A Question for Creationists

[OllieFranz]

Post 4 in response to froggy

Of course the two new species when a ring species splits will still be salamanders (or gulls, or greenish warblers, etc.) Even among species that have been separate they are still as close morphologically as different breeds of the same species. (A lioness actually looks more like a cougar than a Great Dane looks like a chihuahua). And almost as close genetically. Even a Florida panther and a clouded leopard, about as far apart as you can get genetically among the Great Cats, have similar DNA, just a little more different enough than necessary to prevent interbreeding. Evolution would make no sense if when a species split, one group became elephants and the other group became giraffes.

There was a species of animal called a lagomorph. It had long ears, strong hind legs and ate similarly to a rodent. As it spread out, there were all kinds of adaptations made. Eventually the adaptations produced different breeds, and like with the ring species, it split into different species, rabbits, hares, and jackrabbits. And over time those species split again, so that there are different species of rabbits, different species of hare, and different species of jackrabbit. But they are all still lagomorphs. They all still look and act like the original lagomorph, only different. But I left out a split, the very first split. The first split was into leporids and ochotonids. Rabbits, hares and jackrabbits are all leporids. So what happened to the ochotonids? Their ears became shorter and rounder. Their hind limbs, while still very strong are not so overpowering of the front limbs that hopping is not their main means of locomotion. We call them pikas, and a child is more likely to identify a live pika with a cartoon mouse than a cartoon rabbit, which is why the cartoon pika pocket monster has been given inaccurate rabbit ears.

Your son and you do not have the same DNA, but almost all of it is recognized human DNA, and at least half of his DNA is identical to half of yours (the half he inherited from you). Because so much is identical, we can tell that he is closely related, most likely a parent, a child, or a full sibling. If 1/4 or more, but significantly less than 1/2 were identical, you'd be a little more distantly related, a grandparent, an aunt or uncle who is full sibling to the parent, a half sibling, a nephew or niece, ofspring of a full sibling, or a grandchild, etc. It gets complicated with consanguinous ancestors (for example grand parents who were second or third cousins), but that is how DNA is used to determine how closely people are related.

It is used in exactly the same way to determine if species are genetically as close as they seen morphologically. A rabbit looks like a hare. The DNA shows that they are genetically similar.

 

[frogman2x]

He didn't say it was sperm. He said they were similar. Pollen is basically the plant version of sperm - that doesn't mean it IS sperm, only that it serves a similar purpose.

That may be but it is not the same a having sex, but if you and he want to conider it is the same,be my guest.

Ignoring that you provide nothing to back up these claims, that pastors reject a theory that even you admit they don't understand hardly means much of anything.

Did you remind him that he did not provide any anything to back up his claim? Of course you didn't. I said most conservative pastors reject evolution, and I did not say they did not understnad it. I saiy they are not scientists. Most pastors have an education beyond a BA or BS and they are quite capable of understanding evolution, and biology if they care to.

It's a statement based on a wealth of evidence.

Now who is the one not providing the evidence for what they claim?

Your opinion is based on absolutely NOTHING.

Your OPINION is noted. I seem to know more about biology than you have exhibited so far. At least I know natural selection has never been proven and that mutations are not a mechanims for evolution. I know what I was taught and it was probably many years before you were taught anything but the ABC's.

When did 'evolutionists' make this change?

I don't know. Do you know that they did not?

How exactly did they do it?

Easy, just change it.

It was never a recognized scientific term.

You keep whinning about me not providing a source. This is the third comment you have made and have not provided a source.

Can you provide any source that gives a consistent definition for it, one that all creationist sources abide by?

No, can you?

 

[frogman2x]

I just spent over two hours responding to this post, and the site gave me an error message (I think it may have been due to a timeout). After I calm down, I'll try again. I will do it in several smaller posts, and I will not be quoting this post because half of froggy's responses did not show up, because he used the quote tags incorrectly (one of the things that slowed me down).

If this discussin upsets you so much, you should consider just posting to those who agree with you.

I am sorry about not using the quote function properly. The other forum I am in has a different format and sometimes I forget and use it.

If you see>>______<< That is the quote function I am use to.

