Aron-Ra v. BoranJarami

[Aron-Ra]

I'm sort of heading towards believing that tons of micro evolution cannot lead to macro evolution,

The chart I just provided also shows exactly that.

 

[GreyWookiee]

I'm sorry I misquoted the incorrect word. "Abiogenesis" is what I meant, not "Agenesis".

I also must apologize, I don't understand what macro and micro evolution is yet. But that's ok, I think you've just about summed it up Aron-Ra.

As I thought I had made clear by now, the real issue is faith vs. reason; rationalism.

I concede that according to your definition through taxonomy that we are apes. But I still am looking for a missing link between chimps and humans that still exists. I am not saying that it makes any difference if the basis that we are theoritically decended from apes.

Am I also to understand that through DNA we can now, with alleles, prove that chimps are our ancestors or at least share the same genetic ancestors?

I don't really understand your question. Are you talking about how our brain size tripled over such a relatively short period of time?

Yes, I suppose I am, since I'm not versed enough to understand how else to explain the differences in our over all level of abilities and consciousness. I'm not saying that chimps aren't "aware". I'm simply saying they obviously aren't as evolved for the most part. Not that I haven't worked with some people that I would like to replace with chimps.

If ID is a not a valid label of the second (out of the three surveyed in your link) belief that a designer helped evolution along and also a belief that excepts science as a way of bettering our lives, what is said belief called?

So, let's just agree that we are scientifically decended from apes. And regardless of whether a designer helped evolution along, created us (poof!) as per Genesis with the scientific links to apes, just to baffle us all, or if there isn't a designer at all, I think we can safely agree that, it is the fear of an after-life that mainly drives religion.

You mentioned:

So I don't believe in gods because there is no good reason to, and plenty of good reasons not to.

This is ok if you don't believe in life after death and that our consciousness or soul doesn't go on to exist in some cosmic aspect, but what if? I think it really comes down to the fear of what if. Oh the wonders of imagination.

I'm looking forward to your answers to my questions, but I think I've found the answers I was looking for. Thank you very much for taking the time to help educate some of the populous about evolution. You must really care about the future of our species. Good luck in your career.
</IMG></IMG></IMG>

 

[Edx]

Am I also to understand that through DNA we can now, with alleles, prove that chimps are our ancestors or at least share the same genetic ancestors?

Just to clarify, we share the same ancestors as chimps but they arent our ancestors themselves.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I don't understand what macro and micro evolution is yet.

Microevolution is variation up to the species level, such as would apply to breeds of dogs or "races" [demes] of men; when there are distinct groups emerging within a single interbreeding population. Macroevolution is speciation on up, when, as variation continues, populations diverge to the point that they no longer interbreed. This is the only true point of distinction in the whole of taxonomy because its the only one that can be objectively determined. Its the most significant too, because once a sub-group is no longer restrained by the parent gene pool, there can be an unbridled divergence from it.

What I showed with my genetic chart with chimpanzees for example were four distinct sub-species of Pan troglodytes, as distinguished from a separate species, Pan paniscus, also called Bonobos or "pygmy chimps". The four subspecies are microevolutionary varieties and the other species is variation progressed beyond the macroevolutionary level.

I concede that according to your definition through taxonomy that we are apes. But I still am looking for a missing link between chimps and humans that still exists.

You appear to be looking for Dryopithecus, Ardipithecus, and/or one of the Australopithecines, all extinct for at least a couple million years.

Am I also to understand that through DNA we can now, with alleles, prove that chimps are our ancestors or at least share the same genetic ancestors?

An interesting question about that though is where the division is between us/them. It has been proposed -and never actually proved- whether humans could still mate with modern chimps. If we can, we would still be different species because the rule is that two different species either cannot or will not willingly or normally interbreed under natural conditions, and humans and chimps obviously don't. Australopithecines and modern humans probably wouldn't either, if there were any still around. But we're still all close enough that a genus-level distinction may not be justified. Some scientists have suggested that chimpanzees should either be classified as humans or humans should be classified as chimpanzees. The former, I think, would make things much less confusing.

