Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

Carnivorous Dinosaur With Bird-Like Lungs Discovered
<snip>
I thought you already knew that.

I know that bird respiratory systems "stands in stark contrast to that of other animals". I know that theropod dinosaurs did not have avian lungs. I know that avian respiration is a tricky question and not likely to be preserved in the fossil record. I know that we do not have enough evidence to say ‘x’ is really derived from ‘y'. I know that birds have always been birds just as dogs have always been dogs.
Are birds dinosaurs? New evidence muddies the picture

A bird’s respiratory system stands in stark contrast to that of other animals, Quick says. Flying requires a lot of energy and oxygen. As a result, over time, birds have developed a highly efficient lung and respiratory system that allows them to take in enough oxygen and exchange carbon dioxide efficiently enough to allow them to fly. “The way they move air across their lungs is really different from the way we do it,†she says. “It’s very special. We use a diaphragm to change the volume of our lungs. They don’t change the volume at all, because they have these really specialized collapsible structures, really thin-walled, compliant air sacs.†Birds also have a special skeleton, Quick says, that keeps the air sac from collapsing when the bird inhales.

In the study, Quick and Ruben detailed new findings about this specialized skeleton, including an immobile thigh bone that is locked into the body wall and provides extra skeletal support for the birds’ flabby air sac. But the more controversial news was the underlying implication: that if dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, it seems unlikely that scientists would have found no trace of this highly specialized system in any dinosaur fossils.

“We’re suggesting that theropod dinosaurs did not have a bird-like lung,†Quick says. That, in turn, suggests that theropods may not be the ancestors of birds, she says, but instead may represent an extinct lineage. “I don’t think it’s clear what theropods are at all, as far as what they gave rise to or what gave rise to them.†One possibility, she says, is that theropods and birds might both be derived from a common ancestor.

The evolution of avian respiration is a tricky question, Varricchio says, because it’s a complex system that’s not likely to be preserved in the fossil record. “We’re really trying to predict what the lungs [of dinosaurs] look like, and they don’t leave any trace on any bone.†Even in birds, it’s not necessarily straightforward, he adds: For example, birds brooding on a clutch of eggs can’t use their sternums as a bellows — they have to use their abdominal muscles, suggesting that although the sternum is important, it may not be absolutely necessary for birds to breathe. Still, in their paper, Quick and Ruben do make a good point that the abdominal structure of most theropod dinosaurs is distinct from that of birds, Varricchio says. So, he adds, that structure is “probably not doing the exact same thing†when it comes to breathing.

Quick insists that she didn’t set out to disprove a bird-dinosaur link. “I just don’t think we have enough information to make a definitive conclusion,†she adds. “[It’s] the nature of the fossil record — it’s so spotty. While we can have some good preservation, we don’t have the whole picture to say that ‘x’ is really derived from ‘.’â€

Full article here
 
Common structures that are not similar are homologies.
Surprise - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Davis and Kenyon
 
That's wrong, too. For example, Hall's E. coli evolved a new enzyme, but then also evolved a regulator so that the enzyme was produced only in the presence of the substrate, becoming irreducibly complex, since all three components had to be present in order for the system to work. A measurable increase in complexity.
Have we not went over this already. I thought you would have learned this by now. Halls experiment does not prove evolution, neither does Lenski's. It was done in a lab were this gene was deleted and the mutation restored the Lac+. Do you not have anything better than this seriously.


Sorry, reality overrules anyone's opinion.
Reality is microbes to man is only an opinion. And in evolution sorry to say but dawkins opinion is took more serious then yours to your fellow evolutionist.


No, I don't see that. Name one step in the process from a microbe to any organism living today that you think couldn't happen. In fact, why not start a new thread on it, so I'll be sure not to miss it.
Start a new thread I did that once on your request and you declined to respond :shame.
I have given you a lot of things systems and etc.... I just gave you the cardiovascular system, respiratory system. Previously I gave you skin, hair, feathers and etc... The thing is all you can say is how they may have been developed you have no proof or transitional to show these.
Produce evidence not your opinion. Remember reality overrules anyone's opinion.

