Evolution Between Species: Essential Questions

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You should not be inhaling jenkem anymore, it has messed with your perception of reality. The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well with you, there is also some cognitive dissonance there, brother. Have a blessed day.

You ignored most of the points. To help us all out, here is a summary for you.

1. You claimed that Lucy's knee bone was added to the skeleton you showed (Lucy), yet that skeleton doesn't have a knee bone. You appear to have been lied to, and didn't bother to check, instead doubling down your claim that the knee bone is in the skeleton of Lucy you showed. Do you still claim a knee bone is present in that skeleton?

2. Do you understand that this thread is about speciation events?

Fail. First of all, that's just the common creationist deceptive tactic of grouping animals as needed to deny evolution. You could just as well say, about monkey to man evolution, that "they are still a mammal, nothing more, nothing less", or about amoeba to man evolution "they are still a eukaryote, nothing more, nothing less."

Secondly, didn't you notice that the whole thread was about one species evolving into another? Since that's what the thread is about, speciation is all that is needed. 3. Do you or do you not accept speciation?


4. you understand that members of the same species can have different numbers of chromosomes, and that different species can have the same number of chromosomes?

5. You have still not shown that you understand that the species in the speciation examples are not sterile within their own species. Do you understand that?

Thank you-

In Jesus' name-

Papias
 
  • Like
Reactions: sfs
Upvote 0

Commander

A son of God.
Apr 10, 2015
830
99
Oklahoma
✟9,062.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. You claimed that Lucy's knee bone was added to the skeleton you showed (Lucy), yet that skeleton doesn't have a knee bone. You appear to have been lied to, and didn't bother to check, instead doubling down your claim that the knee bone is in the skeleton of Lucy you showed. Do you still claim a knee bone is present in that skeleton?
True, the knee bone(patella) itself is not there, but the knee is made up of not just one bone, but four. The femur (thigh bone), tibia (shin bone), and fibula (the smaller, rear calf bone). The patella (kneecap) is the bone in front of the knee. All four of these bones(where they come together) make up what is known as the knee. So, in the picture 50% of the right knee is there. Now, can we agree that there are no bones of the feet in the picture of Lucy?

Fail. First of all, that's just the common creationist deceptive tactic of grouping animals as needed to deny evolution. You could just as well say, about monkey to man evolution, that "they are still a mammal, nothing more, nothing less", or about amoeba to man evolution "they are still a eukaryote, nothing more, nothing less."
So, you think that man came from an amoeba? So, you think you came from an amoeba???? Why are amoebas(which has more than 500 chromosomes)still here today, if they evolved into man(which has only 46)? An ape has 48 chromosomes and man has 46 chromosomes, how did we evolve into something with less chromosomes. That would mean we lost a bunch of information, not gained so says the theory of evolution.

4. you understand that members of the same species can have different numbers of chromosomes, and that different species can have the same number of chromosomes?
Brother, this is where you are very wrong(in bold letters)!
The chromosome number of a potato(48) and a chimpanzee(48) are the same(in blue lettering).
"People used to think the more complex an organism the more DNA it would have…and therefore the bigger number of chromosomes. But this is simply not the case – scientists had to have a re-think when they discovered things like onions having 5x as much DNA as a human and goldfish have ~100 chromosomes." Because we are not the same species, as an ape.

You have still not shown that you understand that the species in the speciation examples are not sterile within their own species. Do you understand that?
I was quoting what you had given in example one from the website that you had listed. If they are sterile they cannot reproduce. Yes, if a species is not sterile, it is capable of reproduction. It's not hard to understand!
Brother, you are not seeing the forest for the tree. Have a blessed day.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
1. You claimed that Lucy's knee bone was added to the skeleton you showed (Lucy), yet that skeleton doesn't have a knee bone. You appear to have been lied to, and didn't bother to check, instead doubling down your claim that the knee bone is in the skeleton of Lucy you showed. Do you still claim a knee bone is present in that skeleton?

True, the knee bone(patella) itself is not there, but the knee is made up of not just one bone, but four. .

Irrelevant. you claimed a kneebone, and there is no knee bone (patella). In fact, creationists make your original claim because they don't understand that there was another australopithicus fossil found elsewhere that included the patella, and mistakenly think that the Lucy fossil is a composite when it is not. Do you now admit that your original claim is wrong, being a mistake based on the situation here described?

