mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This seems to assume the alternatives are exclusive. There are many of us who believe God created all things using the process of evolution and common descent of all life. So everything you see that points to a creator is still pointing to a Creator and yet science isn't denied.
There are others that think God created life and offers eternal life, predicated on faith. Opinions vary.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A healthy majority of Christian biologists disagree with you. Do you know more about biology than we do?

No but I do know when a biologist is speculating and cannot actually demonstrate his findings.

The ID movement generally has nothing at all to say about common descent, or even about the age of the earth. They refuse to take a position on either subject. Some of the more scientifically minded among them (e.g. Behe) accept common descent, but the movement as a whole doesn't want to offend creationists. Thus they're unsure about the most basic of factual questions (the age of the Earth), but are quite sure about a difficult question where there is little evidence.

The age of the earth issue is a major difference i have with IDs. Obviously it completely changes the nature of the discussion. There is quite simply no time for the phylogenetic links made by biologists in their tree of life diagram. So the more likely explanation is that each fossil is a standalone remnant from a great catastrophe.

You do realize that almost everything you've written here is (in your sense) ad hominem and a quoting of your party line, right?

That is not fair appraisal given that I also linked you to the more scientific discussion on this.

If you can propose an alternative theory that predicts genetic data as well as common descent, I'm all ears. What does ID predict about the kinds of genetic differences we'll see between humans and chimpanzees, say?

I am a Creationist so yes I can. What you see is what God created. No common descent and genetic precursors required. The links TEs and atheist evolutionists make are an artificial construct that assume massive time spans and evolution rather than prove these.
 
Upvote 0

Dawnhammer

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
545
436
48
Denmark
✟23,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So I am actually content to live with saying I know why that fossil is there but I am not sure why it is in this layer of rock and not that one.

It is that being content part that is troubling. If you are Bible literalist your viewpoint won’t change with our increased knowledge of the universe.

Writers of the Bible didn’t have the understanding of science as we would understand it.

So every new science application we come up with , gene editing, colonizing the solar system, internet , fusion power all have to be interpreted on basis what people knew 2000 years ago.

It gets bit embarrassing at times to hear talking lightnings being prophetic message about birth of internet.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
mindlight said in post #1:

Chen said:

"In China we can criticise Darwin but not the government. In America, you can criticise your government, but not Darwin."

He should note that many people in America criticize Darwin.

Also, what would someone under the thumb of the Chinese tyranny replace Darwin with? A Communist Party Creator? A new Xi God?

Isn't the Chinese Communist Party still supposed to hold to Marx's Dialectical Materialism?

If the materialistic mechanism of evolution is not responsible for the origin of new species, then what materialistic source is responsible? Aliens? Even a red dragon alien, like how the symbol of China is a red dragon? (Compare Satan himself being a red dragon in Revelation 12:3, Revelation 12:9.)

-

Or, just as there are millions of Christians in China, could the Chinese Communist Party someday reject Marx's materialism for the Bible's Creationism?

And could China, and the rest of the world, eventually realize that even an old earth and evolution can be true without contradicting Creationism, because evolution per se (random mutation and survival of the fittest) can coexist with miraculous creation, just as an automated process created by a human (for example, a computer program which makes random, colorful pictures which can be seen as art) can coexist with that same human sometimes performing a task himself directly (painting some pictures by hand). That is, evolution per se can be a process created by God to allow new, adaptive species to arise naturally over time, and this process can coexist with God Himself sometimes creating new species miraculously. So with regard to Creationism and evolution, it doesn't have to be either/or, but can be both/and.