Sparticis describes creationist:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Yep. Creationists are notorious for ignoring God's creation, which as St. Paul says is obvious to all. You have no excuse.
I believe in his creation, thats what Paul is talking about those denying his creation like you do.

Next time post my full response instead of the first word.
No I described evolutionist who decline the word of God about his creation of the world. Creationist believe he created the world so how could that be describing creationist.


Barbarian, regarding the idea that a "space alien designer" could account for living things:
Sorry, we took a look at that, and found you had confused analogy and homology. Not a viable excuse for you.

Don't call God a space alien. What is wrong with you? God created all living things like he said he did. You have no excuse to deny it. Cause Darwin told you to use your imagination you believe him over Gods word:shame
No don't think so. I showed you the difference and did not have anything confused. Then showed you homology also was not closed to common ancestor but also open to things like common creation from the creator God.


Doesn't matter. As you know, "similarities" aren't what show evolution. It's homologies.
What do you think homologies are?
Organs as different as a bat's wing, a seal's flipper, a cat's paw and a human's hand have a common underlying structure of bones and muscles. Owen reasoned that there must be a common structural plan for all vertebrates, as well as for each class of vertebrates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

likeness in structure between parts of different organisms due to evolutionary differentiation from the same or a corresponding part of a remote ancestor—compare
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/homology

Barbarian observes:
But when I challenged you to show me two major groups lacking a transitional, you declined to do it and retreated in a cloud of excuses. So I think we can safely conclude you know that it's evidence.
Make clear what you think is a group. I will go with primates, or you want something like mammals. Make sure its transitional meaning no big gaps.. Will need to see its slow gradual change of one group to another. Fossils and proof of this process. No assumptions


Instead of two groups, you gave me a number of highly divergent taxa. Since you were unwilling to step up to the challenge, I showed you what the last common ancestor would be like for all of them. It happens that they are all craniates, a subphylum of the chordates. Hagfish are an example of primitive craniates.
So is that as close as you can get to what I list was a hagfish? Can we see where this hag fish will develop into what I listed?


I suspect you know what will happen if you step up to my challenge and give me two major groups. So you're dodging the question. If I'm wrong, you can still do it, of course.
See above, and read the Bold

Populations evolve, not individuals. But living fossils like platypuses are transitionals. They are a mix of reptilian and mammalian characters. But note that we never see a mammal/bird transitional, or a fish/arthropod transitional. That's even more compelling than the living fossils as evidence for evolution.
The platypuses shows just that. 100% of the mammalian characteristics are 100% mammalian and the same for the reptilian. These characteristics are not in a transitional of becoming as one.

(Barbarian notes more confusion over homologies)

You're still having trouble with this. Similarities are analogies. Common structures that are not similar are homologies.
No I am not. You claim Human, dog, whale and bird have similar bone in the arm and must have a common ancestor. The similar organ or bone does not close the book to common ancestor. I have went over this many times. See above.


As you learned, God didn't say how He did it in Genesis. He left evidence for us to find out. You don't approve of the way He did it, for reasons that are hard to understand.
Yes he did and that is why you can not take in literal because you don't approve of the way he said he did it. What do you not understand how many times are you going to ignore your contradictions.

Interpretation of what you claim.
I can't take the Bible literal because God said he created all animals, even names them in the opposite order I believe they evolved. But I believe the Bible and what God has done and you don't even though you believe what he says and take it literal.

Are you blind to the contradiction.



See above. Surprise.
See above surprise you still don't have any empirical evidence of making men out of microbes.
God explains this in Genesis, he created everything as after their kind.
You'll admit that much, but you won't accept the way He did it.
That is the way he did it he created all kinds, why won't you accept it. He even states he CREATED everything in the opposite order you believe they evolved in.


Nope. You dodged that one. Just name one structure you think couldn't evolve. Highlight the word in red so everyone knows what it is.
See above in red.

