On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

Over generations, there are little changes.

OK...

From one generation to the next, the changes are so small that they do not warrant being called a different species.

Except that I think there are species of finches.

But over many generations, the changes add up.

If you have Species A, and then 100 generations later it's slightly different so you call it Species B, and then 100 generations it's slightly different again so you call it Species C and so on until you get to Species Z, then the difference between any two consecutive species is going to be so small that you can call them sub-species.

But if you compare Species A and Species Z, then you'll see that they are so different that you would call them completely different species.

And if you did it over even longer lengths of time, you'll get even more drastic changes. Eventually you'll get to a point where you'd say they shouldn't be called fruit flies any more.

Thank you, I understand the concept. However, I disagree at this point in reference to changes from let's say fish to mammals because scientists may conclude what they do but there really is no distinct evidence of that, despite Tiktaalik.

 

[YoursTrue]

It does neither.

Just because one had a changed beak and could not make the proper mating for the other females does not change then from being finches.

Enjoy,

I do understand that different species of finches have appeared recently. Yet, of course, they are still -- birds of the "finch" type--whatever--to say that it stops with those whatever's that do not/cannot interbreed is literally saying that there is no justification for the imagination that fish evolved to mammals. If there was evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt I would believe it. But there is not except for what some say and teach as truth. One might use reasoning and/or their logic, but there truly is nothing beyond the imagined logic between the framework some have devised yet cannot be ascertained beyond doubt with reality as well as drawing from whatever they call evidence.

 

[icant]

You really didn't pay attention in school did you?

you just said that because two sources make the same claim it has to be considered as fact. well more than two sources have the same idea about how the sun transverses the sky therefore their claim should be given the same consideration of being a fact as the virgin birth.

Sorry about saying sun instead of earth. My fingers couldn't see what I was saying.

ITs the fact that it is unable to mate with a member of its parent species that marks it as a new species

Its not they could not mate that would have been possible.
The only problem was they could not talk to each other nothing else had changed.

actually genetic studies of drosophila melanogaster the fruit fly evolved about 66 million years ago in the late cretaceous period from a carrion eating fly. They could not have existed earlier as before that time there was no fruit.

I thought there was always Fruit

 

[Valjean]

icant said:
Just because one had a changed beak and could not make the proper mating for the other females does not change then from being finches

But the tiny variations in each subsequent generation, accumulating over thousands of generations, are quite capable of eventually producing something unrecognizable as an example of the prototype, no?

 

[Valjean]

Many of the plants and animals we see today did not exist millions of years ago, and many of those from millions of years ago do not exist today. Species become extinct, and new species appear. Do they just poof into existence out of thin air?
There is no evidence of this poofing.
Noöne's ever observed this happening.
There is no known mechanism by which this might happen.
Given the sufficiency of the known, observable mechanisms, any further interventions would be unneeded.

So why believe this happens?

 

[icant]

I do understand that different species of finches have appeared recently. Yet, of course, they are still -- birds of the "finch" type--whatever--to say that it stops with those whatever's that do not/cannot interbreed is literally saying that there is no justification for the imagination that fish evolved to mammals. If there was evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt I would believe it. But there is not except for what some say and teach as truth. One might use reasoning and/or their logic, but there truly is nothing beyond the imagined logic between the framework some have devised yet cannot be ascertained beyond doubt with reality as well as drawing from whatever they call evidence.

Hi, Yours True

Yes they are many different species of animals and birds but there is only one species of mankind. Or at least that is what I thought until I started visiting sites this one.

But the problem that faces evolution is that evolution has no source of life to start with. So life beginning from non-life has to first be accepted as fact. Then mankind becomes can elevate himself to be equal with God which is what the woman in the Garden wanted "to be like God'. The man thought she was going to die so he chose to eat the fruit and die with her. But she had broken no law and would not have died if the man had not eaten the fruit.

Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So since there is no higher power than man, then he can choose to do anything his heart desires with no consequences.

