Evolution

[1whirlwind]

Small point to clarify: what I was trying to say was that there was a fairly limited genetic pool on the Arc, because three of the people on the Arc were sons of Noah and his wife.

But just as the offspring of Adam and Eve eventually produced people with an altered genetic makeup, which explains how the different races came to be, so it was also with the people on the arc- their offspring must also have eventually produced genetically-distinct entities that in turn led to the creation of the various races that we see today.

And I use the term "creation" in the last sentence deliberately since ultimately, by whatever process we envision, it is God that creates all living things.

On that point, I think we can all agree.

.

Did you not read my post at all? Or, if you did...did you not accept it? In it our Father explained the others on the ark.


.

 

[Cabal]

You asked why I do not hold TE and I answered, and it is the main reason why. The inception of biological life as per Genesis refutes any notions of UCD.

Depends on the interpretation being used.

I am not inventing another "reality", I am referring to the reality of the Scriptures. What are you rambling on about?!

You appear to be getting frustrated. I'll simplify things down for you:

Both the creation account and the scientific account are attempting to describe the same reality. Claiming that one is describing one reality and the other another is simply fallacious

Talk about double standards, you can very well believe Jesus walked on water or that God can make a metal axe head float, yet you cannot believe what He tells us took place at the inception of the universe?

Addressed this elsewhere. And I do not disbelieve what God tells us - I interpret the passage differently to how you do, that's all.

I agree, but you evade the point I was making.

Fair enough - I thought you might have been claiming it was relevant.

God can do whatever He pleases, and in the same manner that salvation cannot be fully understood by the human mind, neither can the creation mechanisms he employed to create all things.

Again, if that were the case for creation, there would not be a means of establishing it. There is, via science, so this is simply incorrect.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Did you not read my post at all? Or, if you did...did you not accept it? In it our Father explained the others on the ark.


.

Huh? Maybe I missed something- are you saying there were more than 8 people on the Arc, a married couple from every race present on the earth up to that time; representing all of mankind?

In a nutshell, what did I miss?

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Both the creation account and the scientific account are attempting to describe the same reality. Claiming that one is describing one reality and the other another is simply fallacious

Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier when I stated:

When all the evidence is in, I am 100% confident that there will be no conflict between what science tells us about the history of life, and how God made that happen.

Science will eventually get it right, and our interpretation of the Bible will accurately portray what God actually meant. But until that happens, we have to remain open minded, cautious, and humble in our analysis of these matters, and respectful of those who have a different viewpoint to our own.

 

[1whirlwind]

Huh? Maybe I missed something- are you saying there were more than 8 people on the Arc, a married couple from every race present on the earth up to that time; representing all of mankind?

In a nutshell, what did I miss?

You missed that a male and female with the breath of life of all flesh was kept alive on the ark with Noah and his family.


.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

You missed that a male and female with the breath of life of all flesh was kept alive on the ark with Noah and his family.


.

You mean that within Noah's genetic code, there were genes for every type of race that we presently see?

Of course, the Bible isn't a textbook on genetics- but wouldn't it be just as plausible to believe that as Noah and his family's offspring flourished, their genetic codes were at some later time modified (through mutations) to produce the different races that we see today?

Again, I'm not at all saying that it wasn't God who allowed those mutations to happen- of course He did- but why couldn't that have been His way of producing the variety of races that we see today? And the variety of flowers, dogs, cats, bacteria, viruses, etc. etc.

The only question in my mind is how far does evolution go- is it only restricted to species, or go farther; and if so, how far?

.

 

[1whirlwind]

You mean that within Noah's genetic code, there were genes for every type of race that we presently see?

Of course, the Bible isn't a textbook on genetics- but wouldn't it be just as plausible to believe that as Noah and his family's offspring flourished, their genetic codes were at some later time modified (through mutations) to produce the different races that we see today?

Again, I'm not at all saying that it wasn't God who allowed those mutations to happen- of course He did- but why couldn't that have been His way of producing the variety of races that we see today? And the variety of flowers, dogs, cats, bacteria, viruses, etc. etc.

