[_ Old Earth _] Missing links...

[cupid dave]

Let's find out. Name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find one.

Adam was the missing link between the Apes with 24 chromosomes and the first and new branch for a species called Man, all of whom thereafter had only 23 chromosomes.



The cry for a demonstration of exegesis and sola scriopture to back up what is shocking and different and new insight to church people can be found in Gen 5:2:


Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.

 

[Knotical]

Adam was the missing link between the Apes with 24 chromosomes and the first and new branch for a species called Man, all of whom thereafter had only 23 chromosomes.



The cry for a demonstration of exegesis and sola scriopture to back up what is shocking and different and new insight to church people can be found in Gen 5:2:


Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.

So then you are assuming that Adam was not created by God, but was just an evolutionary link to primates? Quite the heretical view, there.

 

[Barbarian]

So then you are assuming that Adam was not created by God, but was just an evolutionary link to primates? Quite the heretical view, there.

Would it bother you if God used nature to make our physical bodies, as he did with all other living things? I don't see any reasons to deny Him the option to create as He sees fit.

 

[Adam]

Adam was the missing link between the Apes with 24 chromosomes and the first and new branch for a species called Man, all of whom thereafter had only 23 chromosomes.



The cry for a demonstration of exegesis and sola scriopture to back up what is shocking and different and new insight to church people can be found in Gen 5:2:


Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.

The chromosome 2 fusion is not a change in DNA and the gene expression is the same before and after the fusion.

New species come about through many different changes in genes and gene expression, not through chromosomal fusions.

 

[cupid dave]

So then you are assuming that Adam was not created by God, but was just an evolutionary link to primates? Quite the heretical view, there.

Just as with the birth ofJesus, it was an Act-of-God that a mutation occurred rather than some father Ape who had sired another Ape.

The Mutation created the first human, without the egg coming first, because the egg that multiplied through the subsequent mitosis that followed had NEVER ever existed before in any living organism.

 

[cupid dave]

The chromosome 2 fusion is not a change in DNA and the gene expression is the same before and after the fusion.

New species come about through many different changes in genes and gene expression, not through chromosomal fusions.

Nonsense.

Google more...

 

[cupid dave]

Would it bother you if God used nature to make our physical bodies, as he did with all other living things? I don't see any reasons to deny Him the option to create as He sees fit.

Yes, that is a good point but what happened with Jeusus and Elijah and Adam was an special and specific concrete Act-of-God which is the rreason that Jesus was called the son of God, not Joseph or any man.

The Act-of-God was a fusion inside the ovuum which produced a creature with absolutely no real physical father.
Adam was the first born of man.
Jesus was the first born of the new species, Homoiousian sapiens, which we all work to emulate now, and pray to be born again as in the future.


Jesus had evolved in a way that granted him access into the Unconscious mind.
He had evolved that next step of awakening that we look forward towards for ourselves, when we come back out of the Gene pool wherein the code for our resurrection rest among the living.





Revelation 21:4-5
And God, (blessing them with Total Phylogenetic Consciousness: [Carl Jung]), shall wipe away, (in their now awakened Unconscious Mind: [Freudian Hypothesis]), all tears from their eyes, (for life is genetically rememberable, a continuum. We shall remember from one generation to the next living generation); and,...
... (in genetic memories of prior existences held in our Unconscious Mind), there shall be no more death...

...(for we shall not all "sleep:" [1Co15:51], but a total phylogenetic Consciousness will have evolved), neither sorrow... (for we, individually, are part of a living continuum of our own past, flowers upon our genetic vine), nor crying,.. (for we are happy in these revelations of reconstitution from the human gene pool), neither shall there be any more pain, (as men will have neurological control, a self-hypnotic ability, to stop the nerve signals to the brain),... for the former things (in the Modern Homo sapiens paradigm of the life experience) are passed away.

And he, (the Christ, the ancient, phylogenetic, Collective Unconscious Mind, in their own Kingdom within), that sat upon the throne, (within the kingdom of the evolving Homoiousian sapiens' brain: [Luke 17:21]) said, Behold, (in this way, through evolution: [Gen 9:11-18]), I make all things (in human experience) new.
And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true, (i.e.; words of Christ himself, who is the experiential presence of Truth in us, rational, the Unconscious mind), and (worthy of) faithful (belief).

 

[Adam]

Nonsense.

Google more...

That isn't a rebuttal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_translocation

 

[Knotical]

Just as with the birth ofJesus, it was an Act-of-God that a mutation occurred rather than some father Ape who had sired another Ape.

The Mutation created the first human, without the egg coming first, because the egg that multiplied through the subsequent mitosis that followed had NEVER ever existed before in any living organism.

Except unlike the birth of Jesus, what you are describing never happened. So there is that, which is nice.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian chuckles:
Two major groups. Still waiting...