 

[Loudmouth]

That may be but it is not the same a having sex, but if you and he want to conider it is the same,be my guest.

It is sexual reproduction. It is two diploid organisms that each donate a haploid copy of their genomes to produce an offspring.

"Sexual reproduction is a process that creates a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms."
Sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is sex.

Did you remind him that he did not provide any anything to back up his claim? Of course you didn't. I said most conservative pastors reject evolution, and I did not say they did not understnad it. I saiy they are not scientists. Most pastors have an education beyond a BA or BS and they are quite capable of understanding evolution, and biology if they care to.

The professional creationists I have seen, and their acolytes on forums like these, display a vast ignorance of biology. A simple discussion on genetics is usually all it takes to show that they are out of their depths. For example, Duane Gish once made this claim:

"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
Scientific Creationism and Error

Anyone with knowledge of genetics knows that this is wrong, and it is baffling why anyone would make such a ludicrous claim. Such are creationists.

Your OPINION is noted. I seem to know more about biology than you have exhibited so far. At least I know natural selection has never been proven and that mutations are not a mechanims for evolution.

Mutations are certainly a mechanism of evolution. They are what cause divergence between lineages.

 

[OllieFranz]

If this discussin upsets you so much, you should consider just posting to those who agree with you.

I am sorry about not using the quote function properly. The other forum I am in has a different format and sometimes I forget and use it.

If you see>>______<< That is the quote function I am use to.

It was not the discussion that got me upset, it was losing two hours work to a computer glitch. The bad quote tags did slow me down, and so added to the frustration, but I suspect that they were not the deciding factor in the timeout, assuming that's what caused the glitch.

 

[FatBurk]

It is sexual reproduction. It is two diploid organisms that each donate a haploid copy of their genomes to produce an offspring.

"Sexual reproduction is a process that creates a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms."
Sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is sex.



The professional creationists I have seen, and their acolytes on forums like these, display a vast ignorance of biology. A simple discussion on genetics is usually all it takes to show that they are out of their depths. For example, Duane Gish once made this claim:

"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
Scientific Creationism and Error

Anyone with knowledge of genetics knows that this is wrong, and it is baffling why anyone would make such a ludicrous claim. Such are creationists.



Mutations are certainly a mechanism of evolution. They are what cause divergence between lineages.

Your patience tells me you are a teacher, or should be.

 

[frogman2x]

Post 1 in response to froggy

Pollen is produced in the stamens of male flowers, and is transferred to the pistals of female flowers (Many flowers ar hermaphroditic, with both stamens and pistals. Most however do not self-pollinate.) Eggs in the ovaries at the base of the pital are fertilized and are encased in a seed with food and a protective covering, just as fertilized bird and reptile eggs are encased in a protective shell with food. Sex education is often called "the birds and the bees" because small birds and insects, especially bees, carry the pollen from one flower to the next enabling the fertilization.

Okay. Not worth quibbling over.

I never claimed or implied Creationists were incapable of learning the truth.

I did not say you did. I don't get my rejection of evolution from my pastors. I get if from the scientists at the ICR and they all have PhD's is some field of science and what they say makes more sense than what the evolutionists say.

If I thought that, I would have long ago given up trying to reach you and show you the truth. I do beleive that you are uneducated in science, and therefore ignorant, but both are conditions that can be fixed with just a little study and a lot of patience.<<

I don't have a degree in science but I do have a degree and that indicates I have the ability to read, evaluate and understand.

Everybody is uneducated and ignorant until they learn.

Of course but that applies to evolutinists as well. It is really irritating that the evos think that if someone disagrees with evolution it is because they don't understand it. That is nonsense. NOt only is it nonsense, it is arrogant and self-serving. If only novices like me disagreed that would be one thing, but many well educated creation scientists also disagree.

]I do wonder, though, what your high school was doing when most were teaching the sciences. My high school taught physics, chemistry, and biology. And all three had labs, to give us practical experience, and to let us verify for ourselves what was in the textbooks.

<<

When I was in high school, small school systems did not have labs. They mainly taught general science. In college we had to take 2 science courses. As I remember I took zoology and either archology or anthropology. I really don't think evolution was taught out right. However most of my study of the basics of biology came after I became a Christian, because although I rejected it back in high school, since it was presented as science, I held out the possibility it was true. Since it now became important to know the truth, I started looking at what the other side was saying. Now I know why I rejectd evolution. In the lab, what convcinced you that they frog you disected ever became something other than frog?

