Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by EternalDragon

Not at all. Evolution is doing the supernatural claiming.
​

So you still don't understand evolution. You know that the scientists that understand and accept evolution do not agree with you.

Dear SZ, I understand evolution and ED is right. Evolution is CLAIMING that the minds of Apes were "evolved" from outside influences such as long periods of time and numerous mutations.

NO other animal was affected this way, before or since. The definition of evolution requires the use of the birth process as the means of transferring information to the offspring. Unless, you can show us HOW magical evolution changed Ape intelligence into Human intelligence, from outside our bodies, which you CANNOT. This is because Magical Evolution from outside our bodies is IMPOSSIBLE.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Oncedeceived]

Don't you think A and B look awfully similar?

A is a normal chimpanzee and B is Australopithecus africanus, the best known one being named Lucy.

This isn't stand alone information that should make someone leap to their feat and yell, "I see it! Evolution is real!", but you asked what was convincing.

The very similar genetic code with the near identically placed ERVs would be more of your "Proved to a court of law." type evidence, but for the "Oh, I see it.", I like the skulls.

As a side note, no they don't look all that similar. You will notice that the forehead is substantially higher on B than on A, the brow bone on B is much farther from the top of the crown with a pronounced structure and the eye sockets are more round than oblong, the nasal cavity is more round in appearance as well in B, the cheek bones are considerably higher on B too. So all in all, I repeat, they don't seem that similar.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, we share over 90% DNA with chimps, which would be more than enough in any court in the US to convict us of being cousins.

If we look at this percentage in the evolutionary model this means that our DNA shares over 90% similarity. First we must determine if that 90% is accurate. The human genome and other animals as well contain what is called "dark matter" that comprises 95% of our genomes. Scientists do not know what makes up this matter and their functions or reason for being there is unknown and in fact, they are difficult to detect. What is known about the human genome and the Chimpanzee genome (the chimpanzee is not fully sequenced either) have similarity yet there is too much left uncovered to be certain what that percentage is.

It is interesting to note as well, that the orangutan is right in there with DNA similarity with nearly the same percentage as that of the Chimpanzee and morphology fits best with the orangutan to the fossil evidence. So while the standard model of evolution claims that the Chimpanzee is closest to the Homo Sapiens there could be made a convincing argument for the orangutan as well. However, the same thing is true of this, the dark matter of the genome may hold more differences than similarities. Without the full genome being sequenced in all apes and the dark matter being able to be explained and functional aspects to it are shown we have a 95% margin of error in any determination of percentage of similarity. We know that we are very similar in physical characteristics which would make DNA very similar just in that area. So in conclusion, we are similar to Chimpanzees and the entire ape family but we are not sure how similar and how different. What makes us similar and what makes us different. Remember cats which we do not share a close relationship with is 90% similar as well.

But I'm always intrigued by human chromosome #2, so I'll just throw that out there for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

This is very interesting as well. What needs to be considered here is that all modern apes other than humans carry the 48 chromosomes while humans only 46. Now it is pretty obvious that there is an area that looks to be fused together creating the result of losing two chromosomes in the human. What is not obvious is how this occurred, when it occurred, in how many it occurred and why it was selected for. These questions are not answered and do make a big difference in the resulting explanation. What we do know is this, humans are the only ones in the ape family that have this difference. Humans are the only ones in the ape family that show a great gap from the other members of the family. The other apes are all closer to each other than they are to the human.

So we can reasonably make several assumptions from the above evidence. That apes and human share similarities in their DNA that can be presented in evolutionary models to be viewed as evidence that supports that view. However, considering that we do not know how much is different and what makes it different and if that can be accounted for by evolutionary models. This is true with the chromosomes, we can see how this fits with evolutionary models but we have questions as to how that occurred, when it occurred, and to how many it occurred and how it was selected for so completely that it is in no other ape, and how the result is in only humans having this number of chromosomes in the ape family.

Now if we look at the Creation model, we can see that with common design these all fit equally well. It would be by design that all similar animals would have a percentage of the same DNA which would be more similar the closer physically the animal was to each other as well. It shows that the human is "special" in that it is different from all other apes. That the human has characteristics unlike any other primate. This holds true to the creation model as well. Humans are unique in comparison to the rest of the ape family.