Some people ask why would God wait millions of years for something to evolve from a one-celled organism, when He could just create it instantly? He could do that for the same reason He has humans start out as a one-celled organism: a zygote in its mother's womb. God then has humans only gradually develop through natural means into an embryo, and then a fetus, a baby, a toddler, an adolescent and an adult. And God has other animals develop gradually in a similar way. And He has plants start out as seeds. So it must give God pleasure to see organisms develop naturally over time, just as it must give Him pleasure to also sometimes create plants and animals miraculously, instantaneously, already fully-formed, like He did in Genesis 1:11-13 and Genesis 1:20-27, during 3 of the 7, literal 24-hour days of Genesis 1:3 to 2:4.

Creationism can include what could be called a Double-Gap Theory, meaning there could have been 2 gaps of time in Genesis chapters 1-2, the 1st gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and the 2nd gap between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:5. Genesis 1:1 could have occurred some 4.5 billion years ago, when God first created the planet earth and its atmosphere (the 1st heaven, in which the birds fly: Genesis 1:20b). Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 some 4.5 billion years could have occurred in which God allowed His own created process of evolution to serve as a mechanism by which new species arose naturally on the earth. During those same 4.5 billion years, God could have also gone outside of evolution and created new species miraculously whenever He wanted to (compare what evolutionists call "punctuated equilibria").

Genesis 1:2 could refer to the condition of the earth only about 12,000 years ago (at the end of the Paleolithic period), after some cataclysm like a comet-strike had killed off all life on the planet (both evolved and miraculously created), and had submerged all land areas in water (comets contain huge amounts of water), and had ruined the atmosphere. The impact of the comet could have also knocked the earth out of its orbit around its original star, so the earth was sent hurtling into the darkness of interstellar space as a "rogue planet" (astronomers estimate rogue planets in our galaxy could outnumber the stars in our galaxy). Genesis 1:3 to 2:4 could then refer to God, over a period of 6, literal 24-hour days (some 12,000 years ago, at the start of the Neolithic period), miraculously restoring to the earth light, a good atmosphere, dry land and life, including a race of male and female homo sapiens sapiens, after God had miraculously restored land plants (Genesis 1:11-13) and land animals (Genesis 1:24-25) to the earth.

Then, only about 6,000 years ago, God miraculously created on the earth an individual male homo sapiens sapiens named Adam in an uninhabited desert land (Genesis 2:5-7; there the original Hebrew word translated as "earth" can refer to a certain "land": e.g. Genesis 2:11). After that, God created the plants of the local Garden of Eden in that desert land (Genesis 2:8-9), and God placed Adam in that garden (Genesis 2:15). Then God miraculously created the animals of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:19). Then He created an individual female homo sapiens sapiens (Genesis 2:22) whom Adam named Eve (Genesis 3:20).

Because Adam was created only about 6,000 years ago based on Biblical chronology, yet there are homo sapiens sapiens fossils said to be as old as about 200,000 years, God could have first created homo sapiens sapiens, or it could have evolved by God's created process of evolution, as far back as about 200,000 years. Also, all the different hominid forms the fossils of which long predate or are as old as the earliest fossils of homo sapiens sapiens, and which preceding or coexisting hominid forms we don't consider to have been fully human like us, such as homo sapiens neanderthalensis, could have all been created by God, or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution, over millions of years prior to the 1st appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth.

And this doesn't get into the possibly trillion other inhabited planets in the universe on which homo sapiens sapiens, or similar or far more advanced life-forms, could have been created by God, or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution, billions of years prior to the 1st appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth. For the universe could be about 14 billion years old, and it contains about 100 billion galaxies, each containing about 100 billion stars. So even if only one star out of every 10 billion has an inhabited planet, there would still be a trillion inhabited planets. And on most of these, God could have begun His miraculous work, and the work of His created process of evolution, billions of years prior to His beginning of His miraculous work, and the work of His created process of evolution, on the earth.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is that being content part that is troubling. If you are Bible literalist your viewpoint won’t change with our increased knowledge of the universe.

Deepening appreciation for the depth, wisdom and complexity of Gods design is a form of change.

Writers of the Bible didn’t have the understanding of science as we would understand it.