So, let's take the cell membrane. The simplest one is merely a phospholipid bilayer. Things can diffuse in and out, but suppose one of the proteins in the cell is slightly modified to fit between the phospholipid molecules and protrude through the cell. Now you have an attachment point for other molecules, which if they happen to be useful to the cell, become available in lower concentrations, giving the cell an advantage over other cells. And this can happen again and again, leading to a much more effective and complex cell membrane.
:toofunny:toofunny sounds like this guy, one big assumption. http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html
Notice how it stops at that point cause your wildest imagination can not figure out how all the life we see and men was produced from that first cell.
Surprise.
Ya surprised you believe an assumption like that. Reality trumps opinion


As you learned, we don't have a new genome. Most of the microbe genome is still with us. It's just been repeatedly modified over billions of years.
Yes its a new genome, there are many different genomes that evolution would of had to produce.

Barbarian suggests:
Give us an example of some feature that could not have appeared in the sequence from the first cells to some organism today.

(Declines to do so)

Neither can anyone else. Important evidence, don't you think?
did many times

I showed you that it evolved from very simple forms that were no more than thickened blood vessels.
No all you did is show a system not the transitional periods of its evolution


You saw the evidence from genetics, embryology, and anatomy that shows lung evolved from the upper digestive system.
Is that what you call evidence:shame:toofunny:shame Opinion is now evidence


I showed you that a very primitive transition for hearts exists in annelids, for example:

Silly misconception there. For example, we see living organisms today with "hearts" that are no more than thickened blood vessels with the same muscles and valves found in other blood vessels. And yet the pump blood and keep the organism alive. You've been misled again.

One of the simplest types of closed circulatory systems is found in annelids such as the earthworm. Earthworms have two main blood vessels -- a dorsal and a ventral vessel -- which carry blood towards the head or the tail, respectively. Blood is moved along the dorsal vessel by waves of contraction in the wall of the vessel. These contractible waves are called 'peristalsis.' In the anterior region of the worm, there are five pairs of vessels, which we loosely term "hearts," that connect the dorsal and the ventral vessels. These connecting vessels function as rudimentary hearts and force the blood into the ventral vessel. Since the outer covering (the epidermis) of the earthworm is so thin and is constantly moist, there is ample opportunity for exchange of gases, making this relatively inefficient system possible.

Just showing that what you claim is impossible is found in living organisms today. And yes, there are worms lacking these, and there are more advanced forms in organisms descended from annelids.

Notice in some onychophorans, the heart isn't much more complicated than in annelids. But in arthropods, it differentiates into a primitive heart with sinus and a primitive ventrical. Keep in mind all blood vessels have muscles that can contract and release, and one-way valves. In hearts, these become larger and more robust.
I am not talking about the biology of a worm. There are many different distantly related worms and they are considered an obsolete taxon. We are talking about the more complex animals, we are talking about things on a bigger scale. Can you show where that worm has ever been anything more than a worm.

But if you can show the links from worm to human I am interested to see this:toofunny
Humans evolved from a five-centimetre-long worm-like creature that wriggled in the sea more than 500 million years ago, scientists have learned.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/humans-evolved-from-worm-creature-20120306-1uext.html



No. As you learned, we still have most of the microbe genes. We just have a modification of the earlier genome.
So there is an old genome and we have a new genome. There are many different genomes that the first genome would of had to develop into, and develop many features it did not have.


You know some of it now, but it clearly caught you by surprise. There's a lot more that you don't know.
You caught me by surprise, don't think so. I am surprised at all the contradictions of your beliefs.

Dawkins and all honest evolutionist agree we have no evidence for new complex systems from mutations and etc... Would you like to see this again?
Sorry, reality trumps anyone's opinions. Find some evidence, or you're pretty much out of luck.
Evolution is just an opinion and in the evolution community dawkins opinion trumps yours. The evidence shows mutations and NS don't produce anything to make men out of microbes feasible.

Barbarian chuckles:
No, you're trying to slip around natural selection, again. Nice try. But the avian lung was simiply inherited from dinsosaurs, some of which had "avian lungs." It was already there in many of them, before there were birds. Or possibly, it was present in the ancestor of birds and dinosaurs, if Feduccia is right.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...rd-like-lungs/

Pretty easy. See below.

Darwin
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.


