The bottom line - what do we really know?

[Hvizsgyak]

I've been trying to educate myself and follow the sciences (paleontology, archeology, genetics, biology, microbiology and any other sciences involved) that are used to support The Theory of Evolution. And I want to say The Barbarian lays out a very good case for supporting The Theory of Evolution. He echoes the scientists in their respective fields on their conclusions that they have come to in their findings. But what I find in evolutionists (who solely support The Theory of Evolution) is that they only deal in what they have as evidence and from what they have as evidence they make their speculations. For example, older theories on the evolution of Man had Homo Sapiens evolving from Homo Erectus with Homo heidelbergensis in a "we don't know what to do with this one" category. After further examination, evolutionists now have Homo heidelbergensis as Homo Sapiens immediate ancestor. Although Homo erectus was the immediate ancestor to Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis and Homo denisova. After further investigation, Homo erectus has possibly become the immediate ancestor to Homo floresiensis and Homo naledi (who become stranded on an island and through the years evolved into dwarf-like beings.

Go ahead and pick those last couple of sentences apart, I'm trying to present those from memory. Anyway, my point is evolution scientists aren't seeing the whole picture when it comes to evolution. They base their theories on what evidence they have dug up. So this is where I find their work flawed. Here is my reasoning displayed in an example:

You have two puzzles (each 1000 pieces). You have no box to look at the picture to see what the final product looks like. You start putting the one puzzle together and even though alot of the pieces look the same, you eventually get 650 pieces of the puzzle together. You can make out what the puzzle is possible going to end up being - a 3'x3'x3' cardboard box. You are pretty certain of what the final puzzle will look like but you still may find surprises in the remaining 350 pieces left of the it. You figure though it's just a matter of putting the right pieces together to finish up the box. Tedious at times but you finish the first puzzle.

You start the second puzzle and and after about 100 pieces put together, you kind of think this is some kind of blueprint. You have no idea what goes where but after trying alot of combinations you manage to get about 530 pieces together. You still can see it is some kind of blueprint but to what you can't tell. You can even take educated guesses.

In my eyes, how Man came to be is the second puzzle. The sciences have alot of the pieces but the whole picture is way more complicated so at this point, the sciences should be using a whole lot of words that convey the message "we can only speculate" or "this is only one possible solution". The sciences have alot of bones and artifacts but they have no idea how much they are missing and what exactly is missing. Homo naledi was just discovered in 2013. Homo denisova was discovered 2008. What else might be discovered? What might be never discovered because of age. The sciences are creating alot of ghost beings (they speculate that there is a being out there buried but not yet discovered).

Let these other people present their theories to the world until one of these theories becomes fact (one that proven beyond a shadow of a doubt). Thank you The Barbarian, MountainMike, QvQ, and the rest of you contributors. Extremely informational.

 

[The Barbarian]

I've been trying to educate myself and follow the sciences (paleontology, archeology, genetics, biology, microbiology and any other sciences involved) that are used to support The Theory of Evolution. And I want to say The Barbarian lays out a very good case for supporting The Theory of Evolution. He echoes the scientists in their respective fields on their conclusions that they have come to in their findings. But what I find in evolutionists (who solely support The Theory of Evolution) is that they only deal in what they have as evidence and from what they have as evidence they make their speculations. For example, older theories on the evolution of Man had Homo Sapiens evolving from Homo Erectus with Homo heidelbergensis in a "we don't know what to do with this one" category. After further examination, evolutionists now have Homo heidelbergensis as Homo Sapiens immediate ancestor. Although Homo erectus was the immediate ancestor to Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis and Homo denisova. After further investigation, Homo erectus has possibly become the immediate ancestor to Homo floresiensis and Homo naledi (who become stranded on an island and through the years evolved into dwarf-like beings.

Yes. As new information becomes available, scientists often revise their ideas about such things. The closer the relationships get, the harder it is to exactly define the lines of descent.

Some paleontologists think H. floresiensis might merely be a dwarfed population of H. erectus.

