Are there transitional fossils?

[Jimmy D]

Who knows. I personally could care less what "race" Adam and Eve were. But there is no reason except fantasy to believe humans came about any different than dogs come about.

Who knows indeed? It seems you certainly don't. Your assertions that the entire human race developed from one family of eight 4500 years ago is demonstrably nonsense.

Take China for example, we have evidence of a continuous culture dating back 10,000 years.

Jiahu culture - 7000 to 5800 BC
Chinese proto-writing existed in Jiahu around 7000 BC

Excavation of a Peiligang culture site in Xinzheng county, Henan, found a community that flourished in 5,500 to 4,900 BC, with evidence of agriculture, constructed buildings, pottery, and burial of the dead.

The Yellow River valley began to establish itself as a center of Yangshao culture (5000 BC to 3000 BC)

The Bronze Age is also represented at the Lower Xiajiadian culture (2200–1600 BC[20]) site in northeast China. Sanxingdui located in what is now Sichuan province is believed to be the site of a major ancient city, of a previously unknown Bronze Age culture (between 2000 and 1200 BC).

Xia dynasty (2070–1600 BC)

Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BC)

Are you suggesting that two people off the ark legged it to China and gave birth to a couple of Chinese babies who created a thriving population with completely different religious traditions, method of writing, art, language etc etc?

But wait, at the time of the flood they'd been even more busy, they'd also spread across asia, diversifying into even more races and cultures.....

It's a bit rich accusing me of ignoring evidence when you can ignore the thousands of archeological papers, population studies, anthropolgical studies, cultural artefacts, etc etc if it helps maintain your worldview.

I suppose there's no real reason to expect any continuity of the religion of Noah's family after they've just witnessed their god directly chatting to their Dad and destroying the rest of life on Earth in a vengeful flood. They probably just forgot about passing any of that to the next generation and created a new totally alien religion.

The same thing seemed to have happened all over the globe too, it's a head scratcher isn't it?


Anyway, this thread is about transitional fossils, of which there are plenty as we've seen.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It did, it started with the creation of Adam and Eve

In 4004 BC? (See Adam Created 4004 BC | Right Division )

That's odd because history seems to go back before the date of Adam.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Take China for example, we have evidence of a continuous culture dating back 10,000 years.

Jiahu culture - 7000 to 5800 BC
Chinese proto-writing existed in Jiahu around 7000 BC

Excavation of a Peiligang culture site in Xinzheng county, Henan, found a community that flourished in 5,500 to 4,900 BC, with evidence of agriculture, constructed buildings, pottery, and burial of the dead.

Yes, and these guys claim they are using the same facts as us, just different interpretations. But it seems they are missing facts like these.

I think, perhaps, they are using "alternative facts".

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you suggesting that two people off the ark legged it to China and gave birth to a couple of Chinese babies who created a thriving population with completely different religious traditions, method of writing, art, language etc etc?

That would be the Cliff's Notes version.

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

IN YOUR OPINION, what was the nature of this blessing? do you think the answer is in the latter part of that verse?

And unless you think He wouldn't do something like that, let me remind you of Egypt:

Exodus 1:19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
Exodus 1:20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

The Chinese came from one of Ham's sons, Canaan:

Genesis 10:15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
Genesis 10:16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
Genesis 10:17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,

But all that aside, I really would like to know what you think that blessing in Genesis 9:1 was?

My GUESS is that you never really thought about it; and that's why you don't understand how the earth could have been repopulated so quickly.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's odd because history seems to go back before the date of Adam.

Weird, isn't it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

so there is no problem to push back ape into dinos age. this is my point. now lets move on...

That is your point, not mine.

My point is that finding a 70 million year old ape would be a big problem, but it would not negate all the knowledge we have accumulated about evolution.

Let me illustrate. If someone were to conclusively show that water was actually H3O, not H2O, that would be a huge problem for chemistry. But it would not negate the entire body of knowledge of chemistry. Instead, it would mean we needed to reevaluate our knowledge, and find how this new discovery fits with everything else we know.

There is a wealth of knowledge about chemistry, astronomy, evolution, and any other branch of science. Making a discovery that challenges one aspect of a field would not negate the entire realm of knowledge in that field.

We have fossils that tell a story of how life progressed on earth. You ought to read about it. They tell a clear story of how life changed with time. Should we make new discoveries that force us to adjust the timetable, we will do it. But we won't throw out that whole body of knowledge.

