Is evolution a fact or theory?

[GenemZ]

Chimps and humans are physically descended from a common physical ancestor.

Why? Because God sticks to certain basic building blocks for temporal physical life???


If you think honestly about it? If your logic was not to be hindered by a remnant of common sense? All of the creatures that have lungs, hearts, eyes, bowels, spleens, pancreas, gall bladders, arteries, flesh, bone, ears, stomachs, etc? All had to have a common ancestor.

You mean to tell me that, that biological schematic happened spontaneously and independently in different parts of the world without some form of intelligence setting up that repeatable design format? All that have lungs and hearts, etc.. formed by chance? Eyes and noses? Ears? Just spontaneously formed into all the different species that share these design parameters?

Make sense... stop believing fairy tales. The odds of just one creature forming into what's found in almost all mammals needed a common ancestor... Not to mention birds also have all those internals as well, with some modifications to make them a separate category. Even fish have eyes, lung types for oxygen, bowels .. stomachs. livers,,etc. All by chance you say?

If God did all that? Then why would God lie in telling us how biological life came into being?

God is a liar. That is what some say.

 

[2tim_215]

Chimps and humans are physically descended from a common physical ancestor.

Prove it. You can prove they're related but you can't prove the physical source, just like there's no reasonable explanation for it happening other than an almighty Creator.

 

[sfs]

Why? Because God sticks to certain basic building blocks for temporal physical life???

No. Because, as I said, that's what the genetic evidence indicates. The genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees bear the signature of being the result of lots of mutations, which means the two species used to be one.

You mean to tell me that, that biological schematic happened spontaneously and independently in different parts of the world without some form of intelligence setting up that repeatable design format? All that have lungs and hearts, etc.. formed by chance? Eyes and noses? Ears? Just spontaneously formed into all the different species that share these design parameters?

Make sense... stop believing fairy tales. The odds of just one creature forming into what's found in almost all mammals needed a common ancestor... Not to mention birds also have all those internals as well, with some modifications to make them a separate category. Even fish have eyes, lung types for oxygen, bowels .. stomachs. livers,,etc. All by chance you say?

Your sentences are too garbled for me to understand what it is you're asking. Different animals all have similar organs because they inherited them from their ancestors.

If God did all that? Then why would God lie in telling us how biological life came into being?

God is a liar. That is what some say.

Lots of Christians accept evolution. I don't know any that say that God is a liar.

 

[sfs]

Prove it.

I can show you some of the evidence that we share a physical ancestor. Try this.

 

[2tim_215]

I can show you some of the evidence that we share a physical ancestor. Try this.

If you believe in God, and that He created all physical humans and animals using the same materials, it stands to reason that there would be similarities between us and our creator. I don't think there's anything that you can show me that disproves that.

 

[sfs]

It was a while ago that I learnt about this but I found one article on Stuart Newman who has been compared to Steven Gould. He has a theory "Patten Langauge" which he says formed the basis for pattern language modules that created all the different phyla and all body plans have stemmed from this. There is another article along similar lines I will have to search for and post later when I find it.
The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual - Archaeology Magazine Archive

Susan Mazur does not have a good reputation as a reliable source of information about this subject. What Newman has proposed is intriguing, quite possibly correct, but very hard to test and of limited applicability. His proposal is that basic animal body plans arose spontaneously from physical processes as their cells acquired some simple interactions, and that natural selection kicked in later to mold and refine those forms.

This idea is part of an emerging line of research which is extending the modern synthesis or to a growing number of scientists changing the MS because a lot of the findings are contradicting gradual evolution through natural selection. Influences such as plasticity, niche construction, Inclusive inheritance influences, epigenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology are finding how life can change through non-adaptive evolution rather than adaptive evolution (Natural selection acting on variations through random mutations).

The "extended synthesis" is a grab bag of ideas that extend the original Modern Synthesis is various ways. Some are clearly correct and important -- the role of developmental pathways in defining the range and direction of possible phenotypic change, for example. Some are probably correct and probably unimportant to evolution, e.g. transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Some seem mostly speculative, like the role of plasticity in evolution, or Newman's ideas. The one thing they most certainly do not represent, though, is a synthesis. And one thing they don't replace is the central role of natural selection in all adaptive evolution. Some of them do indeed discard the notion of nearly continuous variation that is constantly present in all directions, so they change the notion of what "random mutations" are contributing, but all ultimately rely on natural selection to winnow mutations.

 

[sfs]

If you believe in God, and that He created all physical humans and animals using the same materials, it stands to reason that there would be similarities between us and our creator. I don't think there's anything that you can show me that disproves that.