Solomon practically invented science with his collations and observations of natural phenomena. Christians are the progenitors of modern science. I am not anti true science nor anti what it can teach.
We live in a better world today because of science. The discussions of origins , remote cosmology etc are of course entirely irrelevant to the industrial and technological and medical progress that has so significantly transformed our lives in the last 300 years.

So every new science application we come up with , gene editing, colonizing the solar system, internet , fusion power all have to be interpreted on basis what people knew 2000 years ago.

What God said and what people knew might be different things. Genetics is a deeper understanding of how we are made, colonisation occurred in biblical times also - does the where matter that much or the transport systems. People have always communicated and the internet is really just an extension and deepening of those possibilities. From burning sticks on a camp fire to generating fusion power is a shift in intensity. Why ignore the continuities in favour of the discontinuities?

It gets bit embarrassing at times to hear talking lightnings being prophetic message about birth of internet.

Electricity is a natural phenomena which we have understood and controlled. This is something to be celebrated not a reason for doubt and scepticism
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He should note that many people in America criticize Darwin.

It was an astute observation about what was possible in the scientific community. More widely you are correct not every body has bought into the delusion.

Also, what would someone under the thumb of the Chinese tyranny replace Darwin with? A Communist Party Creator? A new Xi God?

Evolution with Chinese characteristics would probably be Xi Jinpings line. But my hope is for a restoration of reality. The rise of China is an opportunity for a new paradigm and a new freedom in scientific thinking. It is entirely possible the Chinese leadership will squander this opportunity but I hope not.

Isn't the Chinese Communist Party still supposed to hold to Marx's Dialectical Materialism?

Yes thesis- antithesis ---> synthesis. Soviet Communism was solidly evolutionist but the economic stagnation, political oppression and immorality of that regime hardly make it a good example to follow. My hope is that China can allow for miracles and the spiritual also.

If the materialistic mechanism of evolution is not responsible for the origin of new species, then what materialistic source is responsible? Aliens? Even a red dragon alien, like how the symbol of China is a red dragon? (Compare Satan himself being a red dragon in Revelation 12:3, Revelation 12:9.)

-

Or, just as there are millions of Christians in China, could the Chinese Communist Party someday reject Marx's materialism for the Bible's Creationism?

Chinese Christianity is inspiring and may yet become the power house of the global church. The value of Communism is that the more ridiculous Chinese myths and superstitions have been purged by it. It is my hope that the church can fill the spiritual vacuum and that the Communist party can appreciate the value of a Christian China.

And could China, and the rest of the world, eventually realize that even an old earth and evolution can be true without contradicting Creationism, because evolution per se (random mutation and survival of the fittest) can coexist with miraculous creation, just as an automated process created by a human (for example, a computer program which makes random, colorful pictures which can be seen as art) can coexist with that same human sometimes performing a task himself directly (painting some pictures by hand). That is, evolution per se can be a process created by God to allow new, adaptive species to arise naturally over time, and this process can coexist with God Himself sometimes creating new species miraculously. So with regard to Creationism and evolution, it doesn't have to be either/or, but can be both/and.

Some people ask why would God wait millions of years for something to evolve from a one-celled organism, when He could just create it instantly? He could do that for the same reason He has humans start out as a one-celled organism: a zygote in its mother's womb. God then has humans only gradually develop through natural means into an embryo, and then a fetus, a baby, a toddler, an adolescent and an adult. And God has other animals develop gradually in a similar way. And He has plants start out as seeds. So it must give God pleasure to see organisms develop naturally over time, just as it must give Him pleasure to also sometimes create plants and animals miraculously, instantaneously, already fully-formed, like He did in Genesis 1:11-13 and Genesis 1:20-27, during 3 of the 7, literal 24-hour days of Genesis 1:3 to 2:4.