 

[HitchSlap]

If we look at this percentage in the evolutionary model this means that our DNA shares over 90% similarity. First we must determine if that 90% is accurate. The human genome and other animals as well contain what is called "dark matter" that comprises 95% of our genomes. Scientists do not know what makes up this matter and their functions or reason for being there is unknown and in fact, they are difficult to detect. What is known about the human genome and the Chimpanzee genome (the chimpanzee is not fully sequenced either) have similarity yet there is too much left uncovered to be certain what that percentage is.

It is interesting to note as well, that the orangutan is right in there with DNA similarity with nearly the same percentage as that of the Chimpanzee and morphology fits best with the orangutan to the fossil evidence. So while the standard model of evolution claims that the Chimpanzee is closest to the Homo Sapiens there could be made a convincing argument for the orangutan as well. However, the same thing is true of this, the dark matter of the genome may hold more differences than similarities. Without the full genome being sequenced in all apes and the dark matter being able to be explained and functional aspects to it are shown we have a 95% margin of error in any determination of percentage of similarity. We know that we are very similar in physical characteristics which would make DNA very similar just in that area. So in conclusion, we are similar to Chimpanzees and the entire ape family but we are not sure how similar and how different. What makes us similar and what makes us different. Remember cats which we do not share a close relationship with is 90% similar as well.




This is very interesting as well. What needs to be considered here is that all modern apes other than humans carry the 48 chromosomes while humans only 46. Now it is pretty obvious that there is an area that looks to be fused together creating the result of losing two chromosomes in the human. What is not obvious is how this occurred, when it occurred, in how many it occurred and why it was selected for. These questions are not answered and do make a big difference in the resulting explanation. What we do know is this, humans are the only ones in the ape family that have this difference. Humans are the only ones in the ape family that show a great gap from the other members of the family. The other apes are all closer to each other than they are to the human.

So we can reasonably make several assumptions from the above evidence. That apes and human share similarities in their DNA that can be presented in evolutionary models to be viewed as evidence that supports that view. However, considering that we do not know how much is different and what makes it different and if that can be accounted for by evolutionary models. This is true with the chromosomes, we can see how this fits with evolutionary models but we have questions as to how that occurred, when it occurred, and to how many it occurred and how it was selected for so completely that it is in no other ape, and how the result is in only humans having this number of chromosomes in the ape family.

Now if we look at the Creation model, we can see that with common design these all fit equally well. It would be by design that all similar animals would have a percentage of the same DNA which would be more similar the closer physically the animal was to each other as well. It shows that the human is "special" in that it is different from all other apes. That the human has characteristics unlike any other primate. This holds true to the creation model as well. Humans are unique in comparison to the rest of the ape family.

Creation is not a "model," it's a religious belief. I appreciate theories that attempt to explain things and have predictive qualities, not "goddoesit."

You're free to believe what you need to. Me, I'll accept the evidence, wherever it may lead.

ToE is a theory based on multiple independent lines of evidence (MILE).

 

[Oncedeceived]

Creation is not a "model," it's a religious belief. I appreciate theories that attempt to explain things and have predictive qualities, not "goddoesit."

The Creation narrative is a model in so much as it gives us a model of creation. It has predictive qualities that should be reflected in the natural world, which it does.

You're free to believe what you need to. Me, I'll accept the evidence, wherever it may lead.

I think that you base your interpretation on the evidence within your worldview. That is normal. It doesn't mean your interpretation is more truthful than the other.

ToE is a theory based on multiple independent lines of evidence (MILE).

Evolution is not contrary to creation. Creation does not oppose evolution. That is a misunderstood element in the issue.

 

[HitchSlap]

The Creation narrative is a model in so much as it gives us a model of creation. It has predictive qualities that should be reflected in the natural world, which it does.



I think that you base your interpretation on the evidence within your worldview. That is normal. It doesn't mean your interpretation is more truthful than the other.



Evolution is not contrary to creation. Creation does not oppose evolution. That is a misunderstood element in the issue.