I'd be pleased to see your evidence that the flow-through lung couldn't evolve. You see, all vertebrates have that mode of respiration available as a secondary path. It's called "collateral ventilation, and occurs through the Pores of Kohn in the alveoli, in cases of bronchial obstruction. Not very efficient, but it's no coincidence that the bird lung uses the same path.

That is evidence. The fact that the same flow-through process happens in us, and in all vertebrates, is no coincidence with the fact of such a lung in dinosaurs and birds.
Zeke answered that.
Its getting old going over the same things that you ignore and keep trying to waste time.
 
The two are not mutually exclusive. They compliment each other quite well, actually.

Not if you buy into classical Darwinism...
In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. ~ Julian Huxley
What about the Barbarian - does he agree they compliment each other quite well?
 
Because Julian Huxley says so?


I really don't care about the appeals to authority or the quotemining.

Julian Huxley's interpretation of what evolution means in terms of religion does not define what Darwin observed.


Besides, I don't "buy into" classical "Darwinism" as you would try to pigeonhole it anyway, so you really don't have a point at all, just a couple logical fallacies fastened together.
 
Besides, I don't "buy into" classical "Darwinism" as you would try to pigeonhole it anyway, so you really don't have a point at all, just a couple logical fallacies fastened together.

No fallacy and you miss the point entirely - classical Darwinism is what it has always been - naturalistic and atheistic - you can't change this truth. Your dilemma is reconciling your version of Darwinism with the Darwinism of Huxley and Dawkins, et al. It can't be done - they do not allow God. Where does that leave you?
 
The two are not mutually exclusive. They compliment each other quite well, actually.

Not if you buy into classical Darwinism...

Classical Darwinism was the notion that God created the first living things and used natural selection to produce the diversity we see.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

(atheist disagrees with Darwin)

But as you know, dogmatic atheists and creationists have an agenda to make God and science incompatible. Small wonder they won't accept what Darwin said about creation.

What about the Barbarian - does he agree they compliment each other quite well?

Comes down to evidence, doesn't it? The atheistic/creationist agenda fails.

Your dilemma is reconciling your version of Darwinism with the Darwinism of Huxley and Dawkins, et al. It can't be done - they do not allow God.

Darwin suggested God created living things. And both Dawkins and Huxley admitted that there could be a God.

Where does that leave you?

Smiling at your gullibility.
 
Have we not went over this already. I thought you would have learned this by now. Halls experiment does not prove evolution,

By definition, it is evolution. In his experiment, the bacteria evolved a new enzyme, and then to his surprise also evolved a regulator, making the system irreducibly complex. Exactly what creationism says could not happen.

neither does Lenski's. It was done in a lab were this gene was deleted and the mutation restored the Lac+.

No. The old gene was gone. What evolution did, was modify a different protein to do the same thing. And then it modified a second one to produce a new regulator. Read the research and learn.

Bartbarian chuckles:
Sorry, reality overrules anyone's opinion.

Reality is microbes to man is only an opinion.

Comes down to evidence. You lose.

And in evolution sorry to say but dawkins opinion is took more serious then yours to your fellow evolutionist.

Evidence again. You lose.

Barbarian suggests:
No, I don't see that. Name one step in the process from a microbe to any organism living today that you think couldn't happen. In fact, why not start a new thread on it, so I'll be sure not to miss it.

Start a new thread I did that once on your request and you declined to respond .

You started in on Catholic doctrine, which as you know, isn't allowed outside of the designated discussion area. Sorry. Talk to management.

I have given you a lot of things systems and etc.... I just gave you the cardiovascular system,

And you learned how the first hearts were little more than thickened blood vessels, with nothing more than you see in blood vessels, just a little larger. And I showed you how they changed over time, in higher taxa. And you abandoned the discussion.

The thing is all you can say is how they may have been developed

I showed you transitional forms still living.

you have no proof or transitional to show these.

Comes down to evidence. You lose again. It's foolish to deny something can exist when it demonstrably does exist.

Sparticis describes creationists:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Yep. Creationists are notorious for ignoring God's creation, which as St. Paul says is obvious to all. You have no excuse.