You will have to admit that believing all the variety of both plant and animal life we have today started out as sometrhing you don't even know what is it was or what or what it evolved into, takes a lot of faith.

Just as you don't recognize the names of the Creationists I mentioned, I did not recognize the ICR or most of its staff.

It is not necessary for you to recognize anyone on hte ICR staff. Did you recognize the letters after the names and their teahing and work expereiencne? Did you find any fault in their credentiaqls?

>>Unlike you, when someone brings up something I don't recognize, I look it up Google and Wikipedia are your friends. <<

I do when it necessary but looking at 2 you criticied would serve no purpose.

So now I know that ICR is the Institute for Creation Research, founded by Henry Morris, whom I have heard of. He is one of the first of the professional Creationist con men to have been exposed.<<

Why is he a con man? You see, ignoraqnt and self serving comments like is what makes me doubt your integrity to look at things with an open mind. That comment is really petty and I bet he and ALL of the scientist on the ICR staff are better quaified in their field and in both education, work and teaching experience than you are. It just sticks in your craw that intelligent, well qualified scientiat reject what you have put your faith in.

One of them, Steven A Austin(biology) got his PhD from Harvard and studied under Ernst Mayr, who some consider the current dean of evolution. If you want to classify someoneas a con-man, try thsoe who preach whale evolution.

They proclaim and even have pictures drawn to convince the hopeful, but they never offer one shread of biological evidence as how pakicetus lost it legs and stayed alive. As soon as it lost it legs, the only thing it would become would be lunch for the first predator that came alone.

You are the expert, so answer this. Why would a dog-like creature, doing quite well on land need to become something oher than what it was? That makes no sense. Natural selection would not permit such a thing. If whale evolutin cannot be explained and it cannot biologically, the TOE is exposed for the fraud it is.

Even most other Creationist istituteions have distanced themselves from his teachings.

Hero just criticized me for not providing a source, which he also failed to do 3 times, so I am going to ask you for your source for that comment.

I ask you if you beleived Gen1:1. I would really like to know and if you don't, why not?

 

[lasthero]

That may be but it is not the same a having sex, but if you and he want to conider it is the same,be my guest.

Just because you'll never see two trees going at it like dogs in heat doesn't mean they don't sexually reproduce. I know you think evolution is all false and everything, but that was no excuse to ignore everything in your biology classes.

I said most conservative pastors reject evolution, and I did not say they did not understnad it.

Um. Yes, you did say that. Tacitly, anyway.

Most Christian pastors do not understand biology which is necessary to try and explain evolution.

If they don't understand biology, they don't understand evolution by extension, because evolution is a part of biology.

It's a statement based on a wealth of evidence.

No one in this thread. You've been given hundreds of posts worth of it.

You keep whinning about me not providing a source. This is the third comment you have made and have not provided a source.

Provided a source for what? Kind never being a recognized scientific term? That's your claim, not mine. The burden's on you to support it, not on me to prove a negative. You're really not familiar with how arguments work, are you?

 

[frogman2x]

Post 2 in response to froggy

Natural Selection is not proven in the mathematical/logical sense. It is not the conclusion of a syllogism. But it is "proven" in the more colloquial sense of "proven in a court of evidence."

Wonderful, they you can provide the biological evidence that shows HOW it is possible.

It is clearly observed that populations adapt to different environments. You, yourself, admit later in this post that "it is obvious and can be biologically proven through observation" that populations adapt.

Of course but adaption is the mechanism for survival, not to become a different species.

Two different hypotheses were proposed as to how they adapt. Lamark proposed a mechanism wereby incidental changes (such as hormonal changes or muscle development through exercise were somehow made permanent and passed on to the offspring. That did not survive the tests made to disprove it. The other relied on the study of genetics and how genes are passed on. In this model, more rabbits in Minnesota with heavy winter coats survive the harsh winters to breed in the spring, where more rabbits in Florida with heavy winter coats died of heatstroke, so there were more rabbits with lighter winter coats to breed in the spring. Every year more Minnesota rabbits have heavy coats, and more Florida rabbits have lighter coats. The two rabbit populations adapted to the two climates. This process, this explanation for adaptation is called Natural Selection.