In my eyes, how Man came to be is the second puzzle. The sciences have alot of the pieces but the whole picture is way more complicated so at this point, the sciences should be using a whole lot of words that convey the message "we can only speculate" or "this is only one possible solution". The sciences have alot of bones and artifacts but they have no idea how much they are missing and what exactly is missing. Homo naledi was just discovered in 2013. Homo denisova was discovered 2008. What else might be discovered? What might be never discovered because of age. The sciences are creating alot of ghost beings (they speculate that there is a being out there buried but not yet discovered).

Interestingly, genetic analysis has identified one more race of archaic humans. Neanderthals, Denisovans, and at least one other population of early humans existed along with our particular subspecies. Genetic analysis indicates that these are not separate species, but subspecies of H. sapiens. Races, in other words. Today, there are no biological human races, but there were at one time.

Let these other people present their theories to the world until one of these theories becomes fact (one that proven beyond a shadow of a doubt). Thank you The Barbarian, MountainMike, QvQ, and the rest of you contributors. Extremely informational.

We see through a glass darkly; as time goes on, the uncertainty becomes less and less, but we will never have all of it. Nevertheless, we can know some things, even if we can't know everything. That is what drives scientists; the "pleasure of finding things out", as Richard Feynman put it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Recombination is existing genetic material. Are we now arguing that every person born, being a recombination, is an adapted mutation?

When parents pass their genes down to their children, an average of 60 errors are introduced to the genetic code in the process, according to a new study. Any of those five dozen mutations could be the source of major differences in a person's appearance or behavior as compared to his or her parents and altogether, the mistakes are the driving force of evolution.

How Many Genetic Mutations Do I Have?

We each possess 60 new mutations, any of which could make major changes in our appearance or behavior. The genetic mistakes are the driving force of evolution.

www.livescience.com

Viral insertion is rare in nature.

Here we describe a method called ERVmap, consisting of an annotated database of 3,220 human proviral ERVs and a pipeline that allows for locus-specific genome-wide identification of proviral ERVs that are transcribed based on RNA-sequencing data, and provide examples of the utility of this tool.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1814589115

DNA repairs itself.

Nevertheless, the repair function is not perfect. Hence mutations. About 60 in each of us.

Viral insertion is artificially done in GMO,

And naturally, as our thousands of ERVs show.

However, the GMO either die out in a few generations or reverts (repairs itself) to the original phenotype .

No. What happens is that genetically-modified organisms are usually not as fit as unmodified organisms, and while they rarely mutate back to the non-GMO state, natural selection tends to remove the individuals with the modified genes. Mutations, if they increase fitness, tend to increase or even become fixed in wild populations.

 

[QvQ]

No. What happens is that genetically-modified organisms are usually not as fit as unmodified organisms, and while they rarely mutate back to the non-GMO state, natural selection tends to remove the individuals with the modified genes. Mutations, if they increase fitness, tend to increase or even become fixed in wild populations.

That is what Should Happen according to Darwin but it doesn't. All the GMO I have experience with or have read about are sterile, or do not come true from seed, AND the progeny, dies out in a few generations.

There isn't any evidence after thousands of years of selective breeding that selection of certain genetic traits that increase fitness increase or become fixed in wild populations. And there isn't any evidence of that with the GMO either.

Darwin's theory fails. Are we dancing in the street? NO because it is an economic issue.
Seed is expensive. Manipulating food for increased production and what a thought...genetically manipulated humans with inherited immunity to disease.
It is not happening. My most famous quote from the GMO folks "We know angiosperms evolved at least once" Now that we have the tools, prove it. And I will bet it can't be done because some mechanism within the organism's genome selects and only within the limits of the organisms Type. Adaptation is a very narrow range and if exceeded the organism become extinct. The genome's selection does not have anything to do with any external or introduced selective pressure.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is what Should Happen according to Darwin but it doesn't.

I suspect you don't know what "GMO" means. You see, every organism is technically GMO, including you. You are genetically different from either of your parents, and even carry about 60 new mutations, which you will have a 50-50 chance of passing on to any particular offspring. It's no different with artificially GMO organisms. The only thing that removes any of the modified genes is natural selection. Which happens to populations but not individuals.