Creationism can include what could be called a Double-Gap Theory, meaning there could have been 2 gaps of time in Genesis chapters 1-2, the 1st gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and the 2nd gap between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:5. Genesis 1:1 could have occurred some 4.5 billion years ago, when God first created the planet earth and its atmosphere (the 1st heaven, in which the birds fly: Genesis 1:20b). Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 some 4.5 billion years could have occurred in which God allowed His own created process of evolution to serve as a mechanism by which new species arose naturally on the earth. During those same 4.5 billion years, God could have also gone outside of evolution and created new species miraculously whenever He wanted to (compare what evolutionists call "punctuated equilibria").

Genesis 1:2 could refer to the condition of the earth only about 12,000 years ago (at the end of the Paleolithic period), after some cataclysm like a comet-strike had killed off all life on the planet (both evolved and miraculously created), and had submerged all land areas in water (comets contain huge amounts of water), and had ruined the atmosphere. The impact of the comet could have also knocked the earth out of its orbit around its original star, so the earth was sent hurtling into the darkness of interstellar space as a "rogue planet" (astronomers estimate rogue planets in our galaxy could outnumber the stars in our galaxy). Genesis 1:3 to 2:4 could then refer to God, over a period of 6, literal 24-hour days (some 12,000 years ago, at the start of the Neolithic period), miraculously restoring to the earth light, a good atmosphere, dry land and life, including a race of male and female homo sapiens sapiens, after God had miraculously restored land plants (Genesis 1:11-13) and land animals (Genesis 1:24-25) to the earth.

Then, only about 6,000 years ago, God miraculously created on the earth an individual male homo sapiens sapiens named Adam in an uninhabited desert land (Genesis 2:5-7; there the original Hebrew word translated as "earth" can refer to a certain "land": e.g. Genesis 2:11). After that, God created the plants of the local Garden of Eden in that desert land (Genesis 2:8-9), and God placed Adam in that garden (Genesis 2:15). Then God miraculously created the animals of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:19). Then He created an individual female homo sapiens sapiens (Genesis 2:22) whom Adam named Eve (Genesis 3:20).

Because Adam was created only about 6,000 years ago based on Biblical chronology, yet there are homo sapiens sapiens fossils said to be as old as about 200,000 years, God could have first created homo sapiens sapiens, or it could have evolved by God's created process of evolution, as far back as about 200,000 years. Also, all the different hominid forms the fossils of which long predate or are as old as the earliest fossils of homo sapiens sapiens, and which preceding or coexisting hominid forms we don't consider to have been fully human like us, such as homo sapiens neanderthalensis, could have all been created by God, or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution, over millions of years prior to the 1st appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth.

And this doesn't get into the possibly trillion other inhabited planets in the universe on which homo sapiens sapiens, or similar or far more advanced life-forms, could have been created by God, or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution, billions of years prior to the 1st appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth. For the universe could be about 14 billion years old, and it contains about 100 billion galaxies, each containing about 100 billion stars. So even if only one star out of every 10 billion has an inhabited planet, there would still be a trillion inhabited planets. And on most of these, God could have begun His miraculous work, and the work of His created process of evolution, billions of years prior to His beginning of His miraculous work, and the work of His created process of evolution, on the earth.

Exodus 20 ( sabbath commandments) makes it clear
that the heavens and earth were created in 6 days. There were no gaps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

Dawnhammer

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
545
436
48
Denmark
✟23,474.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Genetics is a deeper understanding of how we are made

Bit narrow view. Wikipedia definition

Genetics is the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in living organisms.[1][2] It is generally considered a field of biology, but intersects frequently with many other life sciences and is strongly linked with the study of information systems.

Point was however that some people get all upset when you start moving genes between species for example. Something the Bible writers hadn’t slightest clue was possible or what could be accomplished - in good and bad with technology like that.

Now when you have to figure out what The Bible says about fixing genetic defects with gene therapy or using stem cells for various purposes it is all up how you interpret it.

