The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[YoursTrue]

We already discussed the conversion factor.

For 1 day = 1000 years, the conversion factor is 365000.

For 4.5 billion years = 6000 years, the conversion factor is 750000.

As understood, it doesn't have to mean that each 24 hour day is 1,000 years. But it shows that one day in God's eyes can be much longer than we as humans would consider it.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I said the rotation rate is slowing. That means that days are getting longer, not shorter.

OK. The days are getting longer. According to what I understand this is very gradual. But that is not the point of understanding the time considering each day of creation. Because the word day in Genesis does not have to mean 24 hours each day, and, as I mentioned, the last, or 7th day of creation, has no closure to it.
Plus God doesn't need to rest or sleep as we do. Therefore the seventh day has to be understood in context and reality as far as I am concerned.

 

[YoursTrue]

It shows there was an ancestor of humans that had 48 chromosomes. It also shows that the genes on the chromosomes match up between humans and the great apes. That means a common ancestor (in the same way genetics tests can determine ancestry more recently).

Huh?

Looking back on my comment, the question arises, does the fusion have to mean that humans evolved from that point? Also, wouldn't it take two beings with fused chromosomes or 23 sets each to produce another being with 23 sets of chromosomes?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looking back on my comment, the question arises, does the fusion have to mean that humans evolved from that point? Also, wouldn't it take two beings with fused chromosomes or 23 sets each to produce another being with 23 sets of chromosomes?

No, For example there are examples of speciation, and this is very very very early in speciation, where two populations that have different numbers of chromosomes can still breed with others with a different number. Here is an example:

Przewalski's horse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Przewalski's horse has the highest diploid chromosome number among all equine species. They can interbreed with the domestic horse and produce fertile offspring, with 65 chromosomes.[6]

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, For example there are examples of speciation, and this is very very very early in speciation, where two populations that have different numbers of chromosomes can still breed with others with a different number. Here is an example:

Przewalski's horse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Przewalski's horse has the highest diploid chromosome number among all equine species. They can interbreed with the domestic horse and produce fertile offspring, with 65 chromosomes.[6]

And where is the 65 chromosome species?
How many are there?
They all return to 64 or 66 in subsequent generations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And where is the 65 chromosome species?
How many are there?
They all return to 64 or 66 in subsequent generations.

You did not pay attention. And you are changing your argument. If you want to go on you have to own up to your error. Otherwise we are done and I will just point out how you lost the argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, For example there are examples of speciation, and this is very very very early in speciation, where two populations that have different numbers of chromosomes can still breed with others with a different number. Here is an example:

Przewalski's horse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Przewalski's horse has the highest diploid chromosome number among all equine species. They can interbreed with the domestic horse and produce fertile offspring, with 65 chromosomes.[6]

OK. You are the expert of course, and I am not. So, first -- the question arises, does the fusion in the case being discussed have to mean that humans evolved from that point? of an ancestor. I'm not sure whether it is a common ancestor of humans, gorillas, chimps, etc. Would you know if it is? Would you be so kind as to explain? Thank you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK. You are the expert of course, and I am not. So, first -- the question arises, does the fusion in the case being discussed have to mean that humans evolved from that point? of an ancestor. I'm not sure whether it is a common ancestor of humans, gorillas, chimps, etc. Would you know if it is? Would you be so kind as to explain? Thank you.

No. The line of descent leading to humans would have split prior to the fusion, since we share a common ancestor with Pan and are not descended from Pan.

The common ancestor would have had 48 chromosomes and the descendant lines would have as well until the fusion occurred in the line of descent that lead to humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. You are the expert of course, and I am not. So, first -- the question arises, does the fusion in the case being discussed have to mean that humans evolved from that point? of an ancestor. I'm not sure whether it is a common ancestor of humans, gorillas, chimps, etc. Would you know if it is? Would you be so kind as to explain? Thank you.

All that we can say right now is that the fusion occurred sometime after we split off from chimpanzees. And life is always evolving so it is hard to answer your question as asked. Our ancestors were evolving before that even and they were evolving after that fact.