The only question in my mind is how far does evolution go- is it only restricted to species, or go farther; and if so, how far?

.

No...that isn't what I'm saying. Please get the idea of evolution out of your head and read His Words. I repeat......

As for Noah...I agree. All races did not, could not, come from he and his family. And, they didn't...anymore than all races were from Adam.

Genesis 6:18-19 But with thee will I establish My covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
​

Genesis 7:15-16 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.


​

We have been programmed to see "all flesh" as elephants, giraffes, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, etc walking up the plank to enter the ark two by two. But, is that what is being said?

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


​

Here we see "all flesh" as man and then suddenly all flesh becomes animals only when they enter the ark.

Flesh with the breath of life, two by two, male and female...were taken aboard the ark with Noah and kept alive. God didn't destroy all the races He created.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Please get the idea of evolution out of your head and read His Words.

Please consider the possibility that God creates new life forms by altering the genetic code of an existing life form- something biologists call evolution.

How else do you explain how drug-resistant pathogens come about? Or how we are able to breed new varieties of wheat, dogs, flowers, fruit, cattle etc. etc.- each with their own unique genetic make-up and characteristics that are passed on to future generations.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

It seems we're the only ones left on this thread- I think everyone else has decided that this has gone beyond the point of meaningful debate.

 

[1whirlwind]

Please consider the possibility that God creates new life forms by altering the genetic code of an existing life form- something biologists call evolution.

How else do you explain how drug-resistant pathogens come about? Or how we are able to breed new varieties of wheat, dogs, flowers, fruit, cattle etc. etc.- each with their own unique genetic make-up and characteristics that are passed on to future generations.

.

May I ask if you are going to comment on the various races being on the ark with Noah? Do you see what our Father is telling us? Are you ignoring this, not understanding, or just don't want to deal with it???


The dogs that are bred are still...dogs.
Cattle is still....cattle.

Evolution of man from apes is a lie.


.

 

[laconicstudent]

The dogs that are bred are still...dogs.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...nt/oup/jhered/1999/00000090/00000001/art00071

The spectacular diversity in size, conformation, and pelage that characterizes the domestic dog reflects not only the intensity of artificial selection but ultimately the genetic variability of founding populations. Here we review past molecular genetic data that are relevant to understanding the origin and phylogenetic relationships of the dog. DNA-DNA hybridization data show that the dog family Canidae diverged about 50 million years ago from other carnivore families. In contrast, the extant canids are very closely related and diverged from a common ancestor about 10 million years ago. The evidence supporting a close relationship of dogs with gray wolves is overwhelming. However, dogs are remarkably diverse in mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Mitochondrial DNA analysis suggests a more ancient origin of dogs than has been indicated by the fossil record. In addition, dogs have originated from or interbred with wolves throughout their history at different times and different places. We test the possibility of an independent domestication event in North America by analysis of mtDNA variation in the Xoloitzcuintli. This unusual breed is believed to have been kept isolated for thousands of years and may be one of the most ancient breeds in North America. Our results do not support a New World domestication of dogs nor a close association of the Xoloitzcuintli with other hairless breeds of dogs. Despite their phenotypic uniformity, the Xoloitzcuintli has a surprisingly high level of mtDNA sequence variation. Other breeds are also genetically diverse, suggesting that dog breeds were often founded with a large number of dogs from outbred populations.

Cattle is still....cattle.

