Satanic High Priest's Claim About The Origin Of Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Easiest way to understand evolution...
1) The body is built by proteins, which are built from DNA.
2) DNA mutates, a child's DNA will differ ever so slightly from the parents.
3) Some organisms within a population reproduce more than others due to attractiveness.
That's all there is to it.

Not bad, and very close to modern evolutionary theory. I would rephrase (3) to "some differences affect the organism's ability to live long enough to reproduce." Your statement is correct, but there are some other things at play besides attractiveness.

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe that God is truthful in both His word and in His creation.

Today's winner.

 

[Phoneman-777]

You were misled about that, too...

The fossilized remains of a bizarre-looking reptile are giving scientists new insights into how turtles got their distinctive shells.

Some 240 million years ago, this early turtle-like creature lived in a large lake, in a fairly warm, subtropical climate. But it didn't have the kind of shell modern turtles have, says Hans-Dieter Sues, a curator at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.

Sues describes this primitive turtle, which the scientists named Pappochelys, as being about 8 inches long (20 cm), with slender legs, a long tail and neck, and then "a strange, boxy trunk region."

"It has the real beginnings of the belly shell developing," says Sues, "little rib-like structures beginning to fuse together into larger plates."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/24/416657576/how-the-turtle-got-its-shell

As I said before, God created "variety in the gene pool". What scientists think are "transitional fossils" are merely creatures that move in and around their "kind". As our friend Stephen J. Gould points out, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks are based on INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT THE EVIDENCE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD" - why don't you listen to Mr. Gould and stop trying to establish as "fact" what is mere fiction?

As for "240 million years" - preposterous. Scientists don't get to speak of such long ages as "fact" while ignoring the mountain of evidence for a young Earth, such as Helium Diffusion dating, as well at the evidence in C-14.

 

[Phoneman-777]

You, for example, were unable to tell me what it is, or even the scientific definition of it.

How about we stop worrying about how to define it and get on with finding evidence for it? Has anyone ever observed "biological evolution"? If so, why must biologists "constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but evolved"?

 

[Phoneman-777]

You got that a bit mixed up. It's "missing lynx." And they've found it:

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 136, Issue 4, August 2022, Pages 536–551

The diversification of the lynx lineage during the Plio-Pleistocene—evidence from a new small Lynx from Longdan, Gansu Province, China ​

As your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admits, the huge number of transitional form and the large number of series of transitional forms are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." We find important new fossils almost monthly.

I never said there was nothing that could be construed as evidence for evolution - I'm saying it's wrong to do so, and it's wrong to use non-evidence like radiometric dating as "evidence" because of so many assumptions required for it, while ignoring the Biblical testimony that some super-catastrophe involving not only the landscape, but also the subterranean Earth, as well as the "windows of heaven". There's evidence that isotope decay rates have remained constant and evidence that it hasn't, right? We can't just throw out an entire body of evidence against evolution and declare Darwin the victor.

You were really fooled by that story. Pygmy chimps lack the knees and hips to be bipedal as Lucy was. They don't have long legs and short arms as Lucy does. And they have much more robust jaws and teeth than she did.

The "knee" - not "knees" - that is claimed to belong to Lucy was found in completely different strata, and her "ape-like hip" did not "get twisted during fossilization" from human to ape - it's fully ape.
Lucy's arms and legs were not found intact - they were broken pieces fitted together "based on inference, however reasonable". His calculation that the arm length is .85 of her leg length (making her fit nicely between humans and apes) is bulldookey wishful thinking.

Like I said, these guys are under a lot of pressure to dig up something to "prove" evolution, and I am astounded at how easily the fan boys swallow whatever comes down the pike as "new evidence" when everything is simply "inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossil record".

 

[Phoneman-777]

You missed that one, too. Not only are hippos structurally and behaviorally like early whales, genetically they are the closest relatives to whales. No point in denying the facts.