Since what I just showed you is not about similarities between different species but is instead about the differences between them, I can only conclude that you didn't even look at it. So yes, I think you're right -- nothing I can show you will convince you if you refuse to look at any of it.

 

[2tim_215]

Since what I just showed you is not about similarities between different species but is instead about the differences between them, I can only conclude that you didn't even look at it. So yes, I think you're right -- nothing I can show you will convince you if you refuse to look at any of it.

So basically you're saying that God (at least your God) is incapable of creating those differences? I've probably already seen whatever you've shown me and I can't see how anything that man has come up with will change my viewpoint which whatever it is and however you want to argue it, God's the most rational way to explain it and won't disprove the account we're given in Genesis. Personally, I abhor the idea that my Great, Great, Great grandfather was chimp and am a lot more comfortable being a child of God and not a chimp. However, it's your perfect right to believe otherwise.

 

[sfs]

So basically you're saying that God (at least your God) is incapable of creating those differences?

Of course not. But when those differences look exactly like they were produced by common ancestry, by processes we see in operation all the time, and when there is no reason in the world for thinking God would create those specific differences the way they are, the obvious conclusion is that God really did work through common descent to create humans. You wouldn't try your argument in any other area of life, would you? "Your honor, yes, those are my fingerprints on the murder weapon, but God could have created them there, right?"

I've probably already seen whatever you've shown me

You haven't.

I can't see how anything that man has come up with will change my viewpoint which whatever it is and however you want to argue it, God's the most rational way to explain it and won't disprove the account we're given in Genesis.

Thank you for making clear that no evidence could persuade you when it comes to evolution -- and that just to be sure, you're not going to look at the evidence anyway.

Personally, I abhor the idea that my Great, Great, Great grandfather was chimp and am a lot more comfortable being a child of God and not a chimp.

Me, I care a great deal more about what's true than about how the truth makes me feel. But you are free to live your life the way you choose.

 

[The Barbarian]

Does this mean you are familiar with the Extended Synthesis proposed by Stuart Newman, et. al.?

Back in the day, there were calls for an "extended synthesis" by researchers like Waddington. His claim was that "gene assimilation" could cause certain acquired phenotypes to become heritable, for example by teratogens.

He didn't do very well, primarily because he used language that made it look like he was proposing a form of Lamarckism. It didn't help that he was a Marxist, and the Soviet Union in those times (late 50s) had outlawed Darwinism and genetics and was pushing a somewhat similar (but Larmarckian) theory by Lysenko. And when that was shown to be false, the notion of an extended synthesis was pretty well finished.

By the time I was seriously studying biology, it was sort of a cautionary tale, like Piltdown Man. Gene assimilation occurs, but the fact that it happens by Darwinian processes was something Waddington failed to emphasize, even though he considered it to be Darwinian. Nevertheless, it was incorporated into the Modern Synthesis, usually as "Genetic Accommodation" or "the Baldwin Effect."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00203.x

 

[GenemZ]

No. Because, as I said, that's what the genetic evidence indicates. The genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees bear the signature of being the result of lots of mutations, which means the two species used to be one.

Did God create [bara] man in His image? Did the Lord mold and form [jatsar] the body for Adam's soul out of the elements of the earth?

Yes/no?

Its also says that the Lord had molded and formed [jatsar] the bodies of animals and birds out from the elements of the earth. Same designer - Gen 2:19.

 

[GenemZ]

I can show you some of the evidence that we share a physical ancestor. Try this.

You can show data that can be used to make your point seem plausible.
But, it proves nothing.

 

[The Barbarian]

You can show data that can be used to make your point seem plausible.
But, it proves nothing.

Very little that we know in this world involves logical certainty. Nevertheless, it gives us the kind of knowledge that lets us build computers, fly aircraft, do remarkable surgery, and so on.

As a scientist and a YE creationist says of the evidence you're trying to hand-wave away, it is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

 

[sfs]

Did God create [bara] man in His image?

Sure. When Isaiah says that God created Israel, do you think it means he created it out of nothing?

Did the Lord mold and form [jatsar] the body for Adam's soul out of the elements of the earth?

Strictly speaking, no -- Genesis said he form the man out of the dust, not the man's body. You're inserting Greek anthropology into a Hebrew text. Other than that, sure. The question is, how did God form humans? As I said before, Christians have historically felt no obligation to take everything in the Bible literally. As Origen put it, "To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a "first day" and a "second" and "third", in which also "evening" and "morning" are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven? And who will be found simple enough to believe that like some farmer "God planted trees in the garden of Eden, in the east?" and that He planted "the tree of life" in it, that is a visible tree that could be touched, so that someone could eat of this tree with corporeal teeth and gain life, and, further, could eat of another tree and receive knowledge "of good and evil"? Moreover, we find that God is said to stroll in the garden in the afternoon and Adam to hide under a tree. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries."

