[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It sounds like you need evolution to be false.

No more so than those who embrace the theory of evolution need creationism to be false. The choice is to embrace the biblical account and look for evidence that proves it, or reject the biblical account and adopt the theories that prove it. What neither side ever admits is that neither concept has ever been proven. Statements can be made that there are "demonstrable relationships" between extinct and living species, but such relationships have never really been proven, only surmised based on vague concepts within the theory which themselves have yet to be proven. By the same token, the difficulty in dealing with the biblical reference to "kinds" of animals is too vague and imprecise to establish whether or not the relationships alluded to in the evolutionary theory could potentially be shown as valid within the biblical context.

No matter which theory you choose, it is a choice, not based on facts, because there are none. The choice is made based on which concept you believe is valid: The biblical account, or the theory of man. What choice we make may or may not say anything about where our heart lies. My belief is my belief, with the evidence I see for it proof enough for me. What I believe about it will not sway someone who has chosen differently, nor will their beliefs sway mine. It makes for interesting discussion, but I'm not sure it will ever solve anything.

 

[felix]

Because evolution is a mechanism and Christ is an agent. Christ and evolution are no more conflicting explanations than the laws of physics and Frank whittle are conflicting explanations for the jet engine, or the laws of physics and Adrian Newey are conflicting explanations for the Red bull racing F1 car. I've spoken to 11 year olds who can see that.

It's not about what I need, its about what's true. It sounds like you need evolution to be false.

I was not referring to Christ being God. I was referring to Christ being a "man".

So, what was He when He walked on earth? "an evolved monkey?"

 

[Barbarian]

No more so than those who embrace the theory of evolution need creationism to be false. The choice is to embrace the biblical account and look for evidence that proves it, or reject the biblical account and adopt the theories that prove it.

YE creationism's "life ex nihilo" (life created from nothing) doctrine rejects God's word in Genesis. Evolution and some forms of creationism are consistent with the Bible.

What neither side ever admits is that neither concept has ever been proven.

Since we directly observe evolution, I can't think of a better verification than that.

Statements can be made that there are "demonstrable relationships" between extinct and living species, but such relationships have never really been proven, only surmised based on vague concepts within the theory which themselves have yet to be proven.

DNA analyses have confirmed evolutionary relationships first noted over 300 years ago. And we know it works, because we have tested it on organisms of known descent.

No matter which theory you choose, it is a choice, not based on facts, because there are none.

The fact I showed you is just one of many that confirm evolution. Would you like to learn about some more of them?

The choice is made based on which concept you believe is valid: The biblical account, or the theory of man.

YE creationism was invented by men in the last century. But the biblical account is perfectly consistent with evolution.

 

[felix]

You can start with these:

Do you think DNA analysis can tell us anything about relatedness amongst human beings? What about amongst the various species of horses? Monkeys? Bats? Or is it all nonsense?

Of course DNA tells us how closely a person is related to another either by Y-chromosome (for males) or mtDNA (for both). However, the Y-chromosomal Adam is not a monkey, neither the Mitochondrial eve is a monkey. All variations are within a species. According to "your" scientists, Y-chromosomal Adam lived 142,000 years ago and Mitochondrial Eve lived 190,000–200,000 years ago. This means, ladies were mating with "non" humans or who are not AMH. Even neanderthals have 24 pairs of chromosomes. So, for nearly 50000 years, ladies who have 23 pairs of chromosomes haven't produced a Adam with 23 pairs of chromosomes? Btw, it is impossible to have a species (referring to whoever living pre-Y-Chromosome-Adam) with 24 pairs of chromosomes when one of the parent species is having lesser pairs.

If you are referring to Chromosome 2 in humans, then what is mentioned is not any evidence for anything. What actually is found, is the following: remnants of centromere that is in the same place, relative to certain sequences, as the 2q centromere is in chimps. This is in no way evidence for a anything except the fact some sequences are relative. Have you heard of Bible code nonsense. This evidence is exactly the same. having a 4 bit code and a 200+ million sequence, you will obviously find whatever sequence you what in some place or other in relative places. If you believe in Chromosome, there is nothing stopping you from believing the bible code nonsense.