Well, let's take a look at that assumption...

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon
[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by thefamily Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs:
toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series.

Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology
method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.

At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise

Again, Dr. Wise disagrees with evolution, but he's honest enough to admit that the evidence supports evolution, and does not fit creationist ideology.

He trusts God enough to admit the truth. Wouldn't it be great if all people were like him?

"Genetically closest" reminds me of how "close" humans are to apes. We have something like 78% of genes in common with a mouse, and not too much less in common with bananas.

Evolution never addresses the controlling mechanisms for assembly, which is a whole other ball of wax. Creatures proven to develop by totally different genetic pathways which disproves the evolutionary Tree of Life, but nothing to see here. Please get a hold of some critical analysis of evolution and find out how all these "facts" you present are mere suppositions.

A mansion and a shack both built with wood, tiles, and bricks proves only that the same building materials were used - the designer arranged them in completely different ways.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Can't find any place here where I said he did. Link?

You can't get closer to God by hating His people. Try to find some way to deal with that, and you'll find some peace.


I suppose anything looks simple, if you don't know anything about it. As you see, the discovery of DNA gives us the same phylogenies as the fossil record does, to a very high precision.


No. As you see, he admits that old species give rise to new ones. Which is macroevolution. AIG even admits the evolution of new genera and sometimes families.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

Because you seem to know nothing at all about it. Here's your chance. What do you think biological evolution is? Either Darwin's definition or the definition after the rediscovery of genetics will be acceptable. What do you think it is?


As I said, if you don't even know the scientific definition for biological evolution, is it any surprise that you have such difficulties here?


Reduced iron deposits in ancient rocks, and the banded iron formation clearly show a reducing atmosphere.

But it's a moot point. As you just learned, evolutionary theory only explains how living things change over time. It assumes life began somehow. Darwin assumed God just created the first living things.


Such things are observed underseas today. But we don't get a reducing atmosphere. Imagination is no substitute for facts.

You keep talking about the fossil record as if it's evidence for something. You should know science says it only takes about 10-15 million years for erosion to wash all the continents into the oceans by constant removal of material from the top - and that the reason they're still here is because of "uplift" keeping from below keeping up with what is disappearing from the top.

So, why is the fossil record still there? You can't have your cake, and eat it, too, right? If it only takes 10-15 millions years, that means a 600 year fossil record should have been completely washed into the ocean 45 times, at least...so why is it still there?

"...inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossil record".

 

[Phoneman-777]

So Jesus' flesh "profits nothing"?

Context, friend. When Jesus said, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood", the people murmured against Him, saying, "This guy wants us to eat His flesh and drink His blood".

Jesus had to tell them, "Look, I'm not talking about eating my literal flesh and drinking my literal blood because that would be useless - I'm talking spiritual things. You've got to have Me inside your body, living out My life in you, if you are to profit unto eternal life".

BTW, the catholic church teaches Christ's death means NOTHING toward us obtaining salvation. The priests refuse to sing, "And when I think, My God His Son not sparing, sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in.." and their commentary is, "I scarce can take in that nonsense, either. Everyone knows salvation is by the priesthood and pope, not Christ's blood". I have a documentary testifying to this, where a priest was commenting on his love of Reformation era hymns.

I believe that God is truthful in both His word and in His creation.

-CryptoLutheran

Then why don't you just embrace the literal six day Creation of Genesis and immerse yourself in Creation science, instead of that which Satan announced in that 19th century demonic council would be used to "destroy the Bible without burning it"?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Not bad, and very close to modern evolutionary theory. I would rephrase (3) to "some differences affect the organism's ability to live long enough to reproduce." Your statement is correct, but there are some other things at play besides attractiveness.

"DNA mutates".

Really? God's method of arriving at "the image of God in man" is by millions and millions of years of murderous mutations alongside the one or two that supposedly are "positive"?

