More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[ratiocinator]

Much of the conclusions are conjectural to fit them into a preconceived notion of emerging kind.

False. And also the word 'kind' is an undefined creationist term, not one from evolutionary theory - which suggests that you may have been reading creationist propaganda sources rather than the real evidence.

Genetic transferences certainly have power to change the appearance of an individual, including populations or groups, such as skin color. Some call this evolution of the Darwinian kind, I no longer do. Humans with dàrk hair are still humans. They are not gorillas.

Firstly, the use of the word 'kind' again suggests your source. Secondly, what do you think stops lots and lots of small changes from adding up to very large ones? Thirdly, you've been given references to genetic evidence by myself (Genesis and the Genome - pdf) and others many times and you just ignore it.

 

[Valjean]

Have you read them? I believe you believe in evolution because chemicals of the body change, organisms are affected by these changes and the philosophy of the theory convinces you that it just happened by rote that way.

Again, if you want to understand the mechanisms and evidence of evolution, I can steer you to sources, simple or technical; your choice.
If you don't want to understand; if understanding threatens your faith, so be it, but please stop promoting these fantastic færie tales as objective fact.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, apparently they do. The Bible says the soul can die. Frankly, that makes far more sense to me than the idea of a soul leaving a body and going into another body. Again, the change of genetics, such as hair color or tallness or shortness in a population, does not, to me, mean evolution of the Darwinian theoretical kind.
Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Actually, my preferred hypothesis doesn't involve individual souls attached to individual bodies. I suspect a single, universal sea of consciousness, permeating reality like gravity or mathematics. Life taps into this consciousness like different electrical devices to the mains.

 

[Valjean]

I have read many of the reasons pro-evolution. Much of the conclusions are conjectural to fit them into a preconceived notion of emerging kind. Genetic transferences certainly have power to change the appearance of an individual, including populations or groups, such as skin color. Some call this evolution of the Darwinian kind, I no longer do. Humans with dàrk hair are still humans. They are not gorillas.

Explain ring speciation. Explain the observed development of distinct species within our lifetimes, or observed speciation in the lab.

Speciation really happens. Small changes accumulate into big changes, like new, mutually unintelligible languages developing from a single proto-language -- without any generation perceiving its parents or children speaking a different language.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.

Thank you.
Do you know that the Bible says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam's body after He made Adam's body?
Genesis 2:7 says, "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being." (Or soul, depending upon the translator regarding the Hebrew word which is sometimes translated as soul OR life.)
The famous King James version says: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
In the Bible, the 'breath of life' is highly associated with the word soul. Paul clarified that the body of Adam came first, then the life, or soul. A dead body isn't breathing, is not alive.

 

[YoursTrue]

Explain ring speciation. Explain the observed development of distinct species within our lifetimes, or observed speciation in the lab.

Speciation really happens. Small changes accumulate into big changes, like new, mutually unintelligible languages developing from a single proto-language -- without any generation perceiving its parents or children speaking a different language.

God endowed humans with special qualities. Different from other organisms. Each in its own type of consciousness, or world of thought or activity.
The Bible says that God created animals according to their kind. Birds, according to their kind, water creatures according to their kind and so forth.
Genesis 1 verses 20-21 says:
Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens. And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind."
So water creatures were created to live according to their kind, same with flying creatures. According to their kind.

 

[Valjean]

God endowed humans with special qualities. Different from other organisms. Each in its own type of consciousness, or world of thought or activity.
The Bible says that God created animals according to their kind. Birds, according to their kind, water creatures according to their kind and so forth.
Genesis 1 verses 20-21 says:
Then God said: “Let the waters swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens. And God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind."
So water creatures were created to live according to their kind, same with flying creatures. According to their kind.

You're preaching, not explaining anything. This doesn't even address the mechanism of evolution. It just cites an agent.
In other words: "Goddidit!"

What mechanism(s) did your god use?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

More news to ponder over -- scientists pondering once again -- "“Maybe brain size isn’t all it’s cracked up to be,” said Hawks. “It opens the door for us to say that maybe they were more capable than we might assume; maybe it isn’t just (brain) size.”
Uh huh -- maybe it's not just brain size. Maybe.
Homo sapien’s ‘Shadow’ Species --"Hints We May Have Had Story of Evolution All Wrong" | The Daily Galaxy

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
I am somewhat concerned by 'scientists pondering once again' though. That's a particularly strange turn of phrase.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you.
Do you know that the Bible says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam's body after He made Adam's body?
Genesis 2:7 says, "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being." (Or soul, depending upon the translator regarding the Hebrew word which is sometimes translated as soul OR life.)
The famous King James version says: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
In the Bible, the 'breath of life' is highly associated with the word soul. Paul clarified that the body of Adam came first, then the life, or soul. A dead body isn't breathing, is not alive.

Yes I know.

 

[Astrophile]

It's just there. Because the interim emergence of a new, different species has no concrete explanation in terms of changing of genomes. At least my friend Leeuwunhoek was able to see microbes fabulously under a microscope. But no one can see one distinct form changing to another.