You may still be thinking that evolution has goals. It does not. For example our present state was not a goal. We are just a result. And if we live long enough there will be more changes in the genome of our species as time goes on. If somehow, say we colonize another planet and we lost contact with that planet for a few million years. If that planet was contacted again the two different populations probably would not be able to breed with each other when they remet. But they would both be "100% human".

 

[YoursTrue]

No. The line of descent leading to humans would have split prior to the fusion, since we share a common ancestor with Pan and are not descended from Pan.

The common ancestor would have had 48 chromosomes and the descendant lines would have as well until the fusion occurred in the line of descent that lead to humans.

Is this your belief, or the belief of scientists who try to figure things out like that meaning that is how you think or believe humans came about? Yes, I have questions. Because if a person does believe that, or think it might be true, could it also be said that God had a hand in this? As far as I am concerned I don't think the two ideas mesh, but it would be nice to hear what others think about this. Clearly many posters are opposed to what the Bible says in many cases. Especially since it is written, "Let us make man in our image." I've had to come to terms with the viewpoints, one -- is evolution the key factor in mankind's existence? or does the Bible make a proper proclamation as to how life began and progressed on this earth? We know, don't we--?== that evolution does not have a mind to determine by mental capacity its own progress, but by supposed mistakes (mutations as in the fusion process said to have happened) or survival of the fittest.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is this your belief, or the belief of scientists who try to figure things out like that meaning that is how you think or believe humans came about? Yes, I have questions. Because if a person does believe that, or think it might be true, could it also be said that God had a hand in this? As far as I am concerned I don't think the two ideas mesh, but it would be nice to hear what others think about this. Clearly many posters are opposed to what the Bible says in many cases. Especially since it is written, "Let us make man in our image." I've had to come to terms with the viewpoints, one -- is evolution the key factor in mankind's existence? or does the Bible make a proper proclamation as to how life began and progressed on this earth? We know, don't we--?== that evolution does not have a mind to determine by mental capacity its own progress, but by supposed mistakes (mutations as in the fusion process said to have happened) or survival of the fittest.

If you are asking if I conclude a common ancestry shared by humans, chimpanzees and the other great apes based on the evidence, I do. To ignore it would be to bear false to myself even if I didn't bear it to others.

I understand that you don't have a desire to review the evidence and would rather just reject it based on the beliefs you follow, but I could not do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this your belief, or the belief of scientists who try to figure things out like that meaning that is how you think or believe humans came about? Yes, I have questions. Because if a person does believe that, or think it might be true, could it also be said that God had a hand in this? As far as I am concerned I don't think the two ideas mesh, but it would be nice to hear what others think about this. Clearly many posters are opposed to what the Bible says in many cases. Especially since it is written, "Let us make man in our image." I've had to come to terms with the viewpoints, one -- is evolution the key factor in mankind's existence? or does the Bible make a proper proclamation as to how life began and progressed on this earth? We know, don't we--?== that evolution does not have a mind to determine by mental capacity its own progress, but by supposed mistakes (mutations as in the fusion process said to have happened) or survival of the fittest.

If one understands evolution one does not have to be told when a trait that one species has and its closest relatives do not have. It had to arise after it split off from the last of its closest relatives. That is rather obvious.

And you should try to understand the difference between believe and knowledge.

Do you believe that 2 + 2 = 4 or do you know it? Can you show that two plus two is four or is it just faith? For me it is the former.

 

[John53]

Is this your belief, or the belief of scientists who try to figure things out like that meaning that is how you think or believe humans came about? Yes, I have questions. Because if a person does believe that, or think it might be true, could it also be said that God had a hand in this? As far as I am concerned I don't think the two ideas mesh, but it would be nice to hear what others think about this. Clearly many posters are opposed to what the Bible says in many cases. Especially since it is written, "Let us make man in our image." I've had to come to terms with the viewpoints, one -- is evolution the key factor in mankind's existence? or does the Bible make a proper proclamation as to how life began and progressed on this earth? We know, don't we--?== that evolution does not have a mind to determine by mental capacity its own progress, but by supposed mistakes (mutations as in the fusion process said to have happened) or survival of the fittest.

