On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

If one studies human evolution, which is my area of specialization [physical anthropology], one can VERY clearly see where in general human apes appear to come from around 6-7 million years ago. Even 3-4 million years ago, an Australopithecus walking down the street would certainly get attention as there's lotsa differences as compared to today's humans but yet were still very much human. Back then, no one ever yet found looks largely like we do today.

It's an older book but let me recommend "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris. It so much influenced me that I eventually got a graduate degree in Anthropology and taught it for 30 years. I'm not patting myself on the back here but merely saying that Morris' book so impressed me so as to follow in his footsteps, although mine are a lot smaller than his.

I have questions regarding the dating process and analysis of what might be considered as the natural progression from what is said about early forms/types of humanoids (if that is a word) to homo sapiens.

 

[YoursTrue]

@metis -- to be honest I would like to question an author of a treatise or book advocating what is considered the natural progression of humans plus more.

 

[YoursTrue]

So God created the physical laws and constants by which all these processes operate, but can cancel them and do some magical manipulation when He wants to? Am I following correctly?

Q: Why do you believe god created/instituted these circumstances? Does admitting "I don't know" discomfit you?

If you want me to follow your thinking in this, I suggest you leave out the word magic. Because since I believe God is the Creator, He can cause miracles to occur without causing harm, if that is His will.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you believe the universe is all that exists and time is a dimension of it. Therefore you conclude that since time is a part of the universe there is no outside of the universe.

That being the case you will never figure out where the universe came from, until you run out of time as the duration between your birth and death will have expired.

Enjoy,

Cool story, bro. The post you are replying to however, concerns biological evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not see the real evidence that fish became apes in the long run

DNA.

Tiktaalik doesn't do it as far as I am concerned.

Tiktaalik exhibits both fish as well as tetrapod traits. Exactly as one would expect from a transitional from sea to land life.
It was found by prediction also. The prediction included location, age and anatomical features.
So yeah, it definitely is evidence of the evolution of sea to land life.

Be that as it may, however, thank you for your response which was respectful, and that is where I close right now.

You're gonna close? Without answer my questions, which I repeated 3 times now?
Here's a 4th time:

On Evolution & Creation

No. There was not a time when the universe did not exist and a later time when the universe began to exist. You mustn't think of the universe as having a beginning in time. Time itself, or, rather space-time, is as much an integral part of the universe as mass-energy, so the universe has existed...

www.religiousforums.com

P.S. When I say that I believe lifeforms mutate, I am talking about things like dogs interbreeding, and humans interbreeding and producing populations of some with characteristically long or short limbs within the general population, sometimes tribal characteristics.

What else would you mean?

Perhaps something along the lines of "dogs NOT remaining dogs"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you would like me to answer, could you please repeat your questions. I will do my best. Sorry if I don't remember what your questions were, but if you are going to be abusive please realize I may opt out from any response. Thanks.

It's in the link that was included and reposted several times now.
Here, I'll copy paste for your convenience:

@YoursTrue Friendly reminder to answer these 2 simple questions about the statement "finches remain finches"

1. does the statement support or contradict evolution theory?
2a. if it supports the theory, why does it support it?
2b. if it contradicts the theory, why does it contradict it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One of the paradoxes of evolution is the evolution of proofreader enzymes, in light of the theory of mutations and selected evolution? The proof readers enzymes correct any mutations that result during DNA duplication. Natural selection, by evolving proofreader enzymes was trying to get rid of the randomness within DNA replication, or else why evolve proofreader enzymes designed to fix these errors? The proof reader can see the improper base pairs by their energy signal; higher potential than proper base pairing.

The work around is the proofreader enzymes are only active when the DNA is duplicated, so they will still miss environmental changes on the DNA between DNA duplication cycles, such as by viral insertions or other environmental changes. This suggests a more real time connection to the environment fueling the selected change.

In terms of irreducible complexity, modern humans cells will not function without the organelles called the mitochondria. However, the mitochondria are able to function by themselves.