I'm not versed enough to understand how else to explain the differences in our over all level of abilities and consciousness. I'm not saying that chimps aren't "aware". I'm simply saying they obviously aren't as evolved for the most part. Not that I haven't worked with some people that I would like to replace with chimps.

I admit I am bothered by the fact that we are the only species in the history of this planet to weild this level of cognizance. In every fictional universe, it seems there are other species or alien races of different sorts who can all talk to each other easier than different cultures of men can in real life. I think its a bit sad that all the most intelligent non-human species, (elephants, parrots, whales, other apes) are so retarded by comparison. Sadder still that we're the most brilliant organism here, yet we can still be so stupid!

If ID is a not a valid label of the second (out of the three surveyed in your link) belief that a designer helped evolution along and also a belief that excepts science as a way of bettering our lives, what is said belief called?

The belief that all natural systems and mechanisms were initiated, directed, and/or guided by a god is referred to as theistic evolution, and is the most widely-held perspective among Christians.

So, let's just agree that we are scientifically decended from apes. And regardless of whether a designer helped evolution along, created us (poof!) as per Genesis with the scientific links to apes, just to baffle us all, or if there isn't a designer at all, I think we can safely agree that, it is the fear of an after-life that mainly drives religion.

Agreed.

I'm looking forward to your answers to my questions, but I think I've found the answers I was looking for. Thank you very much for taking the time to help educate some of the populous about evolution. You must really care about the future of our species. Good luck in your career.

Thank you very much indeed!

 

[atrijez]

Microevolution is variation up to the species level, such as would apply to breeds of dogs or "races" [demes] of men; when there are distinct groups emerging within a single interbreeding population. Macroevolution is speciation on up, when, as variation continues, populations diverge to the point that they no longer interbreed. This is the only true point of distinction in the whole of taxonomy because its the only one that can be objectively determined. Its the most significant too, because once a sub-group is no longer restrained by the parent gene pool, there can be an unbridled divergence from it.

i don't know that ALL creationists would define microevolution as the evolution that occurs until speciation. creationists believe in microevolution, but not macro., so if they were to define micro and macro by these definitions, then they would have to maintain that speciation never occurs. really though, a lot of creationists DO believe that speciation is entirely possible (which is why they can't use the word "species" and have to resort to the nebulous term "kind"). for example, they freely admit that wolves, jackals, and coyotes evolved from a common ancestor, and therefore freely admit speciation since these animals in fact cannot breed with one another.

i've noticed a different micro/macro distinction made by creationists. they have the idea that "information" (DNA) can only be taken away, never added. so i think they view microevolution as the stripping down of a genome (which they see as entirely possible), and macroevolution as the modifying of a genome (which, despite all of the proof we have, they seem to think is impossible. indeed, their real fight is against the science of genetics.)

 

[Aron-Ra]

i've noticed a different micro/macro distinction made by creationists. they have the idea that "information" (DNA) can only be taken away, never added. so i think they view microevolution as the stripping down of a genome (which they see as entirely possible), and macroevolution as the modifying of a genome (which, despite all of the proof we have, they seem to think is impossible. indeed, their real fight is against the science of genetics.)

There are some creationists, like Mark Cadwallader of Creationmoments.org, and our own Mark Kennedy, who insist that genetics is a distinctly separate field unrelated to evolution, and they will rage against even Christian geneticists who try to say otherwise.

Its all about misrepresentation. That's why creationists have to say "kind", and that's why they have to use thier own undefined applications of "microevolution" and "adaptation" to account for the degrees of evolution that are too obvious even for them to reject. But it was scientists who coined the terms microevolution and macroevolution, so they're the ones who determined what these words really mean. Creationists use them incorrectly on purpose even when they know better. You really can't have a less honest perspective than that of a young earth creationist.

 

[RichardT]

Impossible, since we arent similar to apes we ARE apes.

It's our similarities and our differences with other animals that make us closer or further from them in the theoretical evolutionnary scale.