Mitochondrial diversity and the origins of African and European cattle — PNAS

The nature of domestic cattle origins in Africa are unclear as archaeological data are relatively sparse. The earliest domesticates were humpless, or Bos taurus, in morphology and may have shared a common origin with the ancestors of European cattle in the Near East. Alternatively, local strains of the wild ox, the aurochs, may have been adopted by peoples in either continent either before or after cultural influence from the Levant. This study examines mitochondrial DNA displacement loop sequence variation in 90 extant bovines drawn from Africa, Europe, and India. Phylogeny estimation and analysis of molecular variance verify that sequences cluster significantly into continental groups. The Indian Bos indicus samples are most markedly distinct from the others, which is indicative of a B. taurus nature for both European and African ancestors. When a calibration of sequence divergence is performed using comparisons with bison sequences and an estimate of 1 Myr since the Bison/Bos Leptobos common ancestor, estimates of 117-275,000 B.P. and 22-26,000 B.P. are obtained for the separation between Indians and others and between African and European ancestors, respectively. As cattle domestication is thought to have occurred approximately 10,000 B.P., these estimates suggest the domestication of genetically discrete aurochsen strains as the origins of each continental population. Additionally, patterns of variation that are indicative of population expansions (probably associated with the domestication process) are discernible in Africa and Europe. Notably, the genetic signatures of these expansions are clearly younger than the corresponding signature of African/European divergence.

Sorry, looks like I've found not only evidence that cows and dogs haven't always been dogs and cows, but they haven't had a common ancestor within the time frame you suggest.

Evolution of man from apes is a lie.

Most straw men of evolutionary theory are.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...nt/oup/jhered/1999/00000090/00000001/art00071







Mitochondrial diversity and the origins of African and European cattle — PNAS





Sorry, looks like I've found not only evidence that cows and dogs haven't always been dogs and cows, but they haven't had a common ancestor within the time frame you suggest.






Most straw men of evolutionary theory are.

You just prove how evolutionary theory runs on variations of internal logic. It first "creates" the necessary definitions, and builds evolutionary cases around these definitions.

Dogs remain dogs, and cattle remain cattle in terms of over all morphological, anatomical, and structural identity. Variations in a few morphological aspects and mitochondrial DNA do not prove dogs/cattle are able to evolve into something that aren't dogs/cattle.

You are trying to pass "proof" for something that cannot be proven, as large scale evolution seemingly takes "too much time" to be able to even observe it exists.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

As for Noah...I agree. All races did not, could not, come from he and his family. And, they didn't...anymore than all races were from Adam.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here: when I say all races came from Adam and Eve, and then from Noah and his family, I am referring only to human races- black folk, white folk, asian folk, arab folk, indian folk, etc. etc.


I maintain that all human races present on the earth before the flood did originally come from Adam and Eve. And then again, all human races after the flood (which means all the human races we see today on the earth) did come from Noah and his family.

If we focus on Noah and his family, I am saying that at some point after the flood, the genetic make up of one of Noah's descendants changed- and a child was born that "looked" different than Noah or his offspring- and that difference was genetic; that is, when that child grew up and married and had kids, the children also "looked" the same as one of his parents, and totally different than Noah; a new race of people had begun.

That pattern continued- generation after generation, every new child had the same overall genetic make-up of its parents and "looked" generally the same- that is, was the same race as its parents.

But then at some point, there was a mutation (remember- this only means a change in genetic makeup- it doesn't imply something bad) and another new race began. Fast forward to the present, and this process of human evolution explains why we have the multitude of human races that we see today.

Genesis 6:18-19 But with thee will I establish My covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
​

Genesis 7:15-16 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
​

We have been programmed to see "all flesh" as elephants, giraffes, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, etc walking up the plank to enter the ark two by two. But, is that what is being said?

Yes- that is what I maintain is being said. That is what I believe, and what my study Bible teaches. First, let's use a modern translation of the Bible (the NIV in this case) to help us examine this passage more easily:

Genesis 6:18-19:

18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

I read this to mean that there were only 8 human beings on the ark, and then two of all living creatures (i.e. animals), one male, one female. But note that the animals were special- since they were male and female, only those animals able to sexually reproduce were present. Also, none of the living creatures in the sea, such as fish, could have been present- after all, the flood wouldn't have affected them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that there were more than 8 human beings present on the ark- that all the other human races of mankind (besides those that Noah and his family represented) were part of the "living creatures" that came onto the ark. I don't believe this is the case.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
​

Here we see "all flesh" as man and then suddenly all flesh becomes animals only when they enter the ark. Flesh with the breath of life, two by two, male and female...were taken aboard the ark with Noah and kept alive. God didn't destroy all the races He created.