Right now the theory for mitochondrial in modern cells is two existing things merge, but now only the mitochondria are self sufficient if separated. The question is how did the majority of the modern cell form, before the mitochondria entered, and why is it now no longer self sufficient? And what is the proof? Or did the Mitochondria act as a hub, allowing the rest of the modern cell to form as an extension of itself? The irreducible complexity arguments infers the last theory. It can be applied to theoretical biology.

In terms of humans, only the female passes the mitochondria forward; eggs. The male provides the other half of the DNA. Sperm DNA get the mitochondria support, through it own insertion into the nucleus. The mitochondria energy output is key to the cell cycle. This suggests the main DNA was not very functional until it had the extra energy supply via the Mitochondria. Virus do a similar but smaller dance than sperm cells. Virus are irreducibly complex but can get beyond that by piggy backing on a viable host, adding its own DNA to the host.

"Irreducible complexity" is a ridiculous argument that has been debunked almost instantly after it was first introduced.
It's no more or less then an argument of ignorance, at best.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One reason in reference to what you call small changes is that humans remain humans

For crying out loud.....................................

On Evolution & Creation

From what I see here on these forums, few if any here who embrace the theory of evolution can answer questions from those who do not believe it, except to call those who do not accept the theory as taught by evolutionists ignorant and the like. And you honestly believe this? What do you think...

www.religiousforums.com

Seriously, when will you ever learn?
The answer seems to be "never".

In my opinion there is no direct evidence to show that humans are evolving to anything than humans right now.

If they would, evolution would be DISPROVEN

I don't know how many more times this point needs to be repeated.... Probably forever. And it still won't sink in.

And I believe I can safely say the same thing for finches. Despite the fact that finches may intermingle and change to an extent, at a certain point I believe they cannot intermingle with others. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think now.

Yes, you are wrong. As I have been pointing out to you on a near weekly basis for more then 3 years now.

 

[metis]

@metis - I worked for a publishing firm associated with Desmond Morris. NYC. Not in an editorial capacity but knew some of the editors well enough.

The Desmond Morris I'm referring to was a Brit. Desmond Morris - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

I have questions regarding the dating process and analysis of what might be considered as the natural progression from what is said about early forms/types of humanoids (if that is a word) to homo sapiens.

@metis -- to be honest I would like to question an author of a treatise or book advocating what is considered the natural progression of humans plus more.

Why is it that you "question" the well-established science on evolution, which is also plain old common sense, but not the accuracy of the Bible? You are using a strong double-standard.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is it that you "question" the well-established science on evolution, which is also plain old common sense, but not the accuracy of the Bible? You are using a strong double-standard.

As I have said, and I know some do not believe me, I understand the theory*. It is, however, in contrast to what the Bible says about creation, abiogenesis, and life. Evolution yes, leaves out the idea of God as the Maker and Creator of the heavens and the earth. As I have said going to church did not encourage me to believe in God, in fact it was not a guiding force at all for mylifecourse except that I thought the music was beautiful and I was a professional singer in a large church. I still listen to Handel's Messiah sometimes. I won't go into it now. Only my study of the Bible with someone who helped me through helped me become a different person. What does that mean? Perhaps another discussion since I don't like long posts. But I think you get the point. To say that God did not create the various forms of life in reference to their "kind" rather than say the lifeforms evolved by natural causes without an intelligent force behind it all would be a different course, however you want to take that to mean. Do I believe that Jesus performed miracles when he was walking on this earth as a human being? Yes, of course. Perhaps later I will be more explicit, but -- it can constitute a different subject. And yes, I do not understand everything in its exactitude that the Bible says but -- I do not contest what it says.
*That does not mean I know everything the theoreticians or scientists say in conjunction with the theory. Do fruit flies have brains? Yes, astoundingly scientists have evidently recently found they have intricate brains.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is it that you "question" the well-established science on evolution, which is also plain old common sense, but not the accuracy of the Bible? You are using a strong double-standard.

Here is how I am going to answer you now at this point: doctors can recommend medication but not all patients respond well to the medication.