Mutations are generally harmful - and the ones we think are "beneficial" always come with "Fitness Cost" strings attached.

Sickle cell anemia, for instance, is touted as a "positive mutation" with regard to malaria...but a person with sickle cell anemia is still very sick, so much so they used to have telethons and fundraisers all the time when I was a kid. I guess medical advancements is why we don't really hear much about it nowadays.

 

[Kale100]

Not bad, and very close to modern evolutionary theory. I would rephrase (3) to "some differences affect the organism's ability to live long enough to reproduce." Your statement is correct, but there are some other things at play besides attractiveness.

Very true, I tried to simplify as much as possible and went a bit too far. Actually maybe if just scrap the attractiveness part at the end of 3. That generalizes it to include any number of reasons, including both attractiveness and that some organisms will survive while others don't, leaving it as...
1) The body is built by proteins, which are built from DNA.
2) DNA mutates, a child's DNA will differ ever so slightly from the parents.
3) Some organisms within a population reproduce more than others.

So, to those that doubt evolution, which of those 3 things do you find false? If none, then you accept evolution in at least some capacity.

 

[Occams Barber]

Mutations are generally harmful - and the ones we think are "beneficial" always come with "Fitness Cost" strings attached.

Sickle cell anemia, for instance, is touted as a "positive mutation" with regard to malaria...but a person with sickle cell anemia is still very sick, so much so they used to have telethons and fundraisers all the time when I was a kid. I guess medical advancements is why we don't really hear much about it nowadays

Like many things connected to evolution, things are a little more complex than you'd like them to be (the bolding below is mine):

Sickle cell trait: A balanced polymorphism​

Sickle cell conditions are a classic example of balanced polymorphism.​

In humans, each gene contains two copies (alleles), one inherited from each parent. Mutations can affect one allele or both. In some genetic conditions, like SCD, these mutations can have a detrimental effect.​

When both copies of a gene are affected, this causes you to have a dangerous, often life threatening condition. But if only one copy is affected, it sometimes can create a certain health benefit. This situation is called balanced polymorphism.​

When it comes to sickle cell conditions, one affected copy is responsible for SCT, which protects against malaria. If both copies are affected, this results in SCD, a dangerous blood disorder.​

Having different copies of the gene may give you a survival advantage in regions where malaria is common. This allows the affected gene to continue being more common in a community.​

Can Someone with Sickle Cell Anemia Get Malaria?

Learn about the link between sickle cell and malaria and how your genetics may protect you against infection.

www.healthline.com

​

​

OB​

 

[The Barbarian]

Like many things connected to evolution, things are a little more complex than you'd like them to be (the bolding below is mine):

Well said. The interesting thing is that a newer mutation of hemoglobin that resists malaria (HbC) that works well but rarely disables or kills the person with the mutation, is now replacing HbS in areas where malaria is endemic.
Evolution proceeds in increments in most cases.

Hemoglobin C - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Barbarian]

Really? God's method of arriving at "the image of God in man" is by millions and millions of years of murderous mutations alongside the one or two that supposedly are "positive"?

You're not accepting His word as it is. Our image of God is not in our bodies. Why should God need nostrils or eardrums? It is in our spirits and souls.

Mutations are generally harmful

Actually, most of them do very little. You have about a hundred of them that were present in neither of your parents. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

 

[The Barbarian]

You keep talking about the fossil record as if it's evidence for something.

As your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admits, it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." No point in denial. He cites dozens of series of transitional forms that show evidence for evolution. But that's not the biggest thing. You see, we find them only where evolutionary theory predicts them (as Dr. Wise admits). They never happen where their shouldn't be any. No feathered mammals. No crabs with bones.

 

[Larniavc]

Do you not think that there are secret societies or an elite class of humans who do worship demons and the devil?

That is pure fantasy.

 

[friend of]

That is pure fantasy.

And how would you know?