So, since mankind can just accept "life is" he can then study it and choose to believe anything he wants to believe.

The same thing goes for creation. They have to accept the universe just is".

I have said many times anything that could create this universe and everything in it would be God.


So Enjoy and may God Bless each and everyone of you .

 

[Argentbear]

OK...

Except that I think there are species of finches.

Thank you, I understand the concept. However, I disagree at this point in reference to changes from let's say fish to mammals because scientists may conclude what they do but there really is no distinct evidence of that, despite Tiktaalik.

sure there is evidence, you just have to honestly look at it

 

[Argentbear]

I do understand that different species of finches have appeared recently. Yet, of course, they are still -- birds of the "finch" type--whatever--to say that it stops with those whatever's that do not/cannot interbreed is literally saying that there is no justification for the imagination that fish evolved to mammals. If there was evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt I would believe it.

Your use of the phrase "If there was evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt I would believe it." betrays your intent that no matter what evidence is presented no matter how well supported you would choose to deny the evidence and make false claims about it.

But there is not except for what some say and teach as truth.

an example of a false claim. There is evidence one just needs to be honest when looking at it.

One might use reasoning and/or their logic, but there truly is nothing beyond the imagined logic between the framework some have devised yet cannot be ascertained beyond doubt with reality as well as drawing from whatever they call evidence.

And here you are denying the evidence.

 

[Argentbear]

Sorry about saying sun instead of earth. My fingers couldn't see what I was saying.

and are we now going to ignore the point i made?

Its not they could not mate that would have been possible.
The only problem was they could not talk to each other nothing else had changed.

No their SNA has altered enough that it can't produce viable offspring. Just like chimpanzees and gorillas can't mate not because they may not find one another romantically attractive but their DNA won't mix

I thought there was always Fruit

Nope. the first fruits developed in the late cretaceous period. Evolution in action

 

[Tiberius]

Then why do we call them fruit flies today?

Enjoy,

Because that's what they are today.

Go back far enough, and you'll see that modern fruit flies and other modern flies shared a common ancestor. Go back further and you'll find the common ancestor between modern fruit flies and modern mosquitoes.

Now, the whole "organisms only evolve within their kind" idea would say that if the modern species is a fruit fly, then the ancestor species must also have been a fruit fly.

But, since this ancestor species is also the ancestor of mosquitoes, then you should be claiming that mosquitoes are fruit flies as well.

Of course, this is clearly not the case.

It's more accurate to say that the ancestor species lived about 200 million years ago. It would have been something we would recognise as a flying insect. We probably wouldn't call it a fruit fly, nor would we call it a mosquito.

Over time, some of these insects adapted in a way that led them to evolve into modern fruit flies, with little tiny changes each generation, and over the last 200 million years these changes added up.

But others adapted to deal with different pressures, and those ones had different changes, and they, over many generations, because modern mosquitoes.

But we couldn't call that ancestor species a fruit fly, because it didn't have the fruit fly traits yet. Nor could we call it a mosquito, since it hadn't developed the mosquito traits.

 

[Tiberius]

Except that I think there are species of finches.

And there are.

Generally speaking, a population is referred to as a different species if they are reproductively isolated from each other. In other words, they don't interbreed. This can be due to behaviour, such as two species of birds that are genetically compatible, but don't display the correct mating signals to others. Or it can be due to genetic incompatibility, in that they can't produce fertile offspring.

Thank you, I understand the concept. However, I disagree at this point in reference to changes from let's say fish to mammals because scientists may conclude what they do but there really is no distinct evidence of that, despite Tiktaalik.

Well, let's start with a fish.

This fish can adapt to be able to breath air for some of the time. This has happened, we have fish today like lungfish that live in areas where the water can have low oxygen levels, so they are able to gulp air to provide enough oxygen for them. This would clearly have an advantage.