 

[metis]

Evolution yes, leaves out the idea of God as the Maker and Creator of the heavens and the earth

No, it does not!!! The ToE is entirely neutral as to whether there was Divine creation of not, so why do you keep repeating your falsehood above??? Why???

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it does not!!! The ToE is entirely neutral as to whether there was Divine creation of not, so why do you keep repeating your falsehood above??? Why???

She also claimed to understand the theory when her questions again and again show that she does not.

 

[icant]

While you're here can you define "kinds". I would enjoy that more.

Why not it is a subject a lot of people like to bring up, but when I give the answer they don't like it.

Every creature we have on earth today was called out of the water in Genesis 1:20 after exactly what had died in the flood that existed at Genesis 1:2 which occurred some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. I am sure He provided what modern man was going to need and none of the others heard His call.

Now what or how many different creatures God formed from the dust of the ground during the eternal day that was past I have no idea, and He did not say. But I imagine that all kinds of creatures or their fragments have been found.

Now if you want me to put a figure in numbers of years that existed during that light period, it was one day according to what God told Moses. All I can say is it lasted from the beginning to Genesis 1:5.

And just in case you have a question about dinosaurs they did not exist at Genesis 1:2 I don't know how far back in the light period it was to where they went extinct. Or anything else went extinct.

You got any other Biblical question that need to be answered?

Enjoy,

 

[John53]

Why not it is a subject a lot of people like to bring up, but when I give the answer they don't like it.

Every creature we have on earth today was called out of the water in Genesis 1:20 after exactly what had died in the flood that existed at Genesis 1:2 which occurred some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. I am sure He provided what modern man was going to need and none of the others heard His call.

Now what or how many different creatures God formed from the dust of the ground during the eternal day that was past I have no idea, and He did not say. But I imagine that all kinds of creatures or their fragments have been found.

Now if you want me to put a figure in numbers of years that existed during that light period, it was one day according to what God told Moses. All I can say is it lasted from the beginning to Genesis 1:5.

And just in case you have a question about dinosaurs they did not exist at Genesis 1:2 I don't know how far back in the light period it was to where they went extinct. Or anything else went extinct.

You got any other Biblical question that need to be answered?

Enjoy,

I still need "kind" defined because I don't understand your answer. Is it the same as species?

 

[icant]

f one studies human evolution, which is my area of specialization [physical anthropology], one can VERY clearly see where in general human apes appear to come from around 6-7 million years ago. Even 3-4 million years ago, an Australopithecus walking down the street would certainly get attention as there's lotsa differences as compared to today's humans but yet were still very much human. Back then, no one ever yet found looks largely like we do today.

But modern humans have only been here for around 10,000 years.

So what you were studying was what God had formed from the ground or at least his descendants.
But you have something in you that those creatures did not have. You have an eternal spirit dwelling in your body.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

I still need "kind" defined because I don't understand your answer. Is it the same as species?

According to evolution theory man was on the earth millions of years ago.

That tells me the man you are talking about is not a modern man. Modern man has only been on earth for about 10,000 years.

There is a kind of human flesh.
There is a kind of animal flesh.
There is a kind of fish flesh.
There is a kind of fowl flesh.

How does that grab you?

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

No, it does not!!! The ToE is entirely neutral as to whether there was Divine creation of not, so why do you keep repeating your falsehood above??? Why???

You say the ToE does not take God out of the picture.

What do you do about a human being spawned by and animal?

That can't happen as they have different kinds of flesh.

Enjoy,

 

[Pogo]

According to evolution theory man was on the earth millions of years ago.

That tells me the man you are talking about is not a modern man. Modern man has only been on earth for about 10,000 years.

There is a kind of human flesh.
There is a kind of animal flesh.
There is a kind of fish flesh.
There is a kind of fowl flesh.

How does that grab you?

Enjoy,

Good for a chuckle but does nothing to define kind. Is my kind of flesh different than yours?
What is the difference between kinds. and so on?