The fossil record tells us that once living species are extinct and that other species that did not then exist have since appeared in the fossil record. In many cases there are demonstrable relationships amongst extinct and living species, such as theropod dinosaurs and birds. Perhaps you can explain these observations in terms of your preferred alternative to evolutionary theory?

Simple: God created them all. Noah's flood destroyed all living things who had breath except the ones in the boat. Then the world was repopulated from those who were in the boat.

You see, all fossil evidence fits my above statement and the Bible.

We can repeatedly verify the great age of Earth by multiple independent methods. How do you explain this?

To take one case, the assumptions about radioactive decay rates are, indeed, founded on observation and evidence and the consequences we would see today if they were significantly different in the past. If you want to challenge this assumption, you must provide reasoned evidence to invalidate it, not just simply wave your hands around and declare everything 'wuz diffrunt' 6000 years ago.

Let me know the "multiple independent methods".

The assumption by itself hides the fact of another assumption that "the radiometric isotope generation was constant". You see, I never challenged the assumption which was put forward but the "hidden" assumption which the mentioned assumption deliberately hides it.

The hidden assumption which is not mentioned is, throughout history, the radiometric isotope "generation" is constant. Look, I am not challenging "radioactive decay rates" but "radiometric isotope generation". There are only 3 methods a radio active isotope is generated. Primordial, Cosmogenic and Human produced. Primordial (left over before the formation of earth) can be ignored because it doesn't happen today to verify or test it and no one knows how much was actually generated. Cosmogenic is something that can be tested which is the current generation rate of radioactive isotopes. Human produced can also be ignored because in the past centuries none had a nuclear reactor. Thus, the only plausible method for radio active isotope generation is Cosmogenic. This is hidden assumption is what I am speaking about. Since it is the same "Cosmogenic" method, that creates all isotopes, the radiation exposure is relative to their generation. Hence, doing radio metric dating on any element is always going to give you the same crappy false date.

 

[felix]

..the biblical account is perfectly consistent with evolution.

Not really. As I had asked earlier, was Christ as a fully man who walked on earth a mutant or a evolved monkey ?

 

[Adam]

Really?

This is reported on year 2007:
The new data support the single origin, or "out of Africa" theory for anatomically modern humans, which says that these early humans colonized the planet after spreading out of the continent some 50,000 years ago.
Ref: http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2007/07/070718-african-origin.html

This is reported on year 2012:
"These are complexities in the out-of-Africa story that certainly I would not have anticipated two or three years ago," said Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London and author of Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth.
Ref: http://news.nationalgeographic.com....rthals-science-paabo-dna-sex-breeding-humans/

What does that have to do with this erroneous claim?:

The prime assumption of "Out of Africa" theory is that "Neanderthal" were extinct before the migration from Africa.

That is NOT any assumption of the Out of Africa hypothesis, let alone the PRIMARY one.

You are skimming the internet for vague pieces of information that you can distort into a series of unsupported claims in which you pretend to have an argument.

Sir, you do not have an argument.

Case in point, your attempt to confuse mitochondrial Eve with the biblical Eve. What point are you trying to make? Is there any reason that you should claim that there is some discrepency here? Or do you just not understand the concept of lineage and sex chromosomes?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
the biblical account is perfectly consistent with evolution.

Not really.

Absolutely. But of course, Genesis rules out YE creationism. "Life ex nihilo" is a rejection of Christian belief.

As I had asked earlier, was Christ as a fully man who walked on earth a mutant or a evolved monkey ?

Genetically, He would have to be unique, since His father was God. The Y chromosome would have not been from any human. The notion that humans are evolved monkeys is, of course, a laughable creationist misconception.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Of course they are. If you believe in evolution, then you don't believe in Christ. Is Christ a mutant evolved into a perfect sacrifice? Why do you require evolution to prove creation of mankind when there is an exception for Christ?