Now, can we agree that there are no bones of the feet in the picture of Lucy?
Sure we can. I never disputed that.

2. Do you understand that this thread is about speciation events?

still not answered.



3. Do you or do you not accept speciation?



4. you understand that members of the same species can have different numbers of chromosomes, and that different species can have the same number of chromosomes?

Brother, this is where you are very wrong(in bold letters)!
The chromosome number of a potato(48) and a chimpanzee(48) are the same(in blue lettering).
"People used to think the more complex an organism the more DNA it would have…and therefore the bigger number of chromosomes. But this is simply not the case – scientists had to have a re-think when they discovered things like onions having 5x as much DNA as a human and goldfish have ~100 chromosomes." Because we are not the same species, as an ape.

Yes, different members of the same species can have different numbers of chromosomes (and still reproduce). It's not the most common situation, but it happens. For instance, the Przewalski's type of horse has 66 chromosomes, and can reproduce just fine with a common horse (which has 64 chromosomes). There are other examples too.

And you agree that different species can have the same number of chromosomes, it seems.

5. You have still not shown that you understand that the species in the speciation examples are not sterile within their own species. Do you understand that?

I was quoting what you had given in example one from the website that you had listed. If they are sterile they cannot reproduce. Yes, if a species is not sterile, it is capable of reproduction. It's not hard to understand!
Brother, you are not seeing the forest for the tree. Have a blessed day.

I don't care what you were quoting. You clearly don't understand that the example given is clear, and shows one species splitting into two species, and that the two separate species produce sterile hybrids, but can still reproduce just fine within their own species. Do we need to go over that step by step? Do you agree that the example shows the successful evolution of a new species?

So, you think that man came from an amoeba? So, you think you came from an amoeba???? Why are amoebas(which has more than 500 chromosomes)still here today, if they evolved into man(which has only 46)?

First, we evolved from single celled creatures - not current amoebas. Secondly, your objection that "there are still amoebas today" is like me saying that I couldn't have descended from Germans, because there still are Germans today! Of course that's silly - only some of the single celled creatures led to us - other siblings of them stayed single celled - just as only some of the Germans led to me - some of their siblings stayed in Germany, and led to today's Germans. Make sense? It's pretty simple.


An ape has 48 chromosomes and man has 46 chromosomes, how did we evolve into something with less chromosomes. That would mean we lost a bunch of information, not gained so says the theory of evolution.

This is actually one of the coolest ways to see the reality of evolution. We have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) instead of 24 pairs (as our ape ancestors do), because two chromosomes fused at some point. In fact, we know exactly which ones. It was ape chromosomes 5 and 6, which fused to make our chromosome #2. So there is no loss of information.

In fact, in our chromosome #2, we still have the remains of the old ape centromere, and two end to end telomeres, exactly as one would predict if our chromosome #2 is the end to end fusion of two ape chromosomes. All the genes match perfectly with those on ape chromosomes #5 and 6, too. It's so completely obvious to anyone familiar with out genetics. Yes, you have solid proof of our evolution from apes in every cell nucleus in your body!

In Christ-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

Commander

A son of God.
Apr 10, 2015
830
99
Oklahoma
✟9,062.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Irrelevant. you claimed a kneebone, and there is no knee bone (patella). In fact, creationists make your original claim because they don't understand that there was another australopithicus fossil found elsewhere that included the patella, and mistakenly think that the Lucy fossil is a composite when it is not. Do you now admit that your original claim is wrong, being a mistake based on the situation here described?
No, there are NO bones of the feet, of the face, or brow line!


Sure we can. I never disputed that.
So, do you see any bones of the feet, someone monkeyed with the monkey!


still not answered.
"Irrelevant."











Yes, different members of the same species can have different numbers of chromosomes (and still reproduce). It's not the most common situation, but it happens. For instance, the Przewalski's type of horse has 66 chromosomes, and can reproduce just fine with a common horse (which has 64 chromosomes). There are other examples too.
Did you test them, to make sure that the P Horse has 66 chromosomes, or are you just taking information as it is feed to you?

And you agree that different species can have the same number of chromosomes, it seems.
Yeah, a potato and a monkey, so they say. I just don't know if any and I mean any scientific information can be correct/relied on.





I don't care what you were quoting. You clearly don't understand that the example given is clear, and shows one species splitting into two species, and that the two separate species produce sterile hybrids, but can still reproduce just fine within their own species. Do we need to go over that step by step? Do you agree that the example shows the successful evolution of a new species?
Well, I was quoting you!


