Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[Autodidact]

It seem to me that what is troubling you (didn’t know that were other confused ones) it the concept of God eternity and that He is not affected by time, what ID say is that God’s commands for thing to be took millions of our years to developed, time as humans know it is their own invention, God is not subjected to this measuring tool, thus TOE theory doesn’t disprove the existence of the designer.

No, emiliano, that doesn't trouble me at all. We are confused because you keep contradicting yourself. I am guessing that is because you do not completely understand ToE. If you want to, one super good source is Evolution, the Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer. It's a beautiful book and provides very clear explanation of ToE.

As to what ID says, I'm going to guess that you're confused about that, because it takes a lot of study to parse out the lies from the sciencey sounding crap they're spewing. They are professional liars and I advise you to stay as far away from them as possible. Theologicaly, you will end up with God-of-the-gaps, which is to say shrinking God. You don't want that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Emiliano,

This show the How of evolution and the purpose is that at one stage this mutation was to happen, it was designed that way

Things are not so because you say they are. All you've done is say "It was designed" and when asked how you came to that conclusion, you answer, "It was designed". Not very compelling.

I don't know why it happen to some kind of the apes and not others. Do you know?

Mutations are random; they just happen. Or are you trying to argue that every mutation is under the direction of a god?

I don't believe that this is an accident because it is obvious that it isn't accidental but purposeful that's how I made the difference

Again you seem to be expecting everyone to accept your word as unquestioned gospel. Exactly why is the translocation of human chromosome 2 "obvious that it isn't accidental"? What specifically about that makes you conclude a god had something to do with it?

ou said that the fused chromosomes fit perfectly and that prove that fusion took place

Not quite. I said the evidence from the chromosomes themselves are exactly what we would expect if human chromosome 2 were the result of a fusion between two other chromosomes.

what about the other apes, do they have these chromosomes and why didn’t they fuse

See answer above. So do you think anything happens all on its own, or do you believe a god is required for everything?

 

[Jose Fly]

Painted Wolf: "Fuse a chimps chromosomes like ours and you don't end up with a human being... you end up with a chimp with fused chromosomes. There were a lot of other changes that had to happen that make us human beings."

Emiliano: "That is not what Jose wrote."

I wrote no such thing. You've obviously misunderstood my post.

What I wanted to point out to Jose is that the fact that they fit does not prove that it happened that way that his conclusion is speculative

You're contradicting yourself again. When I posted a summary of the data showing that human chromsome 2 is a result of a fusion of "chimp" chromsome 2p and 2q, you agreed and stated that "evolution is true and self-evident". But now you're saying that the conclusion is "speculative"? You need to make pick a position and stick with it.

 

[Autodidact]

emiliano: We know how and why mutations happen. You can't copy DNA over and over and prevent them from happening. It's like if I copy out a long book, and give my copy to someone else to copy by hand; they're going to make some errors. Their errors will be passed on to the next copyist, who will make a few more, and so forth. It would take divine intervention to prevent them from happening.

You get errors when a piece of DNA gets turned around, or when the wrong base protein accidentally gets substituted, just like accidentally writing "bike" instead of "bake." (I'm sure painted wolf can explain this better than I.) Anyway, my point is that it's not a mystery.

 

[themadhair]

Why dung beetles? Because they evolved to fill a niche. Let me explain this a bit.

All creatures on this planet are competing for the resources needed in order to reproduce. Dung, as disgusting as it may seem to human eyes, is a resource. The dung beetle was simply the most successful creature to corner this niche, and will continue to hold its crown of the dung until either a more successful dung beetle, or maybe even another creature entirely, out-competes it.

There can often be tremendous advantage for a creature if it adapts to a specialised niche that isn’t under heavy competition. That is what you see in nature – cutthroat competition for any and all resources by creatures of all different adaptations.

 

[LittleNipper]

emiliano: We know how and why mutations happen. You can't copy DNA over and over and prevent them from happening. It's like if I copy out a long book, and give my copy to someone else to copy by hand; they're going to make some errors. Their errors will be passed on to the next copyist, who will make a few more, and so forth. It would take divine intervention to prevent them from happening.

You get errors when a piece of DNA gets turned around, or when the wrong base protein accidentally gets substituted, just like accidentally writing "bike" instead of "bake." (I'm sure painted wolf can explain this better than I.) Anyway, my point is that it's not a mystery.

Errors in DNA cannot make angels from pigs given 1 billion billion years. However, it can be a cause of individuals being disease prone no matter if they are tall, short, ugly, or rather handsome.