It is not really something you can just be content with either.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,676
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,442.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We have had that conversation and it doesn't include mutations millions of base pairs long and highly conserved genes undergoing massive overhauls.
Sure it does.
It certainly doesn't include 60 brand new genes appearing out of nowhere related to vital brain function.
What genes appeared out of nowhere? De novo genes are almost always obviously small modifications of sequence that's present in other species. So be specific: what genes are you talking about?
Creationists simply believe God created life, the alternative comes with baggage.
You can (quite easily) believe that God created life and also that all existing species descend from that first life by way of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,676
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,442.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No but I do know when a biologist is speculating and cannot actually demonstrate his findings.
So you read a lot of the primary scientific literature and assess the reasoning of biologists?
The age of the earth issue is a major difference i have with IDs. Obviously it completely changes the nature of the discussion. There is quite simply no time for the phylogenetic links made by biologists in their tree of life diagram. So the more likely explanation is that each fossil is a standalone remnant from a great catastrophe.
If you are a YEC, the Cambrian explosion is the least of your issues with science.
I am a Creationist so yes I can. What you see is what God created.
Great. So make some predictions. If I compare the genomes of two nonhuman primates, say, what will the ratio be between transitions and transversions?
 
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

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Sure it does.

How many de novo brain related genes have been discovered in genetics? Stretching it over millions of years isn't an option because we know this had to happen quickly 2 mya from the fossil record. When has any genome underwent such a massive change as a million base pair indel?

What genes appeared out of nowhere? De novo genes are almost always obviously small modifications of sequence that's present in other species. So be specific: what genes are you talking about?

Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.

The only transitional prior to the Homo genus is Australopithecus afarensis, supposedly had a bipedal gait and a chimpanzee size brain. The only fossils from 3 million years ago are the Paranthropus fossils and they appear to be a transition between chimpanzees and gorilla. Homo habilis shows up on the scene about 2 mya followed almost immediately by the Homo erectus, then there is Turkana Boy who is anatomically human except for a slightly smaller skull, but still within the human range.

You can (quite easily) believe that God created life and also that all existing species descend from that first life by way of evolution.
I don't know how familiar you are with the New Testament but eternal life begins in an instant, not over millions of years. At the redemption of the purchase price we are changed in an instant. Life comes from God:

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:4-5)​
 
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I am a Creationist so yes I can. What you see is what God created. No common descent and genetic precursors required. The links TEs and atheist evolutionists make are an artificial construct that assume massive time spans and evolution rather than prove these.

They call them gaps but there would have to be giant leaps at every major node in the Darwinian tree of life. What I find every time I take a closer look at the lineage leading up to our genus, Homo, is virtually no precursors. Over the years I've grown fond of fossils, this one is my personal favorite:

800px-Paranthropus_aethiopicus.JPG

Notice the sagittal crest on top of the head. Humans don't have those.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So you read a lot of the primary scientific literature and assess the reasoning of biologists?

If you are a YEC, the Cambrian explosion is the least of your issues with science.

Great. So make some predictions. If I compare the genomes of two nonhuman primates, say, what will the ratio be between transitions and transversions?

The age of the earth and the pointlessness of evolution as an explanation for emergence of various life forms given creation and a global flood are bigger issues YECs have with TEs or Atheistic Evolutionists.

Have Biologists ever predicted meaningful microevolution let alone the emergence of new types higher than the level of a bacteria? Even if they did what value does this serve by comparison with medical, industrial or military science? When the experts say they understand how mutations work their claims also look dubious. They discard a large part of the DNA code with their analysis and then makes claims on the basis of a limited range of functions they think they understand. If I did that with the object libraries of a computer programme I would not have a meaningful picture of what purpose those functions serve and the context in which they operate and which defines when and why they are used. Add in just a few misread characters and I would be reading junk. I guess if you make a hundred thousand predictions one of them may end up correct and in a scientific paper somewhere but the 99999 do not get reported do they. This is far from being a precise science.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They call them gaps but there would have to be giant leaps at every major node in the Darwinian tree of life. What I find every time I take a closer look at the lineage leading up to our genus, Homo, is virtually no precursors. Over the years I've grown fond of fossils, this one is my personal favorite:

800px-Paranthropus_aethiopicus.JPG

Notice the sagittal crest on top of the head. Humans don't have those.