The next development could be the ability to move across short stretches of land. Again, we have fish that are like this today, such as the mudskipper. And this also provides an advantage, giving the fish the ability to move to a different body of water if their original waterhole starts drying up.

Fish can also develop sturdier fins that can act as legs (we have examples of this today as well).

And from there it's easy to see how an animal with these traits can get develop them to a greater degree and become rather amphibian-like, right?

And from amphibians, it doesn't require too much to become more and more reptile like, and from there they can develop mammalian characteristics.

I'd also like to point out that those scientists have spent their entire careers studying this kind of thing. You're not really qualified to say that they are wrong.

 

[Astrophile]

What is so irreconcilable about them?

Let's examine the two stories point by point.

Matthew doesn't say anything about Zechariah and Elizabeth or the birth of John the Baptist.
He doesn't say anything about the appearance of the angel Gabriel to Mary, or about Mary's visit to Elizabeth and Zechariah.
He doesn't say anything about the taxation in the time of Quirinius (6 AD), or about Joseph and Mary travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
He doesn't say anything about the appearance of the angels to the shepherds.
He doesn't say anything about the proclamation of Jesus by Simeon and Anna in the Temple in Jerusalem. (This story, in Luke 2:22-38, is quite irreconcilable with the story of Herod searching for Jesus to kill him.)

Luke doesn't say anything about Joseph deciding to break off his engagement to Mary, or about an angel telling him in a dream that he must marry her. (Was this before or after Mary's visit to Elizabeth and Zechariah?)
He doesn't say anything about the Magi and the star, or about Herod's inquiries and his instructions to the Magi.
He doesn't say anything about the flight into Egypt or the killing of the children of Bethlehem.

Matthew (2:1) implies that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born, and he says (Matthew 2:22-23) that they moved into Galilee only to be out of Archelaus's jurisdiction. Luke clearly says (1:26-27, 2:3-4, 2:39-40), that they were living in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus, that they had to go to Bethlehem for the registration, and that they returned to Nazareth after completing the legal formalities.

Matthew was a tax collector for the Romans and a record keeper of the Jews and wrote hid account as a Historian.
Luke was a physician and wrote from a physician's view.

According to modern scholars, all four gospels are anonymous, none of their authors were immediate followers of Jesus, and the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written between 80 and 100 AD, about a hundred years after Jesus's birth. Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark, who says nothing about Jesus's birth being unusual.

They both talk about a virgin conceiving and bringing forth a child.

Jesus himself, as a man, never said anything about his birth being unusual, and there is nothing in the gospels about his mother's opinion on the matter.

Is your problem the fact that they both talked about a virgin giving birth and you don't think that it is possible for a virgin to conceive?

Not necessarily; it is not my subject. The only virgin I am interested in is the one between Leo and Libra. However, according to my understanding of genetics, it is not possible for a woman, with two X chromosomes, to become the mother of a son (who has an X chromosome and a Y chromosome) without the help of a man.

It is, it is possible for any virgin alive today to have a child. Science made that possible.
That is called artificial insemination.
God the Holy Spirit placed God the Son in Mary's womb. The first artificial insemination preformed by God Him Self.

Begging the question. You have to have evidence that there is a God before you can say that he placed Jesus in Mary's womb.

What is it about that, you can't understand?

Enjoy,

Honestly, you Christians amaze me. You are willing to believe something about a woman who lived in a far-away country 2000 years ago that you would not believe of your own sister, daughter or niece.

 

[Audie]

Let's examine the two stories point by point.

Matthew doesn't say anything about Zechariah and Elizabeth or the birth of John the Baptist.
He doesn't say anything about the appearance of the angel Gabriel to Mary, or about Mary's visit to Elizabeth and Zechariah.
He doesn't say anything about the taxation in the time of Quirinius (6 AD), or about Joseph and Mary travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
He doesn't say anything about the appearance of the angels to the shepherds.
He doesn't say anything about the proclamation of Jesus by Simeon and Anna in the Temple in Jerusalem. (This story, in Luke 2:22-38, is quite irreconcilable with the story of Herod searching for Jesus to kill him.)