I believe in his creation

Nope. You're fighting it now. Thats what Paul is talking about those denying his creation like you do.

Barbarian, regarding the idea that a "space alien designer" could account for living things:
Sorry, we took a look at that, and found you had confused analogy and homology. Not a viable excuse for you.

Don't call God a space alien.

As you learned, those who advocate design have called Him that. I think it's blasphemous, but you're welcome to think so, if you want.

Organs as different as a bat's wing, a seal's flipper, a cat's paw and a human's hand have a common underlying structure of bones and muscles. Owen reasoned that there must be a common structural plan for all vertebrates, as well as for each class of vertebrates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

Owen almost got there. He could see homology, but he couldn't figure out why. Darwin discovered why.

Barbarian observes:
But when I challenged you to show me two major groups lacking a transitional, you declined to do it and retreated in a cloud of excuses. So I think we can safely conclude you know that it's evidence.

Make clear what you think is a group. I will go with primates, or you want something like mammals.

Two groups. Pick two that are said to be evolutionarily connected. And we'll see if there are any transitionals. This seems to be a very difficult task for you.

Make sure its transitional meaning no big gaps.

Transitionals don't have gaps. They are just species with apomorphies of two separate groups. If creationism is true, there won't be any.

Barbarian observes:
I suspect you know what will happen if you step up to my challenge and give me two major groups. So you're dodging the question. If I'm wrong, you can still do it, of course.

Populations evolve, not individuals. But living fossils like platypuses are transitionals. They are a mix of reptilian and mammalian characters. But note that we never see a mammal/bird transitional, or a fish/arthropod transitional. That's even more compelling than the living fossils as evidence for evolution.

The platypuses shows just that. 100% of the mammalian characteristics are 100% mammalian

No. For example, the thermoregulation is only partial, not completely mammalian. The platypus nurses young, but the "milk" is not completely mammalian, or are there teats. The skeleton is partly mammalian, and partly reptilian. And so on.

These characteristics are not in a transitional of becoming as one.

Surprise.

You claim Human, dog, whale and bird have similar bone in the arm and must have a common ancestor.

No. You've confused analogy and homology again. The bones are quite different. They are evolved from the same tissues, but are quite different. This is incomprehensible to creationism, but makes sense in light of evolution.

Zeke writes:
I can't take the Bible literal because God said he created all animals, even names them in the opposite order I believe they evolved.

Faulty interpretation, that.

But I believe the Bible and what God has done and you don't even though you believe what he says and take it literal.

Are you blind to the contradiction.

?

Nope. You dodged that one. Just name one structure you think couldn't evolve. Highlight the word in red so everyone knows what it is.
See above in red.

So, let's take the cell membrane. The simplest one is merely a phospholipid bilayer. Things can diffuse in and out, but suppose one of the proteins in the cell is slightly modified to fit between the phospholipid molecules and protrude through the cell. Now you have an attachment point for other molecules, which if they happen to be useful to the cell, become available in lower concentrations, giving the cell an advantage over other cells. And this can happen again and again, leading to a much more effective and complex cell membrane.

sounds like this guy, one big assumption.

Evidence. The "E" word you guys find so offensive.

Notice how it stops at that point cause your wildest imagination can not figure out how all the life we see and men was produced from that first cell.

Surprise.

As you learned, we don't have a new genome. Most of the microbe genome is still with us. It's just been repeatedly modified over billions of years.

Yes its a new genome,

Nope. We still have most of the microbe genes, in fact. Not new, just modified.

I showed you that it evolved from very simple forms that were no more than thickened blood vessels.

No all you did is show a system not the transitional periods of its evolution

Yep. I even showed you how the most primitive heart gave rise to a sinus (atrium) and a ventricle.

You saw the evidence from genetics, embryology, and anatomy that shows lung evolved from the upper digestive system.

Is that what you call evidence

Facts, yes. As you learned, fish often gulp air when there isn't enough oxygen in water. The oxygen is absorbed in the upper respiratory tract. Some fish have convoluted surfaces there to increase absorbing area. Some even developed pouches to do this. We still see that in embryos of land animals; the lungs develop in the embyro from the upper digestive tract.