There is no official definition of a GMO but typically when people call a plant a GMO they mean that part of its DNA has been changed or edited in a laboratory. Scientists change these genes by cutting out genes or adding genes to a DNA sequence. Scientists can also take a gene from one species of plant and put that gene into a plant of a different species. Plants made by using this lab technique are called ‘transgenic’ (trans- means across and -genic means related to genes).

Plants and animals become ‘genetically modified’ in nature too. Whenever animals or plants reproduce sexually, the DNA of the parents are combined. Therefore every plant and animal is genetically unique from its parents. Mutations in the DNA sequence occur naturally when cells divide and sometimes these mutations get passed onto offspring. These mutations can create sequences that never before existed in that species.

GMOs - Transgenic Crops | Ask A Biologist

GMO might sound like a hard-to-understand name. But taking a quick look into the world of genetic modification will hopefully make it all a bit easier to understand.

askabiologist.asu.edu

 

[QvQ]

You are genetically different from either of your parents, and even carry about 60 new mutations, which you will have a 50-50 chance of passing on to any particular offspring.

That article you posted is Simple Simon.
Yes, transgenic as in GMO salmon crossbreeding with brown trout.
Oh my, either do a happy dance for Darwin or beat the "we're all going to die" drum for the anti-GMO crowd.
What happens is
First generation: 40% of brown trout/salmon GMO hybrid inherit growth genetic information
And 100% Sterile

You see? So far, research is focused meiosis and mitosis but it is extremely complicated subject that I don't have time or interest to research. I do understand the implications. Unlike selectively bred hybrids that revert, GMO progeny dies out after several generations.

It is extremely misleading to claim that all organisms are GMO and the genomes are naturally pliable, endlessly malleable because that is what "nature" does, according to the Gospel of Darwin. Actually it is not what nature does. There are factors that severely limit and control genetic expression especially "mutation" within the genome, as the genetic manipulators are discovering.

 

[The Barbarian]

That article you posted is Simple Simon.

Well, you did seem to understand it pretty well up to a point.

Yes, transgenic as in GMO salmon crossbreeding with brown trout.

Yes, it's not common, but sometimes the genetically altered organisms thrive in the wild and even pass the genes on to other species. So much for disappearing. They stay as long as the organisms reproduce and pass them on.

Oh my, either do a happy dance for Darwin or beat the "we're all going to die" drum for the anti-GMO crowd.

I can see why you might be conflicted by this revelation.

First generation: 40% of brown trout/salmon GMO hybrid inherit growth genetic information
And 100% Sterile

Yeah, a lot of interspecies crosses are like that. Mules, for example. BTW, it's not universal. Some mules can reproduce.

https://www.npr.org/2007/07/26/12260255/befuddling-birth-the-case-of-the-mules-foal

You see? So far, research is focused meiosis and mitosis but it is extremely complicated subject that I don't have time or interest to research.

And that's what has you running into walls here.

Unlike selectively bred hybrids that revert, GMO progeny dies out after several generations.

So far, you haven't give us any reason to think so. GMO corn does not, for example:

Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile.
No, they'll germinate and grow just like any other plant. This idea presumably has its roots in a real genetic modification (dubbed the Terminator Gene by anti-biotech activists) that can make a plant produce sterile seeds. Monsanto owns the patent on this technique, but has promised not to use it.

Now, biotech companies — and Monsanto in particular — do seem to wish that this idea were true. They do their best to keep farmers from replanting the offspring from GMOs. But they do this because, in fact, those seeds will multiply.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

It is extremely misleading to claim that all organisms are GMO

Remember what it means. "Genetically modified organism." You, for example, are a genetically modified organism. You are genetically different than either parent, and have about 60 mutations that were in neither parent. That's genetic modificiation.

and the genomes are naturally pliable,

That's your strawman, not anyone else's. All genomes have limits. But as you demonstrate, there's a lot of room for genetic modification.

endlessly malleable because that is what "nature" does, according to the Gospel of Darwin.