Opabinia. Soft-bodied and segmented like an annelid, but with eyes like an arthropod, and the first evidence of the primitive biramous gill/leg structure which is characteristic of the ecdysozoa, such as arthropods, tartigrades, and onychophorans.

You do swallow some serious claptrap, Barbarian.

An alternative view, more recently advocated by investigators who have examined partial 18S ribosomal RNA data, proposes that annelids, molluscs, and certain other minor phyla with trochophore larva stages share a more recent common ancestor with one another than any do with arthropods.

Here are some arthropods.

Here are some annelids:

See any similarities except the segmentation?

From yahoo answers:

The circulatory system of annilids is closed while that of arthropods is open.

Earthworms contain 5 aortic arches just above the esophagus while the arthropods contain a single dorsal tubular heart.

The nitrogenous waste is removed from the annilid body by structures called nephridia.

The arthropods use green glands, and Malpighian tubules.

Earthworms are hermaphroditic. They contain both male and female reproductive organs in the same body.

Arthropods contain separate sexes.

(continued below)

 

[Asyncritus]

The Annelid muscular system contains both circular and longitudinal muscles. As the circular muscles contract they elongate the body, while the longitudinal muscles shorten it. Setae, small bristle-like hairs, extend from the body walls and act as anchors as the worm moves. There are 4 pair of setae per segment.

The arthropods have their muscles connect to their limbs and their exoskeleton.

The worms contain a thin water proof layer called the cuticle and do not contain an exoskeleton like the arthropods.

Their skeleton is a hydrostatic one formed by the fluid filled body cavity.

There are no respiratory organs and the worms breathe through its moist skin.

Arthropods contain gills and a system of tubes called a tracheal system.

Given all that, how can you possibly support the nonensical view that arthropods evolved from annelids?

Somnambulating again?

Evidence shows bats didn't evolve from shrews.

I know, I know! That's what I've ben telling you for years.

So what do you think they evolved from? Or didn't they evolve?

 

[cupid dave]

Posted by cupid dave
Just as with the birth ofJesus, it was an Act-of-God that a mutation occurred rather than some father Ape who had sired another Ape.

The Mutation created the first human, without the egg coming first, because the egg that multiplied through the subsequent mitosis that followed had NEVER ever existed before in any living organism.


////




Except unlike the birth of Jesus, what you are describing never happened. So there is that, which is nice.

?
What never happened?

The fusing isindisputable because the end piece of the one chromosome is fued into the middle of the other chromosomes.

Telemeres are always found at the ends of each chromosome.
In man, chromosome number 2 has this fused chromosome stuck right in the middle of the other chromosome.


Ape are distinguishable from humans because apes have 24 pairs while human, since 7 million years ago, now have only 23 pairs of chromosomes.

This seems very convincing evidence that the evolutionists have a good case, but it no prtroof to anyone determined to reject the matter and say it is proof of evolution.

Nevertheless, it makes RATIONAL sense of the claim in Genesis, that Adam was created out of the chrmicals of the earth, not some other predeccessor like we all have had ever since, (except for Elijah and Jesus).

This idea of an Act-of-God inside the womb also gives great credence to the Bible claim that an Act-of-God fathered Jesus, not a man.

 

[Knotical]

?
What never happened?

The fusing isindisputable because the end piece of the one chromosome is fued into the middle of the other chromosomes.

Telemeres are always found at the ends of each chromosome.
In man, chromosome number 2 has this fused chromosome stuck right in the middle of the other chromosome.


Ape are distinguishable from humans because apes have 24 pairs while human, since 7 million years ago, now have only 23 pairs of chromosomes.

This seems very convincing evidence that the evolutionists have a good case, but it no prtroof to anyone determined to reject the matter and say it is proof of evolution.

Nevertheless, it makes RATIONAL sense of the claim in Genesis, that Adam was created out of the chrmicals of the earth, not some other predeccessor like we all have had ever since, (except for Elijah and Jesus).

This idea of an Act-of-God inside the womb also gives great credence to the Bible claim that an Act-of-God fathered Jesus, not a man.

Try getting on the same page with yourself, then get back to us.

 

[CaliforniaAlbanach]

Let's find out. Name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find one.

Micro evolution (that I can swallow) which is variation between kinds, I see that, different dogs, cats and all that!

Macro evolution (still waiting on this one) ape to man, fish to dog, that sorta thing, man even I don't have enough faith for that one!

 

[Barbarian]

The Annelid muscular system contains both circular and longitudinal muscles.

Arthropods have longitudinal and circular bands of muscle tissue as well as isolated musles that together enable a wide range of movements.
http://animals.about.com/od/arthropods/p/arthropoda.htm

The arthropods have their muscles connect to their limbs and their exoskeleton.