Are you sure that punks with Mohicans are not hankering after some kind of primeval link with this guy?!
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Bit narrow view. Wikipedia definition

Genetics is the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in living organisms.[1][2] It is generally considered a field of biology, but intersects frequently with many other life sciences and is strongly linked with the study of information systems.

Point was however that some people get all upset when you start moving genes between species for example. Something the Bible writers hadn’t slightest clue was possible or what could be accomplished - in good and bad with technology like that.

Now when you have to figure out what The Bible says about fixing genetic defects with gene therapy or using stem cells for various purposes it is all up how you interpret it.

It is not really something you can just be content with either.

Sure you can slice fish genes into a tomato but you cannot change a tomato into a fish.

The DNA code is far more complicated than people are letting on. Bioinformatic programmes attempt to find meaningful sequences with assumed probability logic and by sifting out functions from junk code for example. BLAST for example maps similarities with whole range of assumptions about what is meaningful info and what is not.

But as with computer programmes all the bits serve their purpose and changing a single letter can sometimes break the system
 
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

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Are you sure that punks with Mohicans are not hankering after some kind of primeval link with this guy?!
It does have a superficial resemblance to those kind of outrageous hair cuts but I doubt seriously there is any direct connection. My point here is that this is obviously a transitional but it represents the split between chimpanzees and gorillas. That's all the transitionals we have a million years before the emergence of the Homo genus. The cranial capacity would have had to have nearly tripled over night, about 2 mya. When you stop and think about what's required this goes beyond improbable and they don't get to stretch the transition over millions of years. They have painted themselves into a corner here and there is even a more devastating consequence in genomic comparisons. They have no answers for the indels, this had to happen around the same time. Sure an a occasional beneficial effect from a mutation might be reasonable but evolution on this scale doesn't happen. Which is why they have nothing to say about the 90 million base pairs that are thought to be the result of mutations. It doesn't happen in nature.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It does have a superficial resemblance to those kind of outrageous hair cuts but I doubt seriously there is any direct connection. My point here is that this is obviously a transitional but it represents the split between chimpanzees and gorillas. That's all the transitionals we have a million years before the emergence of the Homo genus. The cranial capacity would have had to have nearly tripled over night, about 2 mya. When you stop and think about what's required this goes beyond improbable and they don't get to stretch the transition over millions of years. They have painted themselves into a corner here and there is even a more devastating consequence in genomic comparisons. They have no answers for the indels, this had to happen around the same time. Sure an a occasional beneficial effect from a mutation might be reasonable but evolution on this scale doesn't happen. Which is why they have nothing to say about the 90 million base pairs that are thought to be the result of mutations. It doesn't happen in nature.