Now, on the other hand, should you actually find an overwhelming body of evidence that the fossil record is all one big jumbled mess, with all different forms of life scattered up and down the record as if a big flood had just piled everything up, and this new evidence overwhelms the clear order we have seen in the record, then yes, we will go back to the drawing board in figuring out how this all happened.

In the meantime there is an immense supply of evidence to support the conventional view of geology. So why not go with it? We are not asking you to accept modern geology because we have found 10 fossils in order. We are asking you to accept it because there is overwhelming evidence for it. You might want to check out a book like this one: Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: Arthur N. Strahler: 9781573927178: Amazon.com: Books .

You seem to forget that you also have a view of when animals came on earth, what sequence they came in, and the approximate timetable. And there may be a discovery some day that contradicts your view. In fact, I think I could find many fossils that already refute your view, if we only knew what your view of the geologic timetable was. The problem is that you refuse to put a view on the table. You just claim that a fossil may some day be found that refutes our view. And you hide your view. Thus you ignore the fact that something may one day refute your view, or already has.

It is easy to stand for nothing, and hurl attacks from the cheap seats. Why not get in the game? Why not tell us your view of geology? Why not tell us when and how various animal groups came into existence in your view?

Oh wait, if you actually stood for something, that would be refutable.

 

[Jimmy D]

That would be the Cliff's Notes version.

Good for Cliff!

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

IN YOUR OPINION, what was the nature of this blessing? do you think the answer is in the latter part of that verse?

And unless you think He wouldn't do something like that, let me remind you of Egypt:

Exodus 1:19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
Exodus 1:20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

Yeah, atheists don't believe any of that obviously. Are you unaware of this fact?

The Chinese came from one of Ham's sons, Canaan:

Genesis 10:15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
Genesis 10:16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
Genesis 10:17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,

But all that aside, I really would like to know what you think that blessing in Genesis 9:1 was?

My GUESS is that you never really thought about it; and that's why you don't understand how the earth could have been repopulated so quickly.

Jebusite... Jerusalem
Amorite... Babylon
Girgasite.. Canaan
Hivites ... Canaan
Arkites... Lebanon
Sinites... China!!!

Mmm, one of those stands out as unusual, it almost defies logic doesn't it? Especially as the Bible sites google throws up suggest they were another Canaanite tribe. Let's be honest here, it's a stupid thing to suggest.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Weird, isn't it?

Yes weird.

Here we have this great flood which covered even Mount Everest and wiped out all the Chinese and Egyptians, and yet their history just seems to go right through the date of the flood with nobody seeming to notice it even happened.

Weird, I say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, atheists don't believe any of that obviously. Are you unaware of this fact?

I'm aware of the fact that you don't believe it; but my question is:

IN YOUR OPINION, what was the nature of that blessing?

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm aware of the fact that you don't believe it; but my question is:

IN YOUR OPINION, what was the nature of that blessing?

Go forth and multiply.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Huh? I said nothing about you accepting what your high priests tell you to believe. It was a simple question if you believe most fossils are millions of years old. Can you answer please?

Well not accepting what my high priests tell me and saying some were old, should have been adequate. I cant say how old they are, since time dilation has not been taken into account. But certainly the majority of fossils are of an unknown ancient age. But then their have been 6 creations and five destruction, with a sixth destruction to yet occur and a final and seventh creation. Have already explained this in previous posts.

Uh no, it is not my fantasy that fossils have been found in the horse series that show evolution from Eohippus to the zebra. We have found many horse fossils that confirm the timetable I presented. See Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years .

Which occurred after the darkness that made the earth desolate and waste Gen 1:2, once Christians translate "hayah" correctly - which I have as much hope of as evolutionist's following their own scientific definitions. After the 5th creation and part of the sixth.

OK, now that we know that these fossils exist in sequence, how do you explain that sequence?

Wolf to Cocker Spaniel, what is surprising that variations of the original occurred? We see that when an Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian. Did you think they were to always remain the same?

Uh no, that is not how genetics works. Each animal has two chromosomes at each spot, one from the father and one from the mother. How could the dogs on the ark possibly have had more than then the normal two genes of each? And yet we probably have dozens of variations of each gene in the dog family. Where did all that variety come from? I think they came from may wild dogs that contributed there genes, and to mutations in the last 20,000 years.

And once again, and despite your claims - over 100 breeds of dogs have occurred from the wolf. Your belief is falsified from emperical evidence. This according to evolutionists own DNA results.