Okay now explain, biologically of course. how adaption is a mechanism for evolution. The rabbits remained rabbits and so did their kids.

Scientists have created mutations in radishes, turnips, mustard and other plants, mostly related to kale. Unlike the simple mutations in nature, these mutations change the DNA of the plant so much that it can't breed with the parent plant*. But if they take a mutated mustard plant and a mutated turnip, and force a second mutation, one that instead of changing any of the genes, just doubles the DNA, the mutated turnip can breed with the mutated mustard, and the resultant plant breeds true. It is nothing like the original turnip, nothing like the original mustard, ad different from the mutated versions, too. It is a brand new, never before seen species.

If it doesn't happen naturally in nature allyuou have proved is thaqt man has become good at tinkering with nanture.

The age of Henry Morris' teachings are showing. Most creationists gave up on the kind = species equivalency decades ago.(Evolutionists simply do not use the word kind, except when Creationists insist, and even then only because the Creationists make a distinction between species and kind.)

Henry's teaching have gotten stronger with the discoveries real science has made in the past few years. Besides he is not a biologist, but there ae biologists on his staff.

The Creationists had to give it up. Partly because they could no longer deny that sometimes species split into two or more populations which develop into separate species.

Irrelevant. Call each different animal group what ever you want. there is still biological mechanism for evolution,

And partly because they realized that even giving the largest reasonable estimate for the size of a cubit, Noah's Ark was far too small to carry representatives of every known species.

I will bet a dolloor toa doughnut hole, you don' tknow the cubic dimensins of the ark and the average size of the animals. Unless you do, you are just blowing smoke.

Almost every creationist will admit that not only are grey wolves and (domesticated) dogs the same kind, but so are all other species of true wolf and even coyotes. Many will even include other canine groups, such as foxes and jackals. Likewise, they agree that all Great cats are one kind, and may be one kind with the smaller cats.

Hero will not get on your case about not furnishing a source, he reserves that for those who disagree with evolution, but I will. Pleasle provide your source.

Do you include foxes and wolves in the same species? Can they breed and produce offspring that can breed.

 

[frogman2x]

Post 3 in response to froggy

Evolution does not require that all life descended from one common ancestor, but the fossil record, and the genome projects (which map out the complete DNA of different species and compare them) and several other methods all suggest the same family tree for all multi-cellular organisms. (There is a little confusion in placing some one-celled organisms in their proper places on the tree. That could suggest that some of them don't belong on the tree, being separate manifestations of life, but it is more likely that it is because they swap DNA non-sexually, something they have been observed doing.

Still, as a Christian, I do believe in God. I believe He created and sustains the Universe. Because of this, I believe that "Last Thursdayism" cannot be entirely ruled out. Last Thursdayism is the idea that God created the Universe, fully functional and fully functioning relatively recently, and that that creation included false memories and physical evidence to seemlessly match exactly what we would expect if our memories and pre-existing ideas of science were truly in our history. It is a form of Special Creation. The "literal Biblical" Creationism of most Christian Creationists is a specific form of Last Thursdayism, and is very unlikely. Still, if the Bible taught that it was the "Gospel truth," I would be willing to accept it.

But Genesis One gives one account of the Creation, and Genesis 2 gives a different one. The two can be reconciled, but only by making major interpretations of the meaning of Genesis 2. And then, there is the fact that Genesis One is mythopoetic. The poetry is clear even in English translation, what with the repeated refrains "And God saw the. ... and it was Good," and "It was evening and morning the. ... day."

v

 

[lasthero]

No, can you?

Because it doesn't exist. Because there is no consistent definition for kinds.

Here's a guy who thought 'kinds' had to do with animals who could exchange blood.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7782656/

This site says that kind is close to species, but not really.

Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My! - Answers in Genesis


The poster here seems to think 'bacteria' are a kind, when bacteria is actually a kingdom comprises millions upon millions of different species.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7787159-post64483017/?highlight=bacteria#post64483017



There word 'species' can be hard to define, but even with the definitions, there's a limit. There's a wide range of animals that no scientist would disagree with as different species. With 'kind', the definition changes radically from creationist to creationist, because the only purpose for the word is so that creationists can have something to say an animal is 'still'. It's a license to shift the goal posts, and it's painfully obvious.

 

[frogman2x]

An apple falling off a tree tells us absolutely nothing about gravity.

What a sad but untrue statement. It proves one of the laws of gravity.

It's an observation, but people have been observing things fall forever.

Right. Do you really not udnestadn that it is through observation and repeating something that proves it. Without a strong wind has an apple ever fallen upward. Is falling upward an oxymoran.


[/QUOTE]The theory of gravity is not just 'things fall down'.[/quote]

Whoever said it was. But that falling down part has been prove a gazillion times, maybe even a gazillion and 1 times.

 

[lasthero]

If it doesn't happen naturally in nature allyuou have proved is thaqt man has become good at tinkering with nanture.

Wait, stop.

If what you say is true, if it's impossible for new 'kinds' to emerge, what does it matter whether it happened it nature or not? You said it couldn't happen at all. You never said creating new kinds through experimentation didn't count BEFORE.

 

[lasthero]

What a sad but untrue statement. It proves one of the laws of gravity.

No, it doesn't. The law of gravity is not 'things fall down'.

Do you really not udnestadn that it is through observation and repeating something that proves it.

As has been established by a number of sources and agreed with by numerous posters in this topic - no, that is not 'proves' something.

Just curious - how many times do you think we have to observe and repeat something before it's 'proven'? Ten times? Twenty? A thousand?

But that falling down part has been prove a gazillion times, maybe even a gazillion and 1 times.

No, it hasn't been 'proven'. Saying something that's wrong and declaring it to be right despite the actual facts of the matter doesn't actually make what you're saying right, it just makes you extremely obstinate.

All dropping things demonstrates is the fact that objects tend to fall downward. It doesn't tell you why the planets follow an elliptical orbit. It doesn't explain how the Moon causes the tides. It doesn't explain why we should never, EVER, expect to find a planet shaped like a cube.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay now explain, biologically of course. how adaption is a
mechanism for evolution.

You are getting simple terms wrong. The mechanisms of evolution CAUSES a population to adapt to their environment. The mechanisms are the cause, and adaptation is the outcome. Two of those mechanisms are random mutation and natural selection.

The rabbits remained rabbits and so did their kids.

The common ancestor we share with chimps was a primate, and we remain primates. Our common ancestor with bears was a mammal, and we remain mammals. Our common ancestor with trout was a vertebrate, and we remain vertebrates. Our common ancestor with protists was a eukaryote, and we remain eukaryotes.

 

[frogman2x]

Post 3 in response to froggy

Evolution does not require that all life descended from one common ancestor,

That is what they use teach. Have you never heard of the primordial soup theory? To say that life originated from more than one ancestor is to say life
had more than one beginning. Now if you can't prove how life started, you certainly can prove it had more than one source. Life, and certainly the DNA it contains is far to complx to have started by accident. You have no idea wht it was or how it started. You start with a guess and not a vey good one at that.

but the fossil record, and the genome projects (which map out the complete DNA of different species and compare them) and several other methods all suggest the same family tree for all multi-cellular organisms.

It does no such thing. DNA is the separater of species not the uniter. When DNA was discoveed, all of the apples fell off your tree of life.


[/QUOTE] (There is a little confusion in placing some one-celled organisms in their proper places on the tree. That could suggest that some of them don't belong on the tree, being separate manifestations of life, but it is more likely that it is because they swap DNA non-sexually, something they have been observed doing.[/QUOTE]

More usual evo rhetoric, no evidence. How did that one-celled organism, something you just said evolution does not depend on, originate from lifelelss elements? That may be the biggest biological mountain theh evos face. If you don't know what it was, you certainly don't know what it became.

Still, as a Christian, I do believe in God. I believe He created and sustains the Universe.

Good.