First, we evolved from single celled creatures - not current amoebas. Secondly, your objection that "there are still amoebas today" is like me saying that I couldn't have descended from Germans, because there still are Germans today! Of course that's silly - only some of the single celled creatures led to us - other siblings of them stayed single celled - just as only some of the Germans led to me - some of their siblings stayed in Germany, and led to today's Germans. Make sense? It's pretty simple.
Really! That is truly laughable! Now, I know where your screwed up belief's come from. Heil Hitler-were you indoctrinated by Mein Kampf? If man came by evolution, man is not worth a thing-so lets kill them all, especially the Jews.




This is actually one of the coolest ways to see the reality of evolution. We have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) instead of 24 pairs (as our ape ancestors do), because two chromosomes fused at some point. In fact, we know exactly which ones. It was ape chromosomes 5 and 6, which fused to make our chromosome #2. So there is no loss of information.
So, you think you came from an amoeba-Other well known species include the so-called "brain-eating amoeba" Naegleria fowleri,

In fact, in our chromosome #2, we still have the remains of the old ape centromere, and two end to end telomeres, exactly as one would predict if our chromosome #2 is the end to end fusion of two ape chromosomes. All the genes match perfectly with those on ape chromosomes #5 and 6, too. It's so completely obvious to anyone familiar with out genetics. Yes, you have solid proof of our evolution from apes in every cell nucleus in your body!
Only in the mind of an evolutionist, or in their make believe world! Genesis 1:27.

In Christ-

Papias
Click to expand for your answers. Well I guess the man that God created(myself) and the man from the monkey(you) will just have to disagree. Who do you think Jesus Christ will say to....depart from me you worker of iniquity?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Click to expand for your answers. Well I guess the man that God created(myself) and the man from the monkey(you) will just have to disagree. Who do you think Jesus Christ will say to....depart from me you worker of iniquity?

Wow, what a bunch of non-answers. Care to offer a real answer to any of them, instead of simply threatening me with eternal torture?

In Christ-

Papias
 
  • Like
Reactions: RickG
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Wow, what a bunch of non-answers. Care to offer a real answer to any of them, instead of simply threatening me with eternal torture?

In Christ-

Papias
So you believe you descended from apes and that God keeps the unsaved alive to be tortured forever?
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So you believe you descended from apes .....?

Of course (we both are descended from other apes) - it's as well established (and just as contradicted by a literal reading of the Bibles) as the idea that we live on a globe.

So you believe .... that God keeps the unsaved alive to be tortured forever?

Where did that come from? That's not the topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss that, feel free to start a thread on it. Discussion of that here would only derail this thread, and that's something I try not to do, out of common courtesy.

In Christ-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
WHY would small islands like the Hawaiians be capable to allow the evolution of so many species? Would two or three be a more reasonable number of evolved species? What are the forces behind the evolution?
There are several mechanisms/processes behind evolution and unlike most people think natural selection is only one of them and is not quantitatively dominate as far as genomic evolution is concerned. The tree of life concept has inconsistenices and shows that life can exchange genetic material more freely.

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics.

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or 'forest' of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.

This paper states there are four main forces for evolution with natural selection being one of them. The other three forces (recombination, mutation and genetic drift) are non adaptive forces are said to be more responsible for the evolution of genomic networks and structures central to building complex organism. The problem is many say natural selection is the only force for evolution and it is capable of creating everything when there is no direct evidence for this.

Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense Except in Light of Population Genetics
The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization. These issues are examined in the context of the view that the origins of many aspects of biological diversity, from gene-structural embellishments to novelties at the phenotypic level, have roots in nonadaptive processes, with the population-genetic environment imposing strong directionality on the paths that are open to evolutionary exploitation.

First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11). The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: juvenissun
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Lack of outside competition. Those creatures who were able to reach the island had more empty ecological niches open to them.
I would have thought the Islands was pretty much the same type of environment and there wouldn't be enough difference to produce so much variation from adaptation alone. If we see humans with bigger noses do we say they must be adapting to gain greater smell. If micro organisms can produce so much variation in a short time in basically the same environment how is that all the results of adaptations alone. Why does everything we see have to be forced into an adaptive line of thinking. It almost seems like this is a icon of the belief that evolution is responsible for everything.
 
Upvote 0