Here, you seem to be projecting. Darwin just pointed out that variation plus natural selection are the cause of new species. This claim has been repeatedly verified, to the point that many creationist organizations no longer even deny the fact of speciation.

 

[QvQ]

So far, you haven't give us any reason to think so. GMO corn does not, for example:

GMO corn does not survive outside cultivation. That has been the leading argument from the GMO creators. These crops cannot survive outside cultivation. Not my reason, It is the Reason. Hybrids will revert to either parent. GMO simply die out.

I don't think GMO corn seed is saved and planted as corn is a hybrid and seed for every crop would be purchased anew each years. Canola is a better example but even that will not come true or establish from GMO seed.

I suggest you obtain some GMO seeds, plant the first crop and save the seeds. Then plant successive crops from those seeds and report to us whether the plants breed true over several generations and survive. I have found that GMO plants from saved seeds just piffle out, just won't grow although some species can survive for a few generations before "piffling."

That was the subject of one research article I posted, the inability to establish GMO or GMO genes in a wild population.

Don't take my word for it as my word is tinged with a bit of frustration from a lifetime of dealing with hybrids and GMO.

 

[The Barbarian]

GMO corn does not survive outside cultivation.

No maize survives outside cultivation. Thought you knew.

Hybrids will revert to either parent.

So far, you've been unable to show us one example. We know why.

I suggest you obtain some GMO seeds, plant the first crop and save the seeds. Then plant successive crops and report to us whether the plants breed true over several generations and survive. I have found that GMO plants from saved seeds just piffle out, just won't grow although some species can survive as long as 50 years before "piffling."

So you've observed GMO organisms for 50 years?

Don't take my word for it

I'm not. I'm asking for some evidence.

 

[QvQ]

maize survives outside cultivation. Thought you knew.

Of course maize survives outside cultivation. However hybrid corn will revert. GMO corn will not survive outside cultivation.

So far, you've been unable to show us one example. We know why.

Plant some Burpee Marigolds (F1) hybrids. Save the seeds and plant them. See what you get. Every gardener in America knows that scenario.

So you've observed GMO organisms for 50 years?

Yes, or known about them through technical journals or associations. GMO technically includes the colchicine treatment for polyploids from abt 1900 although the technology of GMO has advanced.

I suggest you get some seed and go play in the dirt. Hybridization and GMO are interesting hobbies.

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course maize survives outside cultivation.

Nope.

Plant some Burpee Marigolds (F1) hybrids. Save the seeds and plant them. See what you get. Every gardener in America knows that scenario.

You've confused hybrids (like mules) with GMO organisms. Hybrids often can't reproduce for chromosomal reasons.
So you've observed GMO organisms for 50 years?

Yes, or known about them through technical journals or associations.

Specifically which species? Tell us about it.

GMO technically includes the colchicine treatment for polyploids from abt 1900 although the technology of GMO has advanced.

You just learned that you are GMO technically. Colchicine is used to make mutant plants because it interfers with tubulin formation and at meiosis, will result in polyploid cells. This generally is lethal in animals, but not plants. This is why there are few or no polyploid animal mutants.
However, polyploid plants often form new species ( Oelignothera. gigas, which evolved from O. lamarckana) which contrary to your belief, are stable and have existed as a species for well over 50 years.

I suggest you get some seed and go play in the dirt.

Gardening is kind of a hobby for me. BTW, sometimes, seeds that they tell you will not sprout due to hybridization will sprout, just as mules will sometimes reproduce. Would you like to learn why?

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think GMO corn seed is saved and planted as corn is a hybrid and seed for every crop would be purchased anew each years.

Turns out, that GMO corn usually is fertile and can be saved and planted. In fact, biotechnology companies have come up with a scheme to stop that from happening (lower profits, you know)

GM corn set to stop man spreading his seed

Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive corn. Waiving fields of maize may one day save the world from overpopulation.

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Barbarian]

That is what Should Happen according to Darwin but it doesn't.