You should consider yourself lucky. You should be glad that they called it "The Theory of Evolution" instead of "The Theory of Life Forms Changing Over Time", because then you would instead be appalled by terms like "life forms", "changing", and "time". Well, I guess that you would have been alright either way. Thank God for the word "micro". Just like that word eases the pain of "evolution", it would have most certainly eased the pain of terms like "life forms", "changing", and "time".

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, Darwin used "descent with modification." So some more words to toss out, I suppose.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Because, there is no evidence. Show me a single evidence for it. I am not speaking about adaptability or micro-evolution but to be specific a macro-evolution.

I don't think anyone could show you the evidence you want to see because your disqualifies causes a paradox. The theory of Evolution is the rule in biology that organisms adapt to their environment or go extinct through the mechanic of natural selection. This is what Darwin Proposed. So I can show you the evidence that evolution takes place, but it would be a waste since you don't seem to understand what evolution actually is.

Science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Correct.

If you can't experiment and observe, then it is not science. So, next time, if you say anything about fossil evidence for evolution, you are wrong because it doesn't say that it is being evolved. So, once again, where is the evidence which can be observed and experimented.

You are jumping the shark here. Fosils of organisms by themselves are not evidence of evolution. Nor have fosils ever been the entire evidence of evolution. However they are part of an equation and can be used to show evidence of homology. Darwin put forward as one of his experiments that we should be able to identify homologous structures in organisms from generation to generation. This would be evidence of either common design or descent. Darwin put forward that both was possible.

Just because there is a fossil doesn't make it an evidence for evolution. E.g., how did scientists construct a skull and give a face with just a tooth fossil or just a thigh bone ? Good for an artist... but not true science.

Which is why this practice is not accepted as evidence. However, If genetically we understand where the bone came from, scientists can look to the closest know relatives of the organism and piece together what what the organism might look like. Then this Hypothesis of what organism looked like is tested. As in, paleontologists look for more remains of said organisms to confirm or deny the hypothesis.

Regarding dating methods, except radio carbon dating (which is also proven to be very inaccurate for distant past), all methods cannot be used for humans or living creatures, simply because, no new element is created inside the body. All radio metrics except radio carbon can be used for rocks and not living things. With this fundamental flaw and all the untold assumptions with it, I can't imagine that this is even considered to be a tool for science to prove and disprove theories.

Radio metric dating is used to test the age of fossilization and the age of rocks in the layer the remains where found in. Radio metric dating isn't a proof for evolution by itself either, nor is it supposed to be.

You aren't asking us for evidence of Evolution, but evidence for common decent.

 

[felix]

This would be evidence of either common design or descent. Darwin put forward that both was possible.

Exactly! We believe in a common design by a designer God who created all animals and humans from dust/clay.

 

[lordkalvan]

Of course DNA tells us how closely a person is related to another either by Y-chromosome (for males) or mtDNA (for both). However, the Y-chromosomal Adam is not a monkey, neither the Mitochondrial eve is a monkey.

I'm sorry, but there is no much misunderstanding in your reply that I scarcely know where to begin. Where are you deriving the idea that anyone anywhere is proposing that either Y-chromosomal Adam or mtDNA Eve is a monkey? Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recently living male in the direct line of descent of all currently living humans; mtDNA Eve is simply the most recently living female in the direct line of descent of all currently living humans.

All variations are within a species.

So, in your opinion, no bat species is related to any other bat species? No monkey species to any other monkey species? No equine species to any other equine species?

According to "your" scientists, Y-chromosomal Adam lived 142,000 years ago and Mitochondrial Eve lived 190,000-200,000 years ago.

Y-chromosomal Adam dates to around 90,000-60,000 years ago.

Source: http://io9.com/y_chromosomal-adam/

This means, ladies were mating with "non" humans or who are not AMH. Even neanderthals have 24 pairs of chromosomes. So, for nearly 50000 years, ladies who have 23 pairs of chromosomes haven't produced a Adam with 23 pairs of chromosomes?