Because of this, I believe that "Last Thursdayism" cannot be entirely ruled out. Last Thursdayism is the idea that God created the Universe, fully functional and fully functioning relatively recently, and that that creation included false memories and physical evidence to seemlessly match exactly what we would expect if our memories and pre-existing ideas of science were truly in our history. It is a form of Special Creation. The "literal Biblical" Creationism of most Christian Creationists is a specific form of Last Thursdayism, and is very unlikely. Still, if the Bible taught that it was the "Gospel truth," I would be willing to accept it

Why is it u nlikelyd? Is God not omnipotent? Is there anythign in GEnesis that is beyone his ability to do? There is no indication except in the minds of men that Genesis should not be tqaken literally. Infact "after its kind" has been proven since God created living things.

But Genesis One gives one account of the Creation, and Genesis 2 gives a different one.

NOt if you study it with an open mind. Genesis 1:1 is the whol story with out any details. Gen 1:2-31 gives some of the details of what He did on each day. Genesis 2 gives some of the details of what happened on the 6th day. Think about this. If each day wa smillions of years, all of the plants creatd on the third day would hav died befor he sun was created.

The two can be reconciled, but only by making major interpretations of the meaning of Genesis 2.

NOt if you study it with an open mind.

And then, there is the fact that Genesis One is mythopoetic.

Prove it is not a fact?

The poetry is clear even in English translation, what with the repeated refrains "And God saw the. ... and it was Good," and "It was evening and morning the. ... day."

What is mythopoetic about that? Why would God make His creation a myth? What does a myth teach? Nothing. They are man-made stories.

The creation account teaches man the omniopetence of God and the glody of God and the love of God for man.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is what they use teach. Have you never heard of the primordial soup theory? To say that life originated from more than one ancestor is to say life
had more than one beginning. Now if you can't prove how life started, you certainly can prove it had more than one source.

It is the evidence which points to a universal common ancestor. If the evidence pointed to multiple origins then it would have been made part of the theory of evolution.

Life, and certainly the DNA it contains is far to complx to have started by accident.

Where did you demonstrate this? Or is this just another empty assertion that you have zero evidence for?

You have no idea wht it was or how it started.

We do know that the evidence we do have is consistent with a single common ancestor, and we don't need to know how that common ancestor came to be in order to determine that life evolved from that single common ancestor.

Do we need to know the ultimate origin of matter in order to understand how molecules change over time? Do we need to know the ultimate origin of rocks in order to understand how they change when they are hit with water?

It does no such thing. DNA is the separater of species not the uniter. When DNA was discoveed, all of the apples fell off your tree of life.

Why can't DNA be used to demonstrate that two species share a common ancestor?

More usual evo rhetoric, no evidence. How did that one-celled organism, something you just said evolution does not depend on, originate from lifelelss elements?

Why do we need to know that in order to determine how life changed after that point? Please explain.

If that first life was put here by Vishnue 4 billion years ago, and all life evolved from that single ancestor, how would the theory of evolution be any different than what it is now?

Why is it u nlikelyd? Is God not omnipotent?

Does this mean that we have to throw out fingerprint evidence in court cases because God could have planted them at the crime scene?

NOt if you study it with an open mind.

So says the person who refuses to contemplate DNA evidence for shared ancestry.

 

[frogman2x]

You are getting simple terms wrong. The mechanisms of evolution CAUSES a population to adapt to their environment. The mechanisms are the cause, and adaptation is the outcome. Two of those mechanisms are random mutation and natural selection.

Okay. no w explain, biologially of course, how adaptions is a mechanims for evol ution. If it was streu and you certainly can't prove it is, it would be a mechanims for survival, but the rabbits will not change specvies.

>>The common ancestor we share with chimps was a primate, and we remain primates. Our common ancestor with bears was a mammal, and we remain mammals. Our common ancestor with trout was a vertebrate, and we remain vertebrates. Our common ancestor with protists was a eukaryote, and we remain eukaryotes.[/quote]

And DNA says we are not related to chimps, bears or anything except homo sapians. Or DNA also says we ar not trelated to a eukaryote. In addition, you have not providedn the biologial evidende that we are related to chimps or bears. That is just the usual evo rhetoric. Instead of proving commn ancestory, DNA disproves it.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by OllieFranz
But Genesis One gives one account of the Creation, and Genesis 2 gives a different one. The two can be reconciled, but only by making major interpretations of the meaning of Genesis 2.