Wolf to Woof: The Evolution of Dogs @ nationalgeographic.com

Uh no, junk DNA has been linked to retroviruses that insert into the DNA. See NeuroLogica Blog » Endogenous Viruses and “Junk” DNA .

And mutations that damage the genome, since 75% are neutral, 24% damaging and perhaps 1% beneficial.

Noncoding DNA - Wikipedia
"who noted that the mutational load from deleterious mutations placed an upper limit on the number of functional loci that could be expected given a typical mutation rate."

Sieving through 'junk' DNA reveals disease-causing genetic mutations

You seem to be suggesting that the dogs on the ark had genes lined up for all the dog breeds, and different dogs lost different traits to junk DNA, and kept certain traits. That simply is not the case. The junk DNA is at the same spot in all dogs. The problem is that the specific code that codes specific traits at specific locations has many variations in dogs. How can those many variations exist at the same spot in the genome if all dogs came from one pair?

Please, the human genome is the most studied DNA in existence and the "junk dna" is "porly understood." We just started studying it in humans because we thought before ENCODE that it held no value. So don't give me that line of PR.

Uh, DNA has been known to change into a new form of DNA. It is called a mutation. And yes, mutations have been observed to be beneficial.See Are Mutations Harmful? .

The Myth of Beneficial Mutations - CSI

Uh, no, no new DNA has ever been created. You need to read up on what transcription is.

Consequences of Mutations

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v535/n7610/full/nature18316.html

"However, the nature and mechanisms of collision-induced mutagenesis remain poorly understood."

You evolutionist's sure claim a lot of facts for things poorly understood.

Transcription is a copying process. Only "WHAT ALREADY EXISTS" is copied. Since it already exists, then that combination is already possible in the transcription process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go forth and multiply.

Yes, indeed!

Nature can add to the human race, but God can multiply it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you accept the cheetah went through a bottleneck in which only a few survived? If all the animals were reduced to two by Noah's flood, why don't we see the bottleneck in other animals? But other animals show there has been great variety in the genome for many thousands of years. This indicates there never was a flood that reduced all animal populations to two per species.

Actually bottlenecks prove your theory that the genome is evolving is incorrect.

And yet an extinction event occurred, but you dont find it odd that only the Cheetah was affected? Just as we are doing by selectively breeding only purebreed dogs with other purebreed dogs and creating the very bottleneck we see in the Cheetah. Yet you keep ignoring that over 100 subspecies of dog came from the wolf. That one line out of all the feline subspecies was affected might call into question a lot of your beliefs if you examined them without your pre concieved beliefs getting in the way.

Uh, Cheetah DNA has been diversifying for the last 10,000 years. We can tell by the amount of diversity that the bottleneck must have been about 10,000 years ago. See Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah. .

"when a remarkable extinction of large vertebrates occurred on several continents."

"To further define the timing of such a bottleneck, the character of genetic diversity for two rapidly evolving DNA sequences, mitochondrial DNA and hypervariable minisatellite loci, was examined. Moderate levels of genetic diversity were observed for both of these indices in surveys of two cheetah subspecies, one from South Africa and one from East Africa."

So we have two subspecies of Cheetah and both indicated moderate levels of genetic diversity despite your claim of a bottleneck which limited them. Me thinks it is so poorly understood you dont know anything in reality.

So do you have actual DNA of the Cheetah before this extinction event to compare them with? Mw thinks not. So what you assume to be depauperate may just be the end of that line naturally or close to it, like the mule is the end of the line between the horse and donkey subspecies. Or like dogs who are becoming so genetically set from selective breeding?

But ask yourself, how many feline subspecies exist? And we can conclude that just like dogs that came from wolves, they can as well end up in a genetic rut.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not my theory, but the human race had to start somewhere.

In the Garden of Eden, and then again when they exoted the Ark in the very area they same the human race came from.

 

[mark kennedy]

In 4004 BC? (See Adam Created 4004 BC | Right Division )

That's odd because history seems to go back before the date of Adam.

Didn't used to and you have to consider what you consider primary source from antiquity. (See Usher Annals of the World)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't believe you've proven anything of the sort, are you incorrectly classifying the different races as sub species? The irony of that is almost tangible.

The irony isnt almost tangible, it is tangible. But there you go ignoring scientific deffinitions again. Par for the course.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

"a named subdivision (such as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species"

So I have indeed proven just that sort when you decide to accept the scientific definitions you are supposed to be following.