 

[painted wolf]

Errors no... but not all mutations are 'errors'... biology is a wonderful thing.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

Errors in DNA cannot make angels from pigs given 1 billion billion years. However, it can be a cause of individuals being disease prone no matter if they are tall, short, ugly, or rather handsome.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans

 

[Autodidact]

Errors no... but not all mutations are 'errors'... biology is a wonderful thing.

wa:do

Well, whether beneficial, nuetral or detrimental, aren't they all errors just in the sense that they are not an exact copy of the parent DNA?

 

[zodiacseven]

I posted in another area but nobody really answered. How does the bible explain dinosaurs and other human like lifeforms and creatures that pre-date the human form that exists today?

 

[Tristesse]

I posted in another area but nobody really answered. How does the bible explain dinosaurs and other human like lifeforms and creatures that pre-date the human form that exists today?

The creationists state that humans and dinosaurs lived during the same period. Kinda like the Flintstones.

 

[themadhair]

I posted in another area but nobody really answered. How does the bible explain dinosaurs and other human like lifeforms and creatures that pre-date the human form that exists today?

Book of Job 40:15-24

 

[Tristesse]

Book of Job 40:15-24

That passage is so vague, it speaks more of an elephant or a hippopotamus.

 

[themadhair]

That passage is so vague, it speaks more of an elephant or a hippopotamus.

That passages doesn't describe a tail like a cedar tree either. Rather a tail that stiffens like a cedar tree.

 

[emiliano]

ToE is not meant to, nor should it be used to refute the existence of "god/gods/designer". I believe this has been pointed out many times.
What it does refute is a literal translation of the Old Testament used by Young Earth Creationists, and Intelligent Design proponents. Or using "Godidit" as an excuse for unscientific claims.

That's what makes Autodidact persistence in bringing this up in response to my posts, so strange as I believe that the earth is billion of years old, I also believe that the creation account in Genesis is allegorical and suitable for the people of Moses times. Now to your replay “What it does refute is a literal translation of the Old Testament used by Young Earth Creationists, and Intelligent Design proponents. Or using "Godidit" as an excuse for unscientific claims. I have said this several times now, the book of genesis is not a scientific treatise, and ID is a Philosophical work, the earliest done by W. Paley and in simple tern it just says that evolution is evident and science is discovering how God designed it. What this theory does is to obliterate the straw man present in the discussions that say that all Christians believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis and Young Earth theory. And as you know we have even discussed the RCC papacy views on the issue and they do not disbelieve evolution. So why do replied to my post?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Mutations are random; they just happen. Or are you trying to argue that every mutation is under the direction of a god?"

Precisely so.

You guys keep missing his point. There are NO accidents.

GodDidIT! From gravity to the color of your nailpolish.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So why do replied to my post?

You said TOE does not disprove God, I responded by saying TOE has nothing to do with God. Although many YEC and ID proponents feel that TOE is a threat to their beliefs, and therefor will reject accepted scientific theory.

 

[emiliano]

ToE says that the explanation for why creatures appear to be designed is that they evolved via descent with modification plus natural selection to fit their ecological niches. It provides a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design. Another way to put this would be to say that ToE is the mechanism for achieving God's design through natural means, not God magically directing that design. If you assert that this natural process: undirected mutations plus natural selection, cannot account for the apparent design, then you are arguing against ToE.

Now I don’t know what make you think that ToE says that the explanation for why creatures appear to be designed is that they evolved via descent with modification plus natural selection to fit their ecological niches. I search it and found that there are different kinds of OETs but none like you said, what do they call this theory?
I found these ones:
Progressive Creationism: they don’t believe in evolution
Theistic Evolution.: These ones believe in evolution and ID
The Gap Theory:

"Intelligent Design," or ID. You can find themes of intelligent design in both old and young-earth theory. The basic premise is that the universe and our world shows overwhelming evidence that it was designed by some higher being, and could not have happened by chance.
http://www.answersincreation.org/old.htm

 

[Luminous]

‘Missing link’ likely to stir debate - LiveScience- msnbc.com

 

[emiliano]

I wrote no such thing. You've obviously misunderstood my post.
You're contradicting yourself again. When I posted a summary of the data showing that human chromsome 2 is a result of a fusion of "chimp" chromsome 2p and 2q, you agreed and stated that "evolution is true and self-evident". But now you're saying that the conclusion is "speculative"? You need to make pick a position and stick with it.

My position is that Humans have evolved, that today's humans are different from humans that lived hundred of thousand of years ago, that they are evolved human not apes that evolved into humans, I don't believe that human are evolved apes any more than I believe that apes evolved from monkeys and that they in turn evolve from Lemurs.