 

[RichardT]

Simply put, I don't believe in gods because there is neither physical evidence of them nor any logically-defensible argument for them. We're not talking about believing in something like air, which is invisible yet still demonstrably real. Nor are we talking about considering fanciful things that might be true, but that can't be qualified or quantified in any verifiable way. No, we're talking about actively maintaining a positive belief in something that is impossible according to everything we know about anything at all, and which would still be illogical even if it were possible, and which we're expected to believe solely on the word of the least credible people possible. So I don't believe in gods because there is no good reason to, and plenty of good reasons not to.

Unless you can explain everything away in the entire universe, the God hypothesis is highly reasonnable.

 

[atrijez]

There are some creationists, like Mark Cadwallader of Creationmoments.org, and our own Mark Kennedy, who insist that genetics is a distinctly separate field unrelated to evolution, and they will rage against even Christian geneticists who try to say otherwise.

Its all about misrepresentation. That's why creationists have to say "kind", and that's why they have to use thier own undefined applications of "microevolution" and "adaptation" to account for the degrees of evolution that are too obvious even for them to reject. But it was scientists who coined the terms microevolution and macroevolution, so they're the ones who determined what these words really mean. Creationists use them incorrectly on purpose even when they know better. You really can't have a less honest perspective than that of a young earth creationist.

oh, i thought microevolution and macroevolution were actually terms coined by creationists. in any case, i've noticed creationists use the terms in the way i described. it's a shame, but i think you're right. they know better, but they still use the words disingenuously.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Simply put, I don't believe in gods because there is neither physical evidence of them nor any logically-defensible argument for them. We're not talking about believing in something like air, which is invisible yet still demonstrably real. Nor are we talking about considering fanciful things that might be true, but that can't be qualified or quantified in any verifiable way. No, we're talking about actively maintaining a positive belief in something that is impossible according to everything we know about anything at all, and which would still be illogical even if it were possible, and which we're expected to believe solely on the word of the least credible people possible. So I don't believe in gods because there is no good reason to, and plenty of good reasons not to.

Unless you can explain everything away in the entire universe, the God hypothesis is highly reasonnable.

If we can explain anything at all, without having to use magic as an excuse, then it will never be reasonable to assume invisible djinnis casting enchantments behind the scenes, and there is no practical value in making those sorts of assumptions either. Because if we let ourselves be satisfied with that, then we'll stop trying to find out how things really work.

Edx was right. We are demonstrably apes, not 'theoretically' so; and this is the case with every other clade to which we and the other apes belong as well.

RichardT, I don't know if you'll understand this in the manner intended, but I know you have a reasonable intellect. I've seen it. Don't repress that again. Don't let yourself be dragged into the intellectual dishonesty that is an inevitable requirement when defending creationism. The first lie required there is the assumption that evolution = atheism. That's obviously not the case since most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionists are Christian. But at the same time, everything you quoted from me above is true, and everything quoted from me in the OP of this thread is true too, and so is what I said in post # 50. There has never been a single credible proponant of evangelical creationism anywhere ever. Every last one of them who has ever published antievolutionary rhetoric has revealed inexcuseable ignorance of the very topics where they claim expertise, as well as in the form and function of science itself, and even theology too! Or they have distorted data, relied on logical fallacies, emotional pleas, parody, and sensationalist propaganda, or purposefully misrepresented the arguments they pretend to refute. So must you, if you continue to embrace creationism and argue in its defense.

This thread was no empty boast. I really can prove to your satisfaction that we are evolved apes, that biological evolution is the truest, best explanation there is -or ever was- for the origin of our species, and that it is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. If you intend to counter that on any point, you are going to have to stoop to logical fallacies and you're going to have to misrepresent the facts. Many of the other creationists on this board are already too disingenuous to be reasoned with anymore. But not you, not yet. You're better than this. Please realize that.

Everyone who ever breaks the mental bonds of dogmatic religious belief describes that as feeling released, able to see and appreciate the world as it really is, often for the first time ever. That could be your way too. Question, challenge, and criticize evolution however you think you can as long as you do so honestly. But creationism cannot be supported any other way than through lies. It is not any pursuit of truth by any stretch, and it certainly isn't interested in knowledge either. But it does perpetuate prejudice and paranoia, and stills a thinking mind with "armor' against reason itself; and it will prevent you from ever even wanting to know what the truth really is, or what knowledge really means. Don't let that happen.