This is absurd. All that the fact that 'Eve' is older than 'Adam' means is that no males who were alive at the same time as her have male descendants living today.

Btw, it is impossible to have a species (referring to whoever living pre-Y-Chromosome-Adam) with 24 pairs of chromosomes when one of the parent species is having lesser pairs.

I'm not altogether clear what you are trying to say, but chromosomal differences such as these are not barriers to successful breeding. Not all chromosomal rearrangements disrupt meiosis, and even where it does lead the ability to reproduce is only reduced rather than eliminated. About 1 in 1000 humans have a Robertsonian fusion (resulting in 45 rather than 46 chromosomes) and most of these have no adverse effects. There are many closely related organisms, each species of which has a different number of nterchromosomes, that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Equus caballus (the domestic horse) and Equus przewalskii (Przewalski horse) interbreed with fertile offspring even though the Przewalski horse has 66 chromosomes and the domestic horse 64.

If you are referring to Chromosome 2 in humans, then what is mentioned is not any evidence for anything. What actually is found, is the following: remnants of centromere that is in the same place, relative to certain sequences, as the 2q centromere is in chimps. This is in no way evidence for a anything except the fact some sequences are relative. Have you heard of Bible code nonsense. This evidence is exactly the same. having a 4 bit code and a 200+ million sequence, you will obviously find whatever sequence you what in some place or other in relative places. If you believe in Chromosome, there is nothing stopping you from believing the bible code nonsense.

As I am not 'referring to Chromosome 2 in humans', but rather asking you about whether or not the various bat species are related to one another, the various horse species and the various monkey species likewise, this is an extended red herring. However, I am having difficulty in following your argument. To take the human-chimp chromosomes, for example, in thirteen chromosomes there is no visible difference at all. The human Chromosome 2 is has virtually identical information carried on two separate chimp chromosomes, human Chromosome 2 carries remnants of a second centromere and there are vestigial telomeres in its middle , normally found only at the ends of a chromosome. Your denials notwithstanding, the fusion obvious in Chromosome 2 simply reinforces the conclusion as to the relatedness of human beings and the other great apes and to muddy the waters by bringing in the Bible Code - which, I agree, is nonsense - is wholly irrelevant.

Simple: God created them all. Noah's flood destroyed all living things who had breath except the ones in the boat. Then the world was repopulated from those who were in the boat.

This does not answer the question as asked. The fossil record tells us that once living species are extinct and that other species that did not then exist have since appeared in the fossil record. In many cases there are demonstrable relationships amongst extinct and living species, such as theropod dinosaurs and birds. Perhaps you can explain these observations in terms of your preferred alternative to evolutionary theory? How does the flood explain these observations?

You see, all fossil evidence fits my above statement and the Bible.

Perhaps you can explain then why we do not see African Lesothosauruses fossilised together with (or even fossilised in the same strata as) African gazelles? After all, they are about the same size and share the same type of habitat.

Let me know the "multiple independent methods".

Around 40 different methods of radiometric dating. Dendrochronology. Coral growth. Ice layers. Lake varves. Palaeomagnetic data.

The assumption by itself hides the fact of another assumption that "the radiometric isotope generation was constant". You see, I never challenged the assumption which was put forward but the "hidden" assumption which the mentioned assumption deliberately hides it.

The hidden assumption which is not mentioned is, throughout history, the radiometric isotope "generation" is constant. Look, I am not challenging "radioactive decay rates" but "radiometric isotope generation". There are only 3 methods a radio active isotope is generated. Primordial, Cosmogenic and Human produced. Primordial (left over before the formation of earth) can be ignored because it doesn't happen today to verify or test it and no one knows how much was actually generated. Cosmogenic is something that can be tested which is the current generation rate of radioactive isotopes. Human produced can also be ignored because in the past centuries none had a nuclear reactor. Thus, the only plausible method for radio active isotope generation is Cosmogenic. This is hidden assumption is what I am speaking about. Since it is the same "Cosmogenic" method, that creates all isotopes, the radiation exposure is relative to their generation. Hence, doing radio metric dating on any element is always going to give you the same crappy false date.