Deleted.

 

[Astrophile]

It's just there. Because the interim emergence of a new, different species has no concrete explanation in terms of changing of genomes. At least my friend Leeuwunhoek was able to see microbes fabulously under a microscope. But no one can see one distinct form changing to another.

I was talking about genetic similarities, not about the emergence of 'a new. different species'. Presumably you accept that the genetic similarities between, for example, an Australian aboriginal and a New Zealand Maori are due to their descent from a human common ancestor. Why then do you not accept that the genetic similarities between a human and a chimpanzee, or between a chimpanzee and a gorilla, are due to their descent from a simian common ancestor?

 

[YoursTrue]

I was talking about genetic similarities, not about the emergence of 'a new. different species'. Presumably you accept that the genetic similarities between, for example, an Australian aboriginal and a New Zealand Maori are due to their descent from a human common ancestor. Why then do you not accept that the genetic similarities between a human and a chimpanzee, or between a chimpanzee and a gorilla, are due to their descent from a simian common ancestor?

For one thing, tribal similarities such as aborigine or Hutu do not change the fact they are humans. The proof of genetics is there now as far as them staying human. That is not evolution as far as the Darwinian concept.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was talking about genetic similarities, not about the emergence of 'a new. different species'. Presumably you accept that the genetic similarities between, for example, an Australian aboriginal and a New Zealand Maori are due to their descent from a human common ancestor. Why then do you not accept that the genetic similarities between a human and a chimpanzee, or between a chimpanzee and a gorilla, are due to their descent from a simian common ancestor?

There has been no proof of that. For one thing.

 

[Valjean]

For one thing, tribal similarities such as aborigine or Hutu do not change the fact they are humans. The proof of genetics is there now as far as them staying human. That is not evolution as far as the Darwinian concept.

But recent speciation has been observed, both in nature and the lab, has it not?
How do you explain that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, my preferred hypothesis doesn't involve individual souls attached to individual bodies. I suspect a single, universal sea of consciousness, permeating reality like gravity or mathematics. Life taps into this consciousness like different electrical devices to the mains.

Yeah -- well --

 

[YoursTrue]

But recent speciation has been observed, both in nature and the lab, has it not?
How do you explain that?

Finches still stay birds and in the finch family.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was talking about genetic similarities, not about the emergence of 'a new. different species'. Presumably you accept that the genetic similarities between, for example, an Australian aboriginal and a New Zealand Maori are due to their descent from a human common ancestor. Why then do you not accept that the genetic similarities between a human and a chimpanzee, or between a chimpanzee and a gorilla, are due to their descent from a simian common ancestor?

Because they're not human, chimpanzees are not gorillas. When it is demonstrated beyond question I'll believe gorillas, humans, chimps and bonobos came from a common ancestor.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because they're not human, chimpanzees are not gorillas. When it is demonstrated beyond question I'll believe gorillas, humans, chimps and bonobos came from a common ancestor.

It has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. I have now posted a link to an article about just a small part of the genetic evidence in reply to you at least three times, probably four, the latest being in #101, and I'm not the only one who's given you links to detailed evidence. Nobody can force you to look at the evidence but if you don't, why should anybody take your claims about the lack of evidence at all seriously?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Finches still stay birds and in the finch family.

Because that's how evolution works. It produces variations WITHIN the taxa. Hence why humans are descended from apes, because humans are a variation of ape. Apes are descended from mammals, and are a variation of mammals. Mammals are descended from vertebrates, and are a variation of vertebrates. And vertebrates are descended from eukaryotes, and are a variation of eukaryotes.

The "x is still x" argument is not evidence against evolution. All it really does is demonstrate that you have absolutely zero knowlege of how evolution works and what evolutionary theory states.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is correct, the Theory of evolution was not premised on DNA, which of course, Darwin had no knowledge about, so he couldn't have predicated his assumptions on that.

He did, however, predict that some system of heredity which allows for blind modification would have to exist. Some mechanism that passes on slightly modified traits to the next generation.

DNA is exactly that.

But even if the DNA counts were available at that time, it wouldn't make a difference in presuming that each type (I say this about 'kind,' such as fish, land animals, birds) were results of evolution from the beginning of life burgeoning on the earth.

Before DNA, the tree of life was an extrapolated assumption. After the discovery of DNA, the tree of life became a genetic fact.

We factually share ancestry with every other animal on the planet that has ever lived, still lives and ever will live.

Why? Because -- other than presumption, dna counting, there's nothing to show that things evolved as Darwin had it.

Well, that's just flat out false.

DNA is by far the best evidence off course. But there's also comparative anatomy, the fossil record, geographic distribution of species / traits, etc. And all of it lines up.

When you have multiple independent lines of evidence, from different fields even, all converging on the exact same answer.... It doesn't get any better then that.

And as said already, DNA makes common ancestry of species a genetic fact.