I'm not opposed to the bible, I don't know of any evidence that supports biblical creation. I also don't know of any evidence to support Hindu or Aboriginal or Maori creation accounts. It's not a matter of opposing anything, it's simply following the evidence available. Show me convincing evidence for biblical creation and I'll believe it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, For example there are examples of speciation, and this is very very very early in speciation, where two populations that have different numbers of chromosomes can still breed with others with a different number. Here is an example:

Przewalski's horse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Przewalski's horse has the highest diploid chromosome number among all equine species. They can interbreed with the domestic horse and produce fertile offspring, with 65 chromosomes.[6]

And where is the 65 chromosome species?
How many are there?
They all return to 64 or 66 in subsequent generations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A drawing is not evidence.

There's no drawing.
There's genes, which are molecules that are testable, verifiable, demonstrable, authentic.

But my turn.

----> <---
see they do not fuse because of the end caps.

The verifiable facts don't agree with your dogmatic a priori beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But what it's a drawing of is evidence. Evidence of a common ancestor. You're big objection to a common ancestor turns out to be strong evidence for said ancestor.

You couldn't make it up. Clueless creationism in action.

I read a fun quote the other day:

Explaining evolution to a creationist, is like trying to explain to your mom that you can't pause an online game.


So true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If they can mate and produce offspring then they are of the same kind.

If that is how you define "kind", then we have observed examples of species that "changed kind".

 

[ratiocinator]

If they can mate and produce offspring then they are of the same kind.

So it's possible for organisms to change kind over distance as well as time?

Ring species - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Looking back on my comment, the question arises, does the fusion have to mean that humans evolved from that point?

The fusion mutation happened in the human lineage, after it already branched off from the last common ancestor with chimps. The branch with the red circle in this tree:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is this your belief, or the belief of scientists who try to figure things out like that meaning that is how you think or believe humans came about?

It's what the evidence tells us. If the fusion would have happened BEFORE the split with chimps, then chimps also would have only 46 chromosomes.
It's not rocket science.

Because if a person does believe that, or think it might be true, could it also be said that God had a hand in this?

Sure, it "could". Just like it "could" that pink undetectable genetic fairies worked their magic.
But there is no reason or evidence to suggest such. Meanwhile we have a lot of evidence of chromosome fusion in other species and we know for a fact that chromosome fusion is a genetic mutation that can occur.

It's like when chocolate cookies are missing from your kitchen. Your child's mouth is full of chocolate. His hands are full of chocolate. His t-shirt is full of chocolate. "could" it be that extra-dimensional aliens materialized in your kitchen and stole the cookies and then planted chocolate on your child to make it look as if he's the one that took them? Sure, it "could". But why would you consider that more likely then your child having taken and eaten the cookies?

This seriously is on par with your suggestion that "god might have dun it".

Especially since it is written, "Let us make man in our image." I've had to come to terms with the viewpoints, one -- is evolution the key factor in mankind's existence?

Evolution is the evidence based view. On par with your chocolate- stained child having eaten the missing cookies.
The (literal) bible claims are on par with the extra-dimensional aliens having stolen the cookies and planting false evidence on your child to make it look as if the child took the cookies.

Can you rule it out? No. But why would you favor that explanation over your the sensible one?

or does the Bible make a proper proclamation as to how life began and progressed on this earth?

No. Tales of magic are not proper "proclamations".
Just like tales of extra-dimensional chocolate cookie stealing aliens aren't.

We know, don't we--?

Just like we "don't know" in case of the extra-dimensional aliens.

== that evolution does not have a mind to determine by mental capacity its own progress

The whole point of that demonstrable process, is that it doesn't need one.

, but by supposed mistakes (mutations as in the fusion process said to have happened) or survival of the fittest.

Mutation + competition over limited resources + natural selection, is all you need for evolution to work.