 

[The Barbarian]

Sickle cell anemia, for instance, is touted as a "positive mutation" with regard to malaria...but a person with sickle cell anemia is still very sick, so much so they used to have telethons and fundraisers all the time when I was a kid. I guess medical advancements is why we don't really hear much about it nowadays.

This is a classic illustration of the way natural selection works. Suppose people in a malaria area have a 50% chance of getting severe malaria if they are homozygous for normal hemoglobin, but won't get it if they are hetrozygous for the sickle cell genes. (I used those numbers to make the demo simpler for you, but if you like, I can adjust them for more precise numbers)

Suppose that two homozgous normals have children. All of them will also be normal and about half of them will die without leaving offspring.

Suppose one homozygous and one heterozygous person have children. About 3/8 of them will die without leaving offspring, meaning 5/8 will live and reprosuce, and that these people will leave more descendants.

Suppose two heterozygous people have children.
About 1/4 will have sickle cell disease and die without leaving offspring.
About 1/2 of them will be heterozygous and will not have malaria.
About 1/4 of them will be homozygous for normal, and about half of them will live to have offspring
About 5/8 of their offspring will also live to reproduce.

Does this suggest to you why sickle cell mutations tend to persist in malaria areas?

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think he hated God. He hated Christians of certain churches he didn't like.

Then why did you say he did?

Can't find any place here where I said he did. Link?

 

[The Barbarian]

"Genetically closest" reminds me of how "close" humans are to apes.

Well over 90%, compared to chimps, and correspondingly less to other apes, mammals, etc.

We have something like 78% of genes in common with a mouse,

Which is about right, considering we are both mammals, but in different orders.

and not too much less in common with bananas.

About 50%, I think. Which is about right considering that we are both eukaryotes, but in difference kingdoms.

I think you just proved my point for me.

You keep talking about the fossil record as if it's evidence for something. You should know science says it only takes about 10-15 million years for erosion to wash all the continents into the oceans by constant removal of material from the top

Nope. We have Precambrian deposits still here and there. Erosion is not constant and equal in all areas. In fact, there are still a few places on the Earth where the geologic column exists in complete form. Would you like to learn about that?

- and that the reason they're still here is because of "uplift" keeping from below keeping up with what is disappearing from the top.

Turns out, things like folding, overthrusts, and vulcanism also interfere with uniform erosion. You've been badly misled on this.

North Americans should breathe easy: New research confirms that the continent has eroded very little over the past 1.5 billion years and, in all likelihood, won’t shed much ground in the next billion years, either.

Although the conclusion sounds like a no-brainer — earth scientists have long suspected that the oldest parts of the North American landscape have been quite stable — it has been difficult to confirm. Now, using a specific set of geochemical markers, a team of researchers has found a way stitch together the continent’s erosional history over the past 2 billion years.

Why North America Won't Erode Away

Chemical signatures in ancient rock in the continental crust of the North American craton have shed light on the erosion history of continent and show why continents seem to stick around for a long time.

www.livescience.com

Evolution never addresses the controlling mechanisms for assembly, which is a whole other ball of wax.

It didn't until genetics and
the structure of DNA made it clear how that happens. Darwin's great discovery was how populations change over time. The mechanisms for assembly were determined later. And they cleared up a major problem with Darwin's theory. Would you like to learn how that happened?

A mansion and a shack both built with wood, tiles, and bricks proves only that the same building materials were used - the designer arranged them in completely different ways.

The difference is in the blueprints. When DNA functions were discovered, it became clear how mutations changed the blueprints over time. God being God, He knew that evolutionary processes work better than design.

Engineers are now copying evolution to solve problems that are too difficult for design, but can be solved by mutation and natural selection. These "genetic algorithms" copy what living populations do, and they are very effective. Turns out God knew best, after all.

The "design" people are uncomfortable with a Creator that wise and capable.

 

[Larniavc]

And how would you know?

Because it’s a religious based conspiracy theory.