I do not actually believe in transitionals, though I think Types allow for some considerable flexibility of shape and form. Neanderthals for example were human cause we share their DNA and clearly reproduced with them in the past. But whether or not homo erectus was is all mysterious since there is no DNA evidence to work with. This fossil is ape like as you say and not human. In my book it was a creature that has since died out rather than one in an in between stage of development.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I do not actually believe in transitionals, though I think Types allow for some considerable flexibility of shape and form. Neanderthals for example were human cause we share their DNA and clearly reproduced with them in the past. But whether or not homo erectus was is all mysterious since there is no DNA evidence to work with. This fossil is ape like as you say and not human. In my book it was a creature that has since died out rather than one in an in between stage of development.
This is what I think, after the flood the ape ancestor was adapting. The split between the orangutan, chimpanzee and gorilla happens and this was part of that transition. Most of the ape ancestors were simply apes but different from what we have today. The early Homo genus fossils are automatically one of our ancestors even though fossils like the Taung Child and Lucy are obviously more like the chimpanzee then modern humans. They throw in all kinds of things like tools and footprints that indicate, supposedly, the early ancestors are making tools and walking with a bipedal gait. There is another explanation never explored. The supposed tools are contrived and obviously human inventions, the dating comes down to the way they were mineralized. The early apes were semibipedal and later became more arboreal (tree dwelling). That is so much more easily defended then simply assuming the nearly three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. There is no genetic basis for evolution on the scale required and the dirty little secret, Darwinians know that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,676
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,442.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How many de novo brain related genes have been discovered in genetics?
I have no idea. Since a large fraction of genes are expressed in the brain, I would expect it to be a large fraction of all de novo genes. What's your argument?
When has any genome underwent such a massive change as a million base pair indel?
Million base pair indels are pretty common human variants. Any individual probably has several of them.
Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible.
You didn't answer my question. I asked what genes appeared out of nowhere. The paper you quote from is talking about genes that appear our of very similar DNA in our close relatives: "To be a candidate de novo originated gene, in addition to having a potentially translatable open reading frame in the human genome, the gene must have been present, and disrupted (i.e., non-translatable), in both the chimpanzee and orangutan genomes..." These are precisely the kind of genes that can be created by mutation. The creation of truly novel genes out of nothing would be much more dramatic -- and it's what we don't see in genetics.
I don't know how familiar you are with the New Testament but eternal life begins in an instant, not over millions of years. At the redemption of the purchase price we are changed in an instant. Life comes from God:

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:4-5)
I'm quite familiar with the New Testament. Your response has nothing to do with my statement, about where we came from physically as a species.
 
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

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,676
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,442.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Have Biologists ever predicted meaningful microevolution let alone the emergence of new types higher than the level of a bacteria? Even if they did what value does this serve by comparison with medical, industrial or military science? When the experts say they understand how mutations work their claims also look dubious. They discard a large part of the DNA code with their analysis and then makes claims on the basis of a limited range of functions they think they understand. If I did that with the object libraries of a computer programme I would not have a meaningful picture of what purpose those functions serve and the context in which they operate and which defines when and why they are used. Add in just a few misread characters and I would be reading junk. I guess if you make a hundred thousand predictions one of them may end up correct and in a scientific paper somewhere but the 99999 do not get reported do they. This is far from being a precise science.
You didn't respond to my challenge. I asked you what creationism predicts the transition to transversion ratio would be if we compared two primate genomes. That's not 10,000 different predictions; that's one prediction. I can make that prediction, based on common descent. Creationists can't. You're quite confident that I'm working only from speculation and indoctrination -- and yet my speculation lets me make predictions that you can't.

I'll be more specific. Let's compare the human and gorilla genomes, since those two are easy to find alignments for and I've never compared them. Align the two genomes and count how often there are single-base differences between them, specifically differences in two classes: transitions (A<->G or C<->T differences) and A<->T transversions, counted as number of differences per available base (and masking out highly mutable CpG sites). I say the ratio of the two classes will be approximately 3.2 (+/- 0.5, say)(*). What's your prediction? Heck, I'll even put some skin in the game: I'll donate an extra hundred dollars to World Vision in your name if my prediction is wrong. Are you willing to donate $100 if I'm right?

How confident are you really that biologists don't know what they're talking about when it comes to common descent?

(*) The evolutionary reasoning here is really simple. If you look at human genetic variation, the same ratio between kinds of substitutions is 3.2. Since genetic differences between individual humans and genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are both the result of accumulated mutation, and since the mutational processes in all primates are pretty similar, the ratio should be the same within-species and between-species. That's assuming common descent is true. If humans and/or chimps were created ex nihilo, there's no reason the genetic differences between them should form any particular pattern.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0