Well, if you can show evidence of this recent cosmogenic generation of radioisotopes, I would be happy to see it. On the face of it, it would appear that this would result in much younger than predicted RM ages to be returned by testing, something which does not appear to be the case. It should also be the case that there would be an abundance of short-lived radioisotopes on Earth, none of which are actually found at all. So I would be intrigued as to your explanation of these phenomena.

 

[felix]

I'm sorry, but there is no much misunderstanding in your reply that I scarcely know where to begin. Where are you deriving the idea that anyone anywhere is proposing that either Y-chromosomal Adam or mtDNA Eve is a monkey? Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recently living male in the direct line of descent of all currently living humans; mtDNA Eve is simply the most recently living female in the direct line of descent of all currently living humans.

So, in your opinion, no bat species is related to any other bat species? No monkey species to any other monkey species? No equine species to any other equine species?

Y-chromosomal Adam dates to around 90,000-60,000 years ago.

Source: http://io9.com/y_chromosomal-adam/


This is absurd. All that the fact that 'Eve' is older than 'Adam' means is that no males who were alive at the same time as her have male descendants living today.

I'm not altogether clear what you are trying to say, but chromosomal differences such as these are not barriers to successful breeding. Not all chromosomal rearrangements disrupt meiosis, and even where it does lead the ability to reproduce is only reduced rather than eliminated. About 1 in 1000 humans have a Robertsonian fusion (resulting in 45 rather than 46 chromosomes) and most of these have no adverse effects. There are many closely related organisms, each species of which has a different number of nterchromosomes, that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Equus caballus (the domestic horse) and Equus przewalskii (Przewalski horse) interbreed with fertile offspring even though the Przewalski horse has 66 chromosomes and the domestic horse 64.

I think you never understood my question. If you could explain how any animal could have an odd chromosome, then you will understand what I meant.

Around 40 different methods of radiometric dating. Dendrochronology. Coral growth. Ice layers. Lake varves. Palaeomagnetic data.

These are not independent methods because all depend on radiometric dating and if very minimal isotopes are found before 4000 BC, it would obviously give an exaggerated date..

Well, if you can show evidence of this recent cosmogenic generation of radioisotopes, I would be happy to see it. On the face of it, it would appear that this would result in much younger than predicted RM ages to be returned by testing, something which does not appear to be the case. It should also be the case that there would be an abundance of short-lived radioisotopes on Earth, none of which are actually found at all. So I would be intrigued as to your explanation of these phenomena.

Not really, but opposite. There will not be any abundance but lack of radio isotopes due to lack of radiations in antediluvian era. Also, I don't have to disprove but ask for proof for any theory if scientific. If no proof is found, then it is not scientific and it is automatically disproved.

 

[felix]

Actually, Darwin used "descent with modification." So some more words to toss out, I suppose.

If descent with modification is without natural selection or survival of fittest, then Darwin didn't propose evolution.

 

[felix]

Barbarian observes:
the biblical account is perfectly consistent with evolution.

Absolutely. But of course, Genesis rules out YE creationism. "Life ex nihilo" is a rejection of Christian belief.

Genetically, He would have to be unique, since His father was God. The Y chromosome would have not been from any human. The notion that humans are evolved monkeys is, of course, a laughable creationist misconception.

Do spirits had to evolve as well from a monkey spirit to human spirit?

(Ecclesiastes 3:21) Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?

So, at some point the evolved spirits went up and before that it was going down?

For 60000 years, God didn't care to preach the way of righteousness and allowed them to go to hell?

How rubbish for a Christian to believe in evolution and even say it is compatible with Bible.

 

[lordkalvan]

I think you never understood my question. If you could explain how any animal could have an odd chromosome, then you will understand what I meant.