 

[Edx]

It's our similarities and our differences with other animals that make us closer or further from them in the theoretical evolutionnary scale.

What does this reply mean? You said we were different from apes by "120 millon base pairs". Why arent you using the word "ape" and "human" with the proper scientific definition? You shouldnt use these words if you are just going to use your own dictionary. What IS your definition of human and what is your definition of ape?

 

[Edx]

Unless you can explain everything away in the entire universe, the God hypothesis is highly reasonnable.

So faries are still a highly reasonable assumption as well?

 

[Atheuz]

Unless you can explain everything away in the entire universe, the God hypothesis is highly reasonnable.

Fairies
Santa
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Hinduism
Buddhism
Judaism
Islam
Christianity

Are all very reasonable according to you then.
Because something has not been proven yet does not mean it will not be or that it should immidiately be connected with God.

 

[MichaelFischer]

Did you know that you can be a Christian, and believe that the earth is billions of years old? You can even believe in evolution and be a Christian. There is no conflict between science and the Bible...all one needs is a proper understanding how to merge science and the Bible.


Old Earth Creation Science

Word Study: Yom

The Hebrew word for &#8220;day&#8221; is the word &#8220;Yom.&#8221; Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day. In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods.
First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has.
Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom.

Word Usage in the Old Testament

As you can see, Yom is used in a wide variety of situations related to the concept of time. Yom is not just for days...it is for time in general. How it is translated depends on the context of its use with other words.
Yom in the Creation Account

Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.

1. Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
2. Genesis 1:14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
3. Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.

The fourth usage of Yom in the creation account is in the summary for each of the six creation days, "and there was morning and evening the first day". Yom is used to represent a finite, long period of time, usually either millions or billions of years. To show support for this, consider the uses of Yom by Moses.
Moses Other Uses of Yom

Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.

1. Genesis 4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months.
2. Genesis 43:9 "...then let me bear the blame for ever." Here, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
3. Genesis 44:32 "...then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever." Again, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
4. Deuteronomy 4:40 "...that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth the, for ever." Here Yom represents a physical lifetime
5. Deuteronomy 10:10, "Now I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time,..." Here, Yom is a "time" equal to forty days.
6. Deuteronomy 18:5 "...to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever." Again, Yom is translated as eternity
7. Deuteronomy 19:9 "...to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in His ways..." Here, Yom represents a lifetime. As long as we live we are to walk in his ways

As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.


If God's Creation Was Billions of Years Old...


If God's creation was billions of years old, how would He have written the creation account in Genesis? One thing is certain...God is good at telling us exactly what we need to know.
When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham's descendants being as numerous as the sand. Why does He do this? If God had said, "You will have millions of descendants," Abraham would have asked, "What is a million?"
When considering the creation, if we broke it down into days, that would be 5,000,500,000,000 days, or roughly 13.7 billion years. Do we need an account for each day of creation...of course not. God in His infinite wisdom, saw fit to tell us the creation story by breaking it down into creative segments, each of which was attributed to a specific creative act or acts. We need to give the early Hebrews of Genesis a break...they didn't have calculators like we do!
One must also consider that time with God has no meaning. To Him, 10 billion years is like a day. Thus, it is no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days. Dr. Hugh Ross puts it best in his determination that the frame of reference for creation is the surface of the earth. Genesis 1:2 puts the witness of creation on the surface. But who is witnessing these events? It is God himself. During the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present. Thus, human time does not matter...no humans were there to witness the passage of time. What matters is how God sees time! Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God's eyes.
The creation account is written in such a manner for all people to understand it. The issue is not how long creation took...the issue is that God did it, and that's all that matters in the end.

 

[RichardT]

Did you know that you can be a Christian, and believe that the earth is billions of years old? You can even believe in evolution and be a Christian. There is no conflict between science and the Bible...all one needs is a proper understanding how to merge science and the Bible.