 

[GenemZ]

Sure. When Isaiah says that God created Israel, do you think it means he created it out of nothing?

I just found what you referred to. And, it once again proves that your powers of concentration have been skewed by your prejudice and bias.

Isaiah 43:1..

"The Lord created Jacob --- and formed Israel."​

Now, that is what the Lord says.

You're dead wrong. He did not create Israel.He formed Israel out from something that had been created (Jacob's soul).

He formed Israel. Formed out from what God did create. Just like the Lord formed the body out from the created earth. A body for the soul He had created In Genesis 1:27 - then providing a body from the elements of the earth.

"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."​

(souls only created, their bodies came after)

Here... this may help you.

 

[GenemZ]

Sure. When Isaiah says that God created Israel, do you think it means he created it out of nothing?

To further clarify what you misunderstand. Israel mentioned in Isaiah 43:1, speaks of one person.

Just as the Lord renamed Saul, to Paul? Jacob was also renamed.

Renamed "Israel" after being on the Lord's Potter's Wheel. The molding that formed Jacob into the soul God approved of. Hence, the renaming.

"Jacob" meant chiseler. " His new name, "Israel", means 'Prevailed with God.'

Jacob was renamed Israel after wrestling with the Angel of God. Just as Saul was renamed Paul after being confronted and blinded by the Lord while on the road to persecute Jewish Christians.

Out of Jacob/Israel was to come the genes that made up of the people to later be called "Israel."

Racial Jews are from the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Not from the seed of some brilliant chimpanzee).

 

[sfs]

Where is that found? Worded that way in the Hebrew?

Isaiah 43:15. You can find a complete list of the use of the word here.

I just found what you referred to. And, it once again proves that your powers of concentration have been skewed by your prejudice and bias.

Isaiah 43:1..

Wrong verse. Try 43:15, in which God creates Israel.

To further clarify what you misunderstand. Israel mentioned in Isaiah 43:1, speaks of one person.

Um, you do realize that the entire passage is directed to the nation of Israel, right? Your curious notion of bodies being formed but souls created has nothing to do with this passage. The word in question does not have to mean creation ex nihilo.

 

[GenemZ]

Isaiah 43:15. You can find a complete list of the use of the word here.

Wrong verse. Try 43:15, in which God creates Israel.

The Holy Spirit chooses words that communicate with the hearers in a way that they will understand by what is implied. Why choose "bara?"

Um, you do realize that the entire passage is directed to the nation of Israel, right?

It begins a follows....

But now, this is what the Lord says—
he who created you, Jacob,
he who formed you, Israel:
“Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;
I have summoned you by name; you are mine.​

It begins with an account all Jews could understand. The life of Jacob was a type of the nation of Jews before and after their transformation.

Their life was just like their father Jacob experienced. He was changed (formed) as he went from "schnooker" (Jacob) to becoming "prince with God" (Israel).

Interesting point. One that baffles some who study the Bible. When some of the prophets wanted to insult the Jews who were in rebellion? He would call them "Jacob."

It was a way of showing them that they were functioning in a low, non-respectable way before God. To them calling them collectively "Jacob" was an insult. It was telling them they were failing to be as God desires.

Jeremiah used that approach with the Jews on several occasions. Yet, Jeremiah also showed God's compassion while doing so. When Israel was bad? Not living up to God's standard for them? The prophet might refer to them as "Jacob."

Your curious notion of bodies being formed but souls created has nothing to do with this passage. The word in question does not have to mean creation ex nihilo.

Just look at how the Jews behaved and thought in the wilderness. And, how in a parallel way, God had taken Jacob "the chiseler" and formed him into a victor with God (renaming him Israel).

I believe God chose to use the word "bara" in the sense that He created a great nation out from a collective nothing of Jews. For they had been saturated in paganism and were loathsome before God. Almost all adults who left in the Exodus the Lord killed off in the Wilderness years. It was the younger generation who listened to Moses who got to enter the promised land. Almost all their parents were loathsome before God and He killed them off.

The Lord "formed Jacob" through trials, failures, discipline, and restoration by grace. One needs to compare what they were as a people and had later became. Finally became because they were "formed into," Israel. But, only after many years of receiving and training by means of God's Law.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Chimps and humans are physically descended from a common physical ancestor.

One that has never been found in the fossil records, and Mankind is different than any other primate, as we were a direct creation of God!

 

[2tim_215]

Maybe some of you should read "The Language of God" written by Frances Collins, the Director of the Human Genome Project and a Christian if you haven't already.