I know you want to believe that, but the evidence shows that it does.

 

[BNR32FAN]

We see in Exodus 23:29 "But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land."

This shows us how God slowly replaced Neanderthals with Modern Humans. They were forbidden to intermarry. with the inhabitants of the land.

Deuteronomy 7:1-4 (NIV):

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you."

The Neanderthals died in the flood. How could they be alive after the flood if they weren’t on the ark?

 

[Diamond7]

The Neanderthals died in the flood. How could they be alive after the flood if they weren’t on the ark?

There are people who claim that the Neanderthals can be seen today riding the subway in NYC. The movie Ghost had a character that was very Neanderthal like. In our High School Biology we do study about a biodiverse ecology. The people did come up out of Africa and take over a land that belonged to the Neanderthals before them. God had to show them how to use animals skins to stay warm in the colder climate.

The passage in Exodus talks about when the Children of Israel come up out of Egypt to claim their land. But I think this applies to the Neanderthals also. The take over was gradual to keep the wild animals under control.

Exodus 23:29 But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you.

Noah lived around 1,500 years after Adam. Noah's father could have know Adam as they were both alive for a short period of time. What is interesting is the Y Chromosomal Aaron. So today they can trace the people that are descended from Aaron because of their genetic purity.

Y-chromosomal Aaron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are people who claim that the Neanderthals can be seen today riding the subway in NYC. The movie Ghost had a character that was very Neanderthal like. In our High School Biology we do study about a biodiverse ecology. The people did come up out of Africa and take over a land that belonged to the Neanderthals before them. God had to show them how to use animals skins to stay warm in the colder climate.

The passage in Exodus talks about when the Children of Israel come up out of Egypt to claim their land. But I think this applies to the Neanderthals also. The take over was gradual to keep the wild animals under control.

Exodus 23:29 But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you.

Noah lived around 1,500 years after Adam. Noah's father could have know Adam as they were both alive for a short period of time. What is interesting is the Y Chromosomal Aaron. So today they can trace the people that are descended from Aaron because of their genetic purity.

Y-chromosomal Aaron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

God said that all the nations came from Noah’s descendants.

”These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭10‬:‭32‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are people who claim that the Neanderthals can be seen today riding the subway in NYC. The movie Ghost had a character that was very Neanderthal like. In our High School Biology we do study about a biodiverse ecology. The people did come up out of Africa and take over a land that belonged to the Neanderthals before them. God had to show them how to use animals skins to stay warm in the colder climate.

The passage in Exodus talks about when the Children of Israel come up out of Egypt to claim their land. But I think this applies to the Neanderthals also. The take over was gradual to keep the wild animals under control.

Exodus 23:29 But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you.

Noah lived around 1,500 years after Adam. Noah's father could have know Adam as they were both alive for a short period of time. What is interesting is the Y Chromosomal Aaron. So today they can trace the people that are descended from Aaron because of their genetic purity.

Y-chromosomal Aaron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You never answered the question, how did they survive the flood?

 

[Diamond7]

You never answered the question, how did they survive the flood?

How did WHO survive the flood? The area that was flooded is under the Persian Gulf today.

 

[Diamond7]

God said that all the nations came from Noah’s descendants.

”These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭10‬:‭32‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Yes, what Noah saved was civilization. Domesticated animals and cultivated plants. In Biology we would call this a biodiverse ecosystem. Science has put a LOT of work into understanding how civilization began in Mesopotamia and spread to the rest of the world from there.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How did WHO survive the flood? The area that was flooded is under the Persian Gulf today.

That’s not what the scriptures say.

”The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭7‬:‭19‬-‭23‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

All the high mountains EVERYWHERE UNDER THE HEAVENS were covered.

All flesh that moved on the EARTH perished and mankind is specifically mentioned in that list.

He blotted out EVERY LIVING THING that was on land including man was blotted out FROM THE EARTH.

And ONLY Noah was left together with those who were with him.

This means it was a worldwide flood that killed all land dwelling life on the entire planet, especially all mankind which was the whole purpose of the flood.