If "The Creation narrative" has predictive qualities, then:

1. Name one prediction it makes, and
2. What would falsify the creation model?

And I think you misunderstand what creationism claims, it absolutely opposes ToE and the scientific method. Creation is based on your personal interpretation of G1/2, and then you look for things you think support your idea of creation, which is, of course, the exact opposite of the SM.

 

[Skaloop]

The Creation narrative is a model in so much as it gives us a model of creation. It has predictive qualities that should be reflected in the natural world, which it does.

No, it does not. The natural world does not match up with the Creation narrative at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If "The Creation narrative" has predictive qualities, then:

1. Name one prediction it makes, and
2. What would falsify the creation model?

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. If the universe did not have a beginning.

And I think you misunderstand what creationism claims, it absolutely opposes ToE and the scientific method.

That is simply untrue. It opposes some elements premised within the theory for some creationists.

Creation is based on your personal interpretation of G1/2, and then you look for things you think support your idea of creation, which is, of course, the exact opposite of the SM.

First, the creation narrative in Genesis 1 recounts the creation of the universe and life forms in it. Genesis 2 recounts the creation of the spiritual man. The Creation Narrative in Genesis 1 has specific elements that we would see in nature (predictions) for instance the universe having a beginning. The Science model in turn does the same thing only in the opposite direction usually. It takes what we see in nature and it tries to explain it by making a prediction and seeing if the evidence supports that premise.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it does not. The natural world does not match up with the Creation narrative at all.

I think you are basing this on your opinion rather than facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. If the universe did not have a beginning.

That's about as vague as it gets.

What does the creation model predict about the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, or the distribution of matter?

First, the creation narrative in Genesis 1 recounts the creation of the universe and life forms in it.

So what predictions does the model make with respect to life forms? From what I can see, it has trees before fish which is wrong. It has whales before land mammals, which is wrong. It can't even get the broad strokes right.

 

[HitchSlap]

I think you are basing this on your opinion rather than facts.

I'm not sure if you're being serious here.

10,000/13.72bya
Adam/ToE
worldwide flood/never happened

Maybe you're not a creationist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not sure if you're being serious here.

10,000/13.72bya
Adam/ToE
worldwide flood/never happened

Maybe you're not a creationist?

I am being serious. There is nothing in the bible that shows how old the universe is or how long of time is in a day.

The flood as far as I know does not have worldwide evidence but it does have a substantial flood occurring at the right location to be the Biblical flood. However, I don't have a degree in Geology so I haven't questioned the authorities in that area.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I am being serious. There is nothing in the bible that shows how old the universe is or how long of time is in a day.

The flood as far as I know does not have worldwide evidence but it does have a substantial flood occurring at the right location to be the Biblical flood. However, I don't have a degree in Geology so I haven't questioned the authorities in that area.

We know how long a day is: 24 hours.

When they were writing the bible, clearly the authors had no idea that ~2000 years into the future science would make a mockery of what they had written.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We know how long a day is: 24 hours.

When they were writing the bible, clearly the authors had no idea that ~2000 years into the future science would make a mockery of what they had written.

What determines a day as 24 hours?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

1. The universe had a beginning.
...

That's the predictive ability of the bible: The universe had a beginning?

Does it also predict plants grow?

Excuse me if I think you are making a joke. You are, aren't you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's the predictive ability of the bible: The universe had a beginning?

Does it also predict plants grow?

Excuse me if I think you are making a joke. You are, aren't you?

That might be funny to you but it was once considered to be eternal and always having been in existence.

 

[Skaloop]

What determines a day as 24 hours?

The rotation of the Earth.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

That might be funny to you but it was once considered to be eternal and always having been in existence.

That wouldn't have worked with the god story.

It seems very obvious that if you are creating an all powerful god, he has to have created everything. Otherwise he's a pretty wimpy god. Just saying.

I'm willing to bet there are other deities who are supposed to have created the universe. If so, does that mean those gods and god stories are also true?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

What determines a day as 24 hours?

The rotation of the earth, and the time units we decided to use to divide up one rotation.

We could have divided the day into 10 blarflaps too, but a day would still be the same length.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The rotation of the Earth.

Actually that is true but I was going for time. Time is an element that was created when the universe came into being. God being outside of time, we do not know what reference is used to determine His "day".