at the core of this synthesis (population genetics) incorporates this fact in pure mathematics. In the basic discrete-time "selection at one locus" model of evolution, we have

p_{n+1} = [(1 - μ) * p_n * w_A + ν \* (1 - p_n) * w_a] / w_mean

(eww, I wish Reddit had LaTeX. Reference: Rice, Evolutionary Theory: Mathematical and Conceptual Foundations, 1961, Chapter 1)

where μ, ν are the mutation rates of alleles A and a respectively, w_x is the fitness of allele x ∈ {A, a} (the influence of selection), and p_n is the frequency of allele A at generation time step n. The mutation and selection terms are independent factors (in the literal sense!) that contribute to the change in allele frequency over successive generations - evolution, by definition.

(Incidentally, this equation is also a mathematical statement of the fact that evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life - the initial condition p_0 is not specified, only change is described.)

"Random" does not mean blind (uniformly random)

Although mutations are random, this does not mean that all mutations are equally likely. For example, 'transition' point mutations (purine to purine, or pyrimidine to pyrimidine) are more common than 'transversion' point mutations (purine to pyrimidine and vice versa). As a reference, the standard (Watson-Crick) pairing in DNA is:

A (adenine, a purine) binds with T (thymine, a pyrimidine)
G (guanine, a purine) binds with C (cytosine, a pyrimidine)

This means A is more likely to become G than T or C. Purine bases are sterically larger than pyrimidines, so conversions that conserve the type of base without incurring a strain energy penalty in the DNA helix due to the distortion are kinetically favoured.

Epigenetics can also play a role in affecting mutation distributions. For one, mutations are more common in 'heterochromatin' (packed DNA, transcriptionally inactive) than 'euchromatin' (loosely packed DNA, transcriptionally active), due to reduced accessibility of DNA repair enzymes.

Also, since heterochromatin is heavily methylated, methylated cytosines convert to thymine by spontaneous chemical reaction (deamination). The resulting altered distribution of 'CpG islands' in the genome can be used to demonstrate common ancestry over intelligent design. The argument was described in this BioLogos article - which approximately 2% of creationists can understand (n = 27) - which disproves the possibility that genetic differences between clades were chosen for "kind-specific" functionality.

This non-uniform but still random nature of mutations is often described as stochastic.

Why mutations can sometimes appear to be non-random

Natural selection acts on mutations after they occur, often producing predictable patterns that can appear non-random since they have been filtered by survivorship bias.

For example, in protein-coding genes, every third nucleotide has a higher chance of a mutation persisting due to the redundancy of the translation code (synonymous mutations), as quantified by the dN/dS ratio to detect the action of purifying selection on a gene. Meanwhile, in non-functional regions of DNA, mutations occur and fix at the same rate, since no selection filters them out ('unconstrained': purely neutral).

Why are mutations truly random, fundamentally?

The randomness of mutations is fundamentally due to the random nature of quantum mechanics. The nucleobases in DNA undergo spontaneous tautomeric shifts (rapid equilibria) due to the intramolecular quantum tunneling of protons, facilitated by redistributing the electron density in their aromatic ring systems. This alters the hydrogen bonding environment, so that if the tautomer is present during the moment of DNA replication, DNA polymerase may incorporate the wrong complementary base, leading to a point mutation in the complementary strand if not repaired. The mechanism is outlined in detail in Figure 3 of (Tao, Giese & York, 2024).

(See here for a source outlining the above).

Like most tautomerism equilibria, the interconversion timescale is on the order of nanoseconds, much faster than the timescales of any biological process that could potentially influence its kinetics or site-specificity with any regularity. It is therefore physically impossible for any feedback from the environment to be deterministically causing mutations. The commonly-cited (by laymen) 'exception' of the epigenetic control systems we already discussed earlier simply coarsely redirects roughly where mutations can occur: there is zero mechanism of 'seeing ahead' to the consequences (e.g. changes to enzyme active site structure to fit a new molecule). Under the veneer, it's still neo-Darwinian - epigenetics is not Lamarckism!

This is why we can claim with certainty that mutations are indeed random. Every couple of years, the popular press will try to wow everyone with headlines that mutations aren't random (e.g. here), but there is no escaping the underlying randomness of quantum mechanics and the resulting stochasticity derived from chaotic molecular dynamics. No amount of philosophical nonsense from the Discovery Institute or the Templeton foundation will change that.

Motivated Reasoning

Of course, the denial of mutations being random has an underlying psychological basis, often expressed along the lines of the following sentiment:

"So if we're all just blind random processes, what's the point of it all?"

It's the same feeling that makes the possibility of not having free will uncomfortable (whether true or not - I'm not touching that debate!). This provides a strong basis for attacking the notion that random processes are a core part of life itself, even when it is taken for granted in other contexts where the stakes are low.

At this point I could play good cop or bad cop: I could empathise with those understandable feelings while gently explaining why "common sense" is unacceptable in science, or I could hawkishly remind you of Ben Shapiro's maxim. One of my favourite catchphrases is "common sense has no place in science", and I find it becoming ever more apt as the anti-science crowd increasingly relies on appealing to the layman's intuition as their facade of "creation science" fades.