I showed you that a very primitive transition for hearts exists in annelids, for example:

we see living organisms today with "hearts" that are no more than thickened blood vessels with the same muscles and valves found in other blood vessels. And yet the pump blood and keep the organism alive. You've been misled again.

One of the simplest types of closed circulatory systems is found in annelids such as the earthworm. Earthworms have two main blood vessels -- a dorsal and a ventral vessel -- which carry blood towards the head or the tail, respectively. Blood is moved along the dorsal vessel by waves of contraction in the wall of the vessel. These contractible waves are called 'peristalsis.' In the anterior region of the worm, there are five pairs of vessels, which we loosely term "hearts," that connect the dorsal and the ventral vessels. These connecting vessels function as rudimentary hearts and force the blood into the ventral vessel. Since the outer covering (the epidermis) of the earthworm is so thin and is constantly moist, there is ample opportunity for exchange of gases, making this relatively inefficient system possible.

Just showing that what you claim is impossible is found in living organisms today. And yes, there are worms lacking these, and there are more advanced forms in organisms descended from annelids.

Notice in some onychophorans, the heart isn't much more complicated than in annelids. But in arthropods, it differentiates into a primitive heart with sinus and a primitive ventrical. Keep in mind all blood vessels have muscles that can contract and release, and one-way valves. In hearts, these become larger and more robust.

I am not talking about the biology of a worm.

Just showing you that you were wrong in assuming that thing like hearts could not evolve. They clearly do evolve.

So there is an old genome and we have a new genome.

No. See above. We have a modified genome, not a new one. We still have most of the microbe genes.

Barbarian chuckles:
No, you're trying to slip around natural selection, again. Nice try. But the avian lung was simiply inherited from dinsosaurs, some of which had "avian lungs." It was already there in many of them, before there were birds. Or possibly, it was present in the ancestor of birds and dinosaurs, if Feduccia is right.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...rd-like-lungs/

I'd be pleased to see your evidence that the flow-through lung couldn't evolve. You see, all vertebrates have that mode of respiration available as a secondary path. It's called "collateral ventilation, and occurs through the Pores of Kohn in the alveoli, in cases of bronchial obstruction. Not very efficient, but it's no coincidence that the bird lung uses the same path.

That is evidence. The fact that the same flow-through process happens in us, and in all vertebrates, is no coincidence with the fact of such a lung in dinosaurs and birds.

Zeke answered that.
Its getting old going over the same things that you ignore and keep trying to waste time.

Nope. Zeke dodged it, just as you did. But it's not going away.
 
Classical Darwinism was the notion that God created the first living things and used natural selection to produce the diversity we see.
Wrong again - Darwin's version of naturalistic evolution is exactly what it has been from the get-go--atheism in a new dress and high heels. Darwin knew what he was presenting and he entered eternity as as agnostic atheist. You have been duped by atheist propagandists my friend. Wake up.
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine
 
Speculation my friend - pure speculation.


?

The genetic evidence shows that chromosome 2 in humans is actually two chromosomes fused together.

At the ends of every chromosome are what is called telomeres.
There are two on every chromosome, one at each end.

What see in the human #2 chromosome are extra telomeres.
There is a telomere attached to another telomere.
That is explained by realizing two whole chromosomes have fused together, adding the extra telomere in that particular #2 chromosome.

Since the chromosomes would be 24 sets had the fusion not taken place, it is clearly the matter that some ape experienced this mutation and gave birth to the first "Adam," an immaculate conception in that this first man had no earthly father with 23 chromosomes:





Gen5:2:

2Maleand female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and calledTHEIR name "Adam," (a species?) in the day when THEYwere created.


Gen 5:2 supports the Theistic Evolution theology of the Bible.

Using this as a hypothesis of Adam from an ape, for explaining Genesis from a rational and academically correct point of view, we must then experiment with demanding that passages be found elsewhere that conform to other science in regard to "missing link" claim.

We find that, confirming statements in Genesis, in so many other incidents that we TE people claim this insight to be a Theory, a theological empirical theory.