What do you mean by 'an odd chromosome'? Some humans have 45 chromosomes instead of 46. Also, you have avoided addressing any other argument, question or point in the paragraphs you are supposedly responding to.

These are not independent methods because all depend on radiometric dating and if very minimal isotopes are found before 4000 BC, it would obviously give an exaggerated date..

I have just listed five dating methodologies that do not rely on RM dating, so your assertion is blatantly false. 'If very minimal isotopes are found before 4000 BC' (whatever this means), on what grounds do you assert that the date would be 'exaggerated'? Assertion is not enough; you need to provide reasoned argument explaining the evidence better than the the explanation we have does.

Not really, but opposite. There will not be any abundance but lack of radio isotopes due to lack of radiations in antediluvian era.

So if they are all post 'diluvian era', then all RM dates should inevitably be young and we should see an abundance of short-lived isotopes, none of which we see. You seem unable to offer a coherent explanation for this apparent contradiction in your argument.

Also, I don't have to disprove but ask for proof for any theory if scientific.

You do have to provide evidence for your assertions, however, specifically that radioisotopes are of post-diluvian origin.

If no proof is found, then it is not scientific and it is automatically disproved.

Well, that rather seems to leave most of your arguments suspended in mid-air then, doesn't it?

 

[felix]

What does that have to do with this erroneous claim?:



That is NOT any assumption of the Out of Africa hypothesis, let alone the PRIMARY one.

You are skimming the internet for vague pieces of information that you can distort into a series of unsupported claims in which you pretend to have an argument.

Sir, you do not have an argument.

Case in point, your attempt to confuse mitochondrial Eve with the biblical Eve. What point are you trying to make? Is there any reason that you should claim that there is some discrepency here? Or do you just not understand the concept of lineage and sex chromosomes?

I clarified that already in #110.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Exactly! We believe in a common design by a designer God who created all animals and humans from dust/clay.

You can believe that, and I have no qualms about that. Though Evolution is supported by the scientific method, and so is common descent, where your position isn't.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Adam/Grazer,

I think the wordings went wrong. What I had in mind was: The prime assumption of "Out of Africa" theory is that "Neanderthal" were not part of the AMH evolutionary line.

This is Post 110, Neanderthal are not considered human ancestors, but a different species altogether. Out of Africa has nothing to do with Neanderthal.

 

[felix]

What do you mean by 'an odd chromosome'? Some humans have 45 chromosomes instead of 46. Also, you have avoided addressing any other argument, question or point in the paragraphs you are supposedly responding to.

I have just listed five dating methodologies that do not rely on RM dating, so your assertion is blatantly false. 'If very minimal isotopes are found before 4000 BC' (whatever this means), on what grounds do you assert that the date would be 'exaggerated'? Assertion is not enough; you need to provide reasoned argument explaining the evidence better than the the explanation we have does.

So if they are all post 'diluvian era', then all RM dates should inevitably be young and we should see an abundance of short-lived isotopes, none of which we see. You seem unable to offer a coherent explanation for this apparent contradiction in your argument.

You do have to provide evidence for your assertions, however, specifically that radioisotopes are of post-diluvian origin.

Well, that rather seems to leave most of your arguments suspended in mid-air then, doesn't it?

I think my point didn't get across well.

Let me explain:
Any specimen that is fossilized will begin decay from whatever ratio of isotope present in the world from that moment of it's creation. Thus, any antediluvian era fossil (that is before Noah's flood), where there is very little radiation, very little isotopes were found on earth. Since all specimens after Noah's flood have more isotopes than the pre-flood, today, the more generation of isotopes is considered to be a constant. Hence, based on this assumption, radiometric dating will always consider little isotopes in samples to be "left over" from decay rather than considering the fact that it could also be what is actually generated or the original amount created from radiation.

As I already explained, there is not a single dating method that dates without RM dating. There is no glacier layers nor any tree rings that give a start date. It is always calculated base don RM dating and then the rings or varves are counted. Having a wring start date will always give a false date.