Luke doesn't say anything about Joseph deciding to break off his engagement to Mary, or about an angel telling him in a dream that he must marry her. (Was this before or after Mary's visit to Elizabeth and Zechariah?)
He doesn't say anything about the Magi and the star, or about Herod's inquiries and his instructions to the Magi.
He doesn't say anything about the flight into Egypt or the killing of the children of Bethlehem.

Matthew (2:1) implies that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born, and he says (Matthew 2:22-23) that they moved into Galilee only to be out of Archelaus's jurisdiction. Luke clearly says (1:26-27, 2:3-4, 2:39-40), that they were living in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus, that they had to go to Bethlehem for the registration, and that they returned to Nazareth after completing the legal formalities.

According to modern scholars, all four gospels are anonymous, none of their authors were immediate followers of Jesus, and the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written between 80 and 100 AD, about a hundred years after Jesus's birth. Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark, who says nothing about Jesus's birth being unusual.

Jesus himself, as a man, never said anything about his birth being unusual, and there is nothing in the gospels about his mother's opinion on the matter.

Not necessarily; it is not my subject. The only virgin I am interested in is the one between Leo and Libra. However, according to my understanding of genetics, it is not possible for a woman, with two X chromosomes, to become the mother of a son (who has an X chromosome and a Y chromosome) without the help of a man.

Begging the question. You have to have evidence that there is a God before you can say that he placed Jesus in Mary's womb.

Honestly, you Christians amaze me. You are willing to believe something about a woman who lived in a far-away country 2000 years ago that you would not believe of your own sister, daughter or niece.

Oh, they can believe / disbelieve way mare remarkable things.

 

[gnostic]

Matthew (2:1) implies that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born, and he says (Matthew 2:22-23) that they moved into Galilee only to be out of Archelaus's jurisdiction. Luke clearly says (1:26-27, 2:3-4, 2:39-40), that they were living in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus, that they had to go to Bethlehem for the registration, and that they returned to Nazareth after completing the legal formalities.

Those were exactly my points about Bethlehem. I have made similar points in past threads.

Bethlehem was their home, during the pregnancy and when Jesus was born, Matthew. They only went to Nazareth, after leaving Egypt. That differed from gospel of Luke, as they were living in Nazareth already, which contradicted the gospel of Matthew.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi, Yours True

Yes they are many different species of animals and birds but there is only one species of mankind. Or at least that is what I thought until I started visiting sites this one.

I am going with the Bible. There is one human race and I strongly doubt there are various "species" of humans. From my understand all humans distinctly and firmly only humans come from Adam and Eve. I know that will cause dissension among many -- but that is how I now believe.

But the problem that faces evolution is that evolution has no source of life to start with.

And, of course, those interested and involved in scientific experimentation can imagine and even try to simulate anything like they think (such as the Miller-Urey experiment) conditions were in the early atmosphere. But of course they don't know and their experiment produced a fuzzy mess.Which I'm only conjecturing that some might say a fuzzy mess/mass that appeared eventually become a cell which eventually multiplied, etc. Of course that's what they think and possibly believe.

So life beginning from non-life has to first be accepted as fact.

Exactly. And many are unwilling to accept the fact that life began via the term 'abiogenesis,' which no man can prove/show or demonstrate that life on earth began that way. Which is why I think some esteemed scientists have figured yes -- maybe an alien ship deposited something on earth that started the whole thing.

Then mankind becomes can elevate himself to be equal with God which is what the woman in the Garden wanted "to be like God'. The man thought she was going to die so he chose to eat the fruit and die with her. But she had broken no law and would not have died if the man had not eaten the fruit.

I believe she did break God's instruction. She believed what the devil using the serpent to approach her said. She did what she knew God said not to do.

Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So since there is no higher power than man, then he can choose to do anything his heart desires with no consequences.