Some of them. Not all the circular and longitudinal ones, though.

The worms contain a thin water proof layer called the cuticle and do not contain an exoskeleton like the arthropods.

The cuticle is made up of two layers; the epicuticle, which is a thin, waxy water-resistant outer layer containing no chitin, and a layer beneath it, the procuticle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropod_cuticle

Their skeleton is a hydrostatic one formed by the fluid filled body cavity.

Crawling in caterpillars depends on a large number of muscles pulling against the hydrostatic skeleton of the insect.
http://livingwithinsects.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/friday-caterpillar-blogging-crawling/

There are no respiratory organs and the worms breathe through its moist skin.

Annelids have no lungs, although many species have simple gills.
http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/diversity/labguide/mollannel.html

Arthropods contain gills and a system of tubes called a tracheal system.

Some do. The pauropoda and arachnids don’t. Nor do most marine arthropods

Given all that, how can you possibly support the nonensical view that arthropods evolved from annelids?

Surprise.

Somnambulating again?

Dissecting your numerous misconceptions.

 

[cupid dave]

Micro evolution (that I can swallow) which is variation between kinds, I see that, different dogs, cats and all that!

Macro evolution (still waiting on this one) ape to man, fish to dog, that sorta thing, man even I don't have enough faith for that one!

We see macroev with the experiements in Russia which show what happened with wolves to dogs 20,000 years ago:

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian suggests naming two major groups without a transitional)

Async forgets again:

Bats and shrews

Barbarian reminds Async one more time:
Evidence shows bats didn't evolve from shrews.

I know, I know!

You always say that when I remind you. But then you forget and ask again.

So what do you think they evolved from?

A group of animals with batlike teeth and skulls, like Protictis.

 

[Barbarian]

Micro evolution (that I can swallow) which is variation between kinds, I see that, different dogs, cats and all that!

That's macroevolution. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is speciation.

Macro evolution (still waiting on this one) ape to man,

What is the anatomical difference between apes and man? Give me the essential differences and we'll have a look.

fish to dog, that sorta thing,

You think that's what evolutionary theory says? No wonder you don't like it. I wouldn't like it either, if it was like that. Why not learn what it's really about?

man even I don't have enough faith for that one!

You don't need to get faith. You need to get informed. Do a little reading and get back to us. Hint: don't ask Fidel Castro to teach you about capitalism.

 

[cupid dave]

Try getting on the same page with yourself, then get back to us.

You are right.
I am on a different page.

You church people are on the page that understands Genesis to impy that God utilized a Spontaneous Gneration of every single species that ever existed, with the exception of small micro evo chnages that made slight differences, say among dog breeds, etc.

The other page I am not on is the atheist and Bible Bashing page.
People on that page try to use science to ridicule you.

They ridicule your creationism, and actually the Bible too.
They pretend you are the authority on what Genesis actually says.

They attack what you say Genesis says.

They refuse to read Genesis in a way that would actually be supported by science.

That is the page I am on.

I contend the correct page to criticize Genesis or Creation accounts, negatively or positively, is the Theistic Evolution interpretation of what Genesis says in pretty plain English.

Genesis agrees with a Big Bang Beginning of an Universe which had not always been there.
Genesis agrees with Pangea, that once "all the waters under heaven had been gathered together into one place."
Genesis agrees that the six "days" were very long geological eras:

So on and so forth...
Genesis and science agree.

 

[Knotical]

You are right.
I am on a different page.

You church people are on the page that understands Genesis to impy that God utilized a Spontaneous Gneration of every single species that ever existed, with the exception of small micro evo chnages that made slight differences, say among dog breeds, etc.

The other page I am not on is the atheist and Bible Bashing page.
People on that page try to use science to ridicule you.

They ridicule your creationism, and actually the Bible too.
They pretend you are the authority on what Genesis actually says.

They attack what you say Genesis says.

They refuse to read Genesis in a way that would actually be supported by science.

That is the page I am on.

I contend the correct page to criticize Genesis or Creation accounts, negatively or positively, is the Theistic Evolution interpretation of what Genesis says in pretty plain English.

Genesis agrees with a Big Bang Beginning of an Universe which had not always been there.
Genesis agrees with Pangea, that once "all the waters under heaven had been gathered together into one place."
Genesis agrees that the six "days" were very long geological eras:

So on and so forth...
Genesis and science agree.

These are erroneous assumptions you have tried to apply to the bible. This is the problem with those who try to marry-up the bible with evolution. First, evolution is still, and always will be, an unproven theory. Any orthodox Christian should dismiss it as false from the beginning. Genesis does not support the big bang theory, micro or macro evolution, or any other version of creation than the everything being created in six days of ordinary length.