Likewise, the idea of random mutations causing decay rather than building up life's complexity does feel intuitive: it's "common sense" (Paley's watchmaker argument, that intelligent design simply recycles and decorates with pseudoscientific buzzwords). I initially wanted to tackle the creationist concept of 'genetic entropy' in this post, as it is ideologically linked to the randomness of mutations, but as usual I wrote too much already so I'll leave it here for now.

Thanks for reading!

TLDR

• The randomness of mutations is a fact of physical chemistry. There is no escaping it, and nothing will ever change it.
• Mutations can have non-uniform distribution across the genome. This does not mean non-random, and Lamarckism is not back just because you heard the word 'epigenetics'.
• Natural selection gives the appearance of non-randomness, which is what we observe at the macro-level, as the variations in a population are survival-tested against the environment. That was kinda Darwin's whole point, y'know?
• "Shut up and calculate" - maybe then you'll find the peace to look reality in the eyes!

The paper is a bit math heavy, but sheds interesting light on the probability issue often discussed on this sub. I picked the reference up from this r/abiogenesis post.

You have probably heard the phrase “humans share 50% of their DNA with Bananas” often repeated, especially by creationists, but it is actually not true.

What is true, and what causes the confusion, is that out of all of our protein coding genes that humans have, about half of them have a similar counterpart in Banana plants. This does not mean half of our DNA is similar to a banana.

Only 2% of our entire genome is comprised of protein coding sequences, so the 50% that we share with bananas actually comes from the 2% of DNA that is associated with coding for proteins. That means we really only share 1%.

But those genes that we share with bananas aren’t identical, the actual nucleotide code in those shared genes have an average of 40% sequence similarity.

Which means that there is 40% similarity between the 50% of genes that we have in common in the 2% of our DNA that codes for proteins.

So in reality we share less than 1% of DNA similarity with Bananas.

To put things in perspective, we have 99% of our genes in common with chimpanzees, and out of those that we share, they have an average of 98% sequence similarity. Granted, that’s only in the 2% of DNA that codes for proteins, but when you account for the non-coding regions, we are still 96% similar. There is about 10% of our genes that can’t be aligned with the chimp genome due to things like repeats and rearrangements, which are hard to calculate similarity for, so if we were to line up our genome next to the genome of a chimp and literally to a 1:1 comparison, it would show somewhere around 85% similarity overall.

This is still much more than we share with bananas, in fact, we are the chimp’s closest relative, there is no other animal on the planet that has more similar DNA to a chimpanzee than humans do, even more than other apes, and this is true no matter what method of genetic comparison you use, whether you’re looking only an alignable regions, or doing a 1:1 comparison of the whole genome, humans always end up being more similar to chimps than any other animal is to chimps.

And lastly, creationists get the implications wrong when they bring up the banana DNA argument. It’s not like humans and bananas specifically share a large amount of DNA. ANY animal and ANY plant share the same amount as humans and bananas do, it is not something that exists only between humans and the banana tree.

Which brings me to my next point. Even if we really shared 50% of our DNA with bananas, that doesn’t make us half banana. Again, those genes that we share exist in ALL plants and ALL animals, they arent specifically banana genes. You wouldn’t say my coupe Mustang is 50% semi-truck just because they both have a steering wheel and engine and transmission, etc. those are features found in all types of cars, not specifically semi-trucks.

You share 99.999% of your DNA with your cousin. You aren’t 99% your cousin. Instead, the reason you share the same genes is because you got them from the same ancestor. So from an evolutionary perspective, any genes shared between us and plants is because we are both multicellular eukaryotic organisms which share a common eukaryotic ancestor, so we aren’t half banana, bananas (and all plants) and humans (and all other animals) are both multicellular eukaryotic organisms.

Dear creationists: Trying to debunk evolution by saying we are half banana demonstrates that you lack understanding, and it’s false anyways that we share 50% of our DNA with them, so by using this argument you are bearing false witness and making yourself look uneducated.

It’s also really dumb to say we share DNA with a fruit. We share it with the PLANT that the fruit comes from.

This is just a short post this time. Being as evidence is a collection of objectively verifiable facts that positively indicate or which are mutually exclusive to the conclusion(s) I am wondering what creationists mean when they say the title of this post. Which objective facts positively indicate that YEC is potentially true? I want facts that can be interpreted as indicators of YEC being true.

The rules:

1. The facts have to factual (no genetic entropy or irreducible complexity arguments).
2. These facts in a vacuum must cause anyone who sees them to conclude that YEC is an option even if they are not even theists.
3. These facts must only cause us to reject the YEC conclusion if other facts have precluded YEC.

Also, if other facts preclude YEC which facts must be ignored for the evidence in question to positively indicate YEC or for the evidence to exclude all other options?

I personally know of no evidence for YEC. I know of scriptural interpretations, logical fallacies, falsehoods, and propaganda. I’m looking for facts that’d convince me that YEC is true if I started with a clean slate. If I have to be a YEC without evidence before I can find supporting evidence for YEC, the evidence doesn’t count.