So, since mankind can just accept "life is" he can then study it and choose to believe anything he wants to believe.

The same thing goes for creation. They have to accept the universe just is".

I have said many times anything that could create this universe and everything in it would be God.


So Enjoy and may God Bless each and everyone of you .

Hi again, icant, I like your sign off -- To reiterate, yes, it says because of one man -- God could have given Adam another wife, but Adam must have loved her more than he cared for God and he knew Eve was going to die so chose to die along with her instead of depending upon God. Thank you for your comments.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because that's what they are today.

Go back far enough, and you'll see that modern fruit flies and other modern flies shared a common ancestor. Go back further and you'll find the common ancestor between modern fruit flies and modern mosquitoes.

Now, the whole "organisms only evolve within their kind" idea would say that if the modern species is a fruit fly, then the ancestor species must also have been a fruit fly.

Not necessarily. But I really do believe that fruit flies are not birds. Maybe you or scientists think they are, I don't know right now.

 

[gnostic]

Not necessarily. But I really do believe that fruit flies are not birds. Maybe you or scientists think they are, I don't know right now.

flies are insects, insects are invertebrates of the arthropod kind, meaning the soft tissues are encased in exoskeletal chitin. Meaning there are no bones or bone tissues in any arthropods.

Birds are tetrapod vertebrates, with bones for skeleton. Where the tissues (muscles and skins) covered the bones.

Where bones are made of bone tissues, hence they are actual cells, where as chitins are made of polysaccharides (a form of carbohydrates), bonded together to form polymer of acetylglucosamine. Meaning, chitins are not made of cells.

You have turned what Tiberius said, and fabricated insect-bird connection, another strawman. I have read Tiberius’ post, and he made no mention of birds, YoursTrue, and used fruit flies and mosquitoes as an example; no birds. Why do you lie so frequently?

 

[YoursTrue]

flies are insects, insects are invertebrates of the arthropod kind, meaning the soft tissues are encased in exoskeletal chitin. Meaning there are no bones or bone tissues in any arthropods.

Birds are tetrapod vertebrates, with bones for skeleton. Where the tissues (muscles and skins) covered the bones.

Where bones are made of bone tissues, hence they are actual cells, where as chitins are made of polysaccharides (a form of carbohydrates), bonded together to form polymer of acetylglucosamine. Meaning, chitins are not made of cells.

You have turned what Tiberius said, and fabricated insect-bird connection, another strawman. I have read Tiberius’ post, and he made no mention of birds, YoursTrue, and used fruit flies and mosquitoes as an example; no birds. Why do you lie so frequently?

So glad you say flies are insects. Being you know so much more than I do about the process, is it said that insects were not always insects or that insects become something other than insects? I mean it is taught by evolutionists that fish became humans in the long run. How about insects? Do they say that insects evolved to something other than insects, although of course, some do profess that humans are fish, so whatever you say -- could be the current scientific thinking. Thanks, gnostic. Take care.

 

[gnostic]

And, of course, those interested and involved in scientific experimentation can imagine and even try to simulate anything like they think (such as the Miller-Urey experiment) conditions were in the early atmosphere. But of course they don't know and their experiment produced a fuzzy mess.Which I'm only conjecturing that some might say a fuzzy mess/mass that appeared eventually become a cell which eventually multiplied, etc. Of course that's what they think and possibly believe.

Wow, now you are expert in biochemistry & molecular biology.

The only “fussy mess”, are your ignorance on the subject, and your refusal to learn. Conjecturing is one thing, but pretending that you’re biologist or biochemist is another thing.

 

[gnostic]

So glad you say flies are insects. Being you know so much more than I do about the process, is it said that insects were not always insects or that insects become something other than insects?

nothing in the reply that @Tiberius wrote, say anything about birds.

When he did mentioned birds, it was in a separate post.

Tiberius didn’t compare the fruit flies to the birds, or vice versa, so stop lying.