Dear OllieFranz, It depends on your interpretation. When you understand the story of the Creation, you should understand that there is but ONE story which continues through both Genesis 1 and 2.

Here it is in a nutshell:

Genesis 1 is the entire History of the Creation including events which will not happen until AFTER Jesus returns at the end of the present 6th Day.

Genesis 2 tells us that God's work is made perfect and He ceases ALL of His work of Creation. Genesis 2:1 shows that the entire host of heaven, which includes Humans, are present in heaven, when this event happens. Genesis 2:2 tell us of a Future Day of Rest when God rests from ALL of His work of creating. Genesis 2:3 repeats that God rests from ALL of His work of creating on the 7th Day, which has no evening and no end.

Since the Church and the Holy Spirit continues to create New Creatures in Christ TODAY, God has NOT yet rested from ALL of His work of creating. Has He?

At Genesis 2:4, we are taken BACk to the events of the 3rd Day. We are presently at Genesis 1:27 because God is STILL creating mankind (Adam) in His Image or in Christ. We will not advance to the Future at end of the present 6th Day for at least another thousand years.

The reason for the misinterpretation is that ancient men falsely assumed that God had already rested. Since God is STILL creating New Creatures in Christ Today. The 7th Day, when God rests from ALL of His work of Creating, is a Future event. That's God's Truth.

In Love,
Aman

 

[frogman2x]

Post 4 in response to froggy

Of course the two new species when a ring species splits will still be salamanders (or gulls, or greenish warblers, etc.)

Of course and since they remain salamanders, evoluion has not taqken place.

]Even among species that have been separate they are still as close morphologically as different breeds of the same species.

If they are the same species, evolution ha snot taken place.

(A lioness actually looks more like a cougar than a Great Dane looks like a chihuahua). And almost as close genetically. Even a Florida panther and a clouded leopard, about as far apart as you can get genetically among the Great Cats, have similar DNA, just a little more different enough than necessary to prevent interbreeding. Evolution would make no sense if when a species split, one group became elephants and the other group became giraffes.

Looks are irrelevant. The ability to breed naturally is the key. Similar DNA show us they are different species. You have absolu tely no biologial evidene that elelphants and giraffes were ever part of the same group. What were they before the split? Be sure to proved the biological evidence hhat show How it was possible.

There was a species of animal called a lagomorph. It had long ears, strong hind legs and ate similarly to a rodent. As it spread out, there were all kinds of adaptations made. Eventually the adaptations produced different breeds, and like with the ring species, it split into different species, rabbits, hares, and jackrabbits. And over time those species split again, so that there are different species of rabbits, different species of hare, and different species of jackrabbit. But they are all still lagomorphs. They all still look and act like the original lagomorph, only different. But I left out a split, the very first split. The first split was into leporids and ochotonids. Rabbits, hares and jackrabbits are all leporids. So what happened to the ochotonids? Their ears became shorter and rounder. Their hind limbs, while still very strong are not so overpowering of the front limbs that hopping is not their main means of locomotion. We call them pikas, and a child is more likely to identify a live pika with a cartoon mouse than a cartoon rabbit, which is why the cartoon pika pocket monster has been given inaccurate rabbit ears.

The usual party line and no biological evidence.

Your son and you do not have the same DNA, but almost all of it is recognized human DNA, and at least half of his DNA is identical to half of yours (the half he inherited from you). Because so much is identical, we can tell that he is closely related, most likely a parent, a child, or a full sibling. If 1/4 or more, but significantly less than 1/2 were identical, you'd be a little more distantly related, a grandparent, an aunt or uncle who is full sibling to the parent, a half sibling, a nephew or niece, ofspring of a full sibling, or a grandchild, etc. It gets complicated with consanguinous ancestors (for example grand parents who were second or third cousins), but that is how DNA is used to determine how closely people are related.

Right but both of our DNA show were are homo sapian and chimp DNA is different than human DNA.

It is used in exactly the same way to determine if species are genetically as close as they seen morphologically. A rabbit looks like a hare. The DNA shows that they are genetically similar.

But the DNA of each shows they are not related. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.