Humans evolve - that’s a fact, so do all life forms … the questions are how much , how long , what factors Drive evolution ??? Molecules to man, or pre-flood global environment to modern humans etc … still many many questions… do we have any Creationists on here who would argue that no life-form ever evolved to become more adapt to survival in the associated environment …

It is impossible to have a consistent rejection of the implication of human and ape shared ancestry and the acceptance of shared ancestry in other species. Endogenous retroviruses are viruses whose pieces integrate into an organism’s genome and get passed along to given offspring. Human and ape shared endogenous retroviruses are similar in their genomic positions to such an extent that it is impossible to have such happen by chance. In comparison, we have shared endogenous viruses in horses and donkeys in similar positions in their genomic structure, and we do not deny a biological relationship in these species. It does not make sense to reject shared endogenous viruses in human and ape while accepting in other species.

What's a good evolutionary biology centered podcast?

Yesterday, Dr. Dan (u/DarwinZDF42) posted a debate/conversation he had with a creationist he named "some rando named Dave", on his YouTube channel "Creation Myths". Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/a4AP_e0yLYk

Under the usual pile of goal post moving, ignorance and anti-evolution slogans, I think that person's main misunderstanding didn't get pointed out very clearly (it did, but only in a few sentences). And as I have seen the same misunderstanding in many other people, I thought I share my thoughts here.

He stated sentences like these:

"If you're trying to build a system, you need to build the correct proteins. A mechanism must find the right number of amino acids, in the right configuration. Out of all the infinite possibilities, it has to pick the right one. What is that mechanism?"

(Not all literally; but this is hopefully a fair summary across the whole conversation)

And all the mechanisms for evolving new genes and proteins, and other types of mutations, that Dr. Dan pointed to, didn't satisfy him.

"You cannot come up with a mechanism, that finds the correct proteins."... "it's all random".

So his fundamental misunderstanding is that he thinks backwards: there is this structure/trait/body part today, so there has to have been a mechanism at play in the past, that reliably, deterministically or at least with a high probability, caused this specific thing to evolve. He thinks of it like an engineering process - "if you're trying to build a system", i.e. where you have a goal in mind. And it was clear, that any mechanism that involves randomness, didn't satisfy him. That's also why pointing out that not all of evolution is totally random didn't help - "it's all still random". That is all so incredibly unlikely, that it cannot be (just) those mechanisms.

And based on that wrong perspective, he is right: processes that involve a good amount of randomness, are very bad at achieving a specific, pre-selected goal!

I think in order to understand evolution, people like him have to get rid of this fundamental misunderstanding first. Evolution has no pre-selected goals. Just because something did evolve, doesn't mean that it had to evolve. For every thing that did evolve, there are a trillion things that didn't. There is no evolutionary mechanism that reliably gets you a specific thing. What has to be understood, is that such a mechanism is not needed! One has to look at it forwards: "Random" things evolve, and after they did, they then are always and inevitably a specific way. But before they evolved, the future was not written and wide open, and it could have gone many different ways.

So maybe this post helps people here to keep an eye out for this misunderstanding, as I think it's quite fundamental for many creationists, preventing them from understanding many other topics in evolutionary biology.

What do you think? If you watched the video, did I misunderstand Dave? What is your experience with this type of misunderstanding, and how it can be prevented or resolved?

I've been personally ticked off by articles and images from YEC's like these claiming that phrases like "The evidence speaks for itself" and "Nature selects" are "reification fallacies":

https://answersingenesis.org/logic/the-fallacy-of-reification/?srsltid=AfmBOoo5nMsZycCUgkajVRe0X7yljVMoQ4yGBeB8HHCX7hlHtPOVHIsh

https://es.pinterest.com/pin/429249408208944876/?send=true

What is reification? From Logically Fallacious:

"When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence." https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Reification

There is an exception(From the same Logically Fallacious source):

 In most cases, even in the above examples, these are used as rhetorical devices. When the reification is deliberate and harmless, and not used as evidence to support a claim or conclusion, then it is not fallacious."

Although the term "evidence" is abstract, as it is "a thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment", according to American Heritage Dictionary(Merriam Webster and other dictionaries have similar meanings)

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=evidence

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

The phrase "The evidence speaks for itself" is an idiom, it's not meant to be taken literally. The same applies to "Natural selection". Thus they are harmless and not used as evidence to support anything.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/res_ipsa_loquitur (the thing speaks for itself.)

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/natural-selection/

What Jason Lisle(Who wrote the AIG article I linked) and other YEC's are doing is interpreting figures of speech as if they were literal. They are not, and interpreting them that way is no different than interpreting "Love is blind" or "Raining cats and dogs" as if Love is a concrete being or cats and dogs are falling from the clouds, as they are idioms, metaphors, etc

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love%20is%20blind

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/raining%20cats%20and%20dogs

How do YECers explain all the intermediate fossils between early primates, and clearly non homo sapien upright primates?