Old Earth Creation Science

Word Study: Yom

The Hebrew word for &#8220;day&#8221; is the word &#8220;Yom.&#8221; Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day. In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods.
First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has.
Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom.

Word Usage in the Old Testament

As you can see, Yom is used in a wide variety of situations related to the concept of time. Yom is not just for days...it is for time in general. How it is translated depends on the context of its use with other words.
Yom in the Creation Account

Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.

1. Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
2. Genesis 1:14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
3. Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.

The fourth usage of Yom in the creation account is in the summary for each of the six creation days, "and there was morning and evening the first day". Yom is used to represent a finite, long period of time, usually either millions or billions of years. To show support for this, consider the uses of Yom by Moses.
Moses Other Uses of Yom

Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.

1. Genesis 4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months.
2. Genesis 43:9 "...then let me bear the blame for ever." Here, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
3. Genesis 44:32 "...then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever." Again, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
4. Deuteronomy 4:40 "...that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth the, for ever." Here Yom represents a physical lifetime
5. Deuteronomy 10:10, "Now I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time,..." Here, Yom is a "time" equal to forty days.
6. Deuteronomy 18:5 "...to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever." Again, Yom is translated as eternity
7. Deuteronomy 19:9 "...to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in His ways..." Here, Yom represents a lifetime. As long as we live we are to walk in his ways

As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.


If God's Creation Was Billions of Years Old...


If God's creation was billions of years old, how would He have written the creation account in Genesis? One thing is certain...God is good at telling us exactly what we need to know.
When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham's descendants being as numerous as the sand. Why does He do this? If God had said, "You will have millions of descendants," Abraham would have asked, "What is a million?"
When considering the creation, if we broke it down into days, that would be 5,000,500,000,000 days, or roughly 13.7 billion years. Do we need an account for each day of creation...of course not. God in His infinite wisdom, saw fit to tell us the creation story by breaking it down into creative segments, each of which was attributed to a specific creative act or acts. We need to give the early Hebrews of Genesis a break...they didn't have calculators like we do!
One must also consider that time with God has no meaning. To Him, 10 billion years is like a day. Thus, it is no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days. Dr. Hugh Ross puts it best in his determination that the frame of reference for creation is the surface of the earth. Genesis 1:2 puts the witness of creation on the surface. But who is witnessing these events? It is God himself. During the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present. Thus, human time does not matter...no humans were there to witness the passage of time. What matters is how God sees time! Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God's eyes.
The creation account is written in such a manner for all people to understand it. The issue is not how long creation took...the issue is that God did it, and that's all that matters in the end.

From where did you copy paste this? The belief that the earth is billions of years old obviously did not come from the bible. I'll just copy paste my favourite quote on this issue.

And so it was that at age eighteen I entered the University of Rochester as an astrophysics major with a minor in astronomy. During my studies at the U. of R. I became an atheist. After all, evolution and the Bible don't agree, regardless of what theistic evolutionists may say. Candidly, it was such compromisers who convinced me the Bible was wrong and science was right. After all, if science makes a proclamation (such as the earth is not at the center of the universe or that life came along through an evolutionary sequence) and many years later some theologian comes along and by some mysterious manipulation of the meanings of the Bible's wordings concludes: "Aha, the Bible knew it all along," then what did the Bible have to contribute to human knowledge? The frontiers of knowledge obviously did not lie in the study of the Bible.

 

[RichardT]

The Hebrew word for &#8220;day&#8221; is the word &#8220;Yom.&#8221; Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day.

Your article fails from the very first sentence, unbelievable.

 

[MichaelFischer]

Yet have you bothered to read the rest?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Did you know that you can be a Christian, and believe that the earth is billions of years old? You can even believe in evolution and be a Christian. There is no conflict between science and the Bible...all one needs is a proper understanding how to merge science and the Bible.

Actually, there are many many irreconcileable conflicts between science and the Bible. But did you know that you can still be a Christian and not worship the Bible? Because where God may have created the universe, men created the books. Therefore none of the world's holy scriptures can possibly be "absolute" truth, and to pretend that any of them are "god-breathed" is a form of idolatry.