Not my dating methods, but if you think that you've refuted them with the lame arguments you're getting off creationist propaganda sites you are mistaken, I believe Doubtingmerle has already addressed your errors.

I seriously doubt Doubtingmerle could comprehend the basics being there is just another one that ignores scientific deffinitions.

Doubtingmerle spent 10 pages arguing about finches before finally being tied down to give their definition of species which falsified everything they said in those 10 pages. Which is why they quickly changed the subject and didn't want to debate finches anymore.

So you'll have to excuse me if i doubt Doubtingmerle's conclusions as I doubt yours, since the scientific definitions prove you wrong too.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Didn't used to and you have to consider what you consider primary source from antiquity. (See Usher Annals of the World)

Because young earth creationists are using the same flawed dating techniques based on the rate of today's clocks without taking into account time dilation when God "stretched out the heavens", nor do they properly translate "hayah" the second word of the second verse, nor how long Adam was in the Garden to name every animal brought before him. Which I seriously doubt took just a day............ Also had he not lived in the Garden long enough to watch animals mate and die, how would he comprehend what the punishment for sin was had he never observed it? I can't believe God would punish Adam unless Adam was able to see animals die and could comprehend what that punishment would entail. The chronology of the Bible starts when Adam leaves the garden, his days in the garden are not numbered as he was then not subject to death.

 

[Jimmy D]

The irony isnt almost tangible, it is tangible. But there you go ignoring scientific deffinitions again. Par for the course.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

"a named subdivision (such as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species"

So I have indeed proven just that sort when you decide to accept the scientific definitions you are supposed to be following.

I suggest you read a bit further than the dictionary.

In zoology, under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the subspecies is the only taxonomic rank below that of species that can receive a name.

So is the nomenclature different for an african or european?

eg. Panthera tigris tigris / Panthera tigris altaica

Anyway, this is irrelevant to the fact that your crazy ideas about 8 people populating the world 4500 years ago is an unevidenced fantasy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Jebusite... Jerusalem
Amorite... Babylon
Girgasite.. Canaan
Hivites ... Canaan
Arkites... Lebanon
Sinites... China!!!

Mmm, one of those stands out as unusual, it almost defies logic doesn't it? Especially as the Bible sites google throws up suggest they were another Canaanite tribe. Let's be honest here, it's a stupid thing to suggest.

And yet....

https://bible.org/question/out-which-noah’s-three-sons-did-chinese-race-come

"Regarding Gen. 10:16-18 Morris writes:

The Biblical mention of a people in the Far East named “Sinim” (Isaiah 49:12), together with references in ancient secular histories to people in the Far East called “Sinae,” at least suggests the possibility that some of Sin’s descendants migrated eastward, while others went south into the land of Canaan. It is significant that the Chinese people have always been identified by the prefix “Sino-” (e.g., Sino-Japanese War; Sinology, the study of Chinese history). The name “Sin” is frequently encountered in Chinese names in the form “Siang” or its equivalent."

Japheth — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

"The names of his sons and grandsons are found in ancient historical texts as relating to peoples and tribes residing mainly to the N and W of the Fertile Crescent. They appear to have spread from the Caucasus eastward into Central Asia and westward through Asia Minor to the islands and coastlands of Europe and perhaps all the way to Spain. Arabian traditions claim that one of Japheth’s sons was also the progenitor of the Chinese peoples.

—See CHART and MAP, Vol. 1, p. 329."

Japhet in China on JSTOR

"but most interesting of all is the specific claim by the Chinese Muslim writer Liu Chiu, c 1724 that Japhet ruled China, expanded by the 19th century Chinese Muslims, who identified Japhet with Fu Hsi, the first legendary emperor of China of c 3000 B.C.E..

Fu Hsi - The Full Wiki

Fu Xi :: The First Emperor of China :: Shaman | Diviner and Creator of the I Ching | Father of Chinese Civilization and Philosophy

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I suggest you read a bit further than the dictionary.

In zoology, under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the subspecies is the only taxonomic rank below that of species that can receive a name.

So is the nomenclature different for an african or european?

eg. Panthera tigris tigris / Panthera tigris altaica

Anyway, this is irrelevant to the fact that your crazy ideas about 8 people populating the world 4500 years ago is an unevidenced fantasy.

And you have given those subspecies names, Asian, African............ European........ So what is your problem except wanting to ignore that too?