It may be wrong, because it is only a theory, like all science thoeries.
But the theories in science and statements in Genesis keep adding to the credibility, and continue to give greater support for Theistic Evolution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong again - Darwin's version of naturalistic evolution is exactly what it has been from the get-go--atheism in a new dress and high heels. Darwin knew what he was presenting and he entered eternity as as agnostic atheist. You have been duped by atheist propagandists my friend. Wake up.
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine


But does what Darwin thought about the meaning of evolution really matter?

The fact is that evolution supports the idea that: man is part of a genetic vine with roots all the way back to the very first appearance of life on Earth.
Man is merely the final maturation of life that has through growth and development of the first cells, Spontaneously Generated from the dust of the Earth.
 
Because Julian Huxley says so?


I really don't care about the appeals to authority or the quotemining.

Julian Huxley's interpretation of what evolution means in terms of religion does not define what Darwin observed.


Exactly.

Consider the interpretation that inside man's mind is the collection of all the past experiences of our species and perhaps even back further.
Locked in the Unconscious mind and inaccessible to us for now, this ancient of ancient entity is that third eye which not only exists in the kingdom of our mind within, but is identical with the same entity in all other people.

It is part of the Collective Unconscious.
That Collective metaphysical Unconscious mind lives on in humanity, and over the heads of humans in every generation.

The collective Unconscious mind was here before we were born and continues afterwards, as if our good shepherd, watching us secretly, invisibly, and usually, silently.
It is this Unconscious mind that speaks to us in dreams and leads us by the thoughts it promotes and the insights it reveals which men often report as epiphanies or starling insights that seem to occur to them inexplicably:










In1920 when Neils Bohr was getting on a bus and thinking intently only of hisdaughter, the entire structure of quantum mechanics came to him in a flash (ashe describes it).
Where that flash or intelligence came from, and the timing ofit, this is the Pure Intelligence (i.e.; the Unconscious mind as the reservoir of ancient of ancient knowledge and wisdom) I'm speaking about.



Thisexperience revealed the inner immanent God to which Christians refer when theyspeak of a personal relationship with God.




 
?
Since the chromosomes would be 24 sets had the fusion not taken place, it is clearly the matter that some ape experienced this mutation and gave birth to the first "Adam," an immaculate conception in that this first man had no earthly father with 23 chromosomes:
Pure speculation my friend - your ape-man "immaculate conception" is a notion that is not supported by the Bible or the scientific record. Chromosomal evidence supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.
 
But does what Darwin thought about the meaning of evolution really matter?

The fact is that evolution supports the idea that: man is part of a genetic vine with roots all the way back to the very first appearance of life on Earth.
All life on Earth shares common features because all life shares a Designer - God created life "in the beginning". Darwinism tries (unsuccessfully) to eliminate God - this was something that Darwin understood and promoted.
 
Exactly.

Consider the interpretation that inside man's mind is the collection of all the past experiences of our species and perhaps even back further.
Locked in the Unconscious mind and inaccessible to us for now, this ancient of ancient entity is that third eye which not only exists in the kingdom of our mind within, but is identical with the same entity in all other people.

It is part of the Collective Unconscious.
That Collective metaphysical Unconscious mind lives on in humanity, and over the heads of humans in every generation.

The collective Unconscious mind was here before we were born and continues afterwards, as if our good shepherd, watching us secretly, invisibly, and usually, silently.
It is this Unconscious mind that speaks to us in dreams and leads us by the thoughts it promotes and the insights it reveals which men often report as epiphanies or starling insights that seem to occur to them inexplicably:

I really wish this new wave garbage would leave Jung out of it.


Besides that, what you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Let's try to keep on subject.
 
On which page?

An accumulation of all pages – William Provine understands Darwin's work and he has given a fair evaluation. If you disagree - why do you disagree? The facts are what they are – Darwinism teaches atheism.
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. ~ Richard Dawkins
 
Again with the "William Provine says so."

You do know what an appeal to irrelevant authority is, don't you?


Again, I'll ask on which page specifically does Darwin state that evolution means atheism?
 
Back
Top