He created the "multitude of races that we see today." And, they were created that way in the beginning.

.

Well, again- there seems to be a misunderstanding- I was referring to the multitude of human races, and you seem to have assumed that I was using the term races to refer to all the living creatures on the earth, man and animals.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

The dogs that are bred are still...dogs.
Cattle is still....cattle.

Evolution of man from apes is a lie.


.

But a German Shepard is genetically distinct from a Border Collie, and from a Poodle, etc. etc. They all have a common ancestor- but through evolution, that common ancestor produced the variety of dogs that we see today. Same with cattle.

And as for apes evolving to become human beings- well, some evolutionary biologists may theorize that to be the case, and use the fossil record, DNA, and other evidence to make their case- but I don't believe that, and since it is just a theory, don't believe that every biologist has to accept that theory as being the truth either.

Only a few years ago, biologists widely believed that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor- the so-called "last universal ancestor" or LUA- which then must have originated as the one single living cell that then evolved to give rise to all life on earth. Well, now we know that this is not the case- there is no single LUA, and life on earth did not have to start with one single celled common organism, able to reproduce itself.

So I take the Bible literally on the point of how human beings started: they are special, and I do believe they were made by God in one special act of creation. But the first two human beings that were created- Adam and Eve- then evolved to produce the multitude of human races that we see today.

.

 

[matthewgar]

But a German Shepard is genetically distinct from a Border Collie, and from a Poodle, etc. etc. They all have a common ancestor- but through evolution, that common ancestor produced the variety of dogs that we see today. Same with cattle.

And as for apes evolving to become human beings- well, some evolutionary biologists may theorize that to be the case, and use the fossil record, DNA, and other evidence to make their case- but I don't believe that, and since it is just a theory, don't believe that every biologist has to accept that theory as being the truth either.

Only a few years ago, biologists widely believed that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor- the so-called "last universal ancestor" or LUA- which then must have originated as the one single living cell that then evolved to give rise to all life on earth. Well, now we know that this is not the case- there is no single LUA, and life on earth did not have to start with one single celled common organism, able to reproduce itself.

So I take the Bible literally on the point of how human beings started: they are special, and I do believe they were made by God in one special act of creation. But the first two human beings that were created- Adam and Eve- then evolved to produce the multitude of human races that we see today.

.

Ehhhh can you tell me where you get this claim of no LUA?

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Ehhhh can you tell me where you get this claim of no LUA?

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)

Wikipedia has a more simple explanation.

.

 

[laconicstudent]

You just prove how evolutionary theory runs on variations of internal logic. It first "creates" the necessary definitions, and builds evolutionary cases around these definitions.

Strange how that doesn't actually address the fact that I just refuted your claim of a bottleneck population event within the past few thousand years.

Dogs remain dogs, and cattle remain cattle in terms of over all morphological, anatomical, and structural identity. Variations in a few morphological aspects and mitochondrial DNA do not prove dogs/cattle are able to evolve into something that aren't dogs/cattle.

Hello? I just demonstrated that dogs evolved from wolf-like ancestors and cattle are descended from Aurochs, and there wasn't a global flood resulting in a bottleneck population. Did you even notice that?

You are trying to pass "proof" for something that cannot be proven, as large scale evolution seemingly takes "too much time" to be able to even observe it exists.

Except, I kind of just did prove it. Sorry lol, you don't just get to dismiss genetic studies with a wave of your hand.

 

[matthewgar]

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)

Wikipedia has a more simple explanation.

.

I read both of those and a few other links, and I think I get the gist here, though the lack of a LUCA doesn't dsprove evolution in this case, there may not be a LUCA because of gene transfer it be more likly a entire comunity of species sharing their DNA and such. Though this isn't saying that everything didn't evolve from this group, or that we didn't evolve down the line from bacteria and such.

 

[matthewgar]

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)

Wikipedia has a more simple explanation.

.

Oh and on your dogs are just dogs, watch the last half of this video, first bit is mostly poking at creationists, but the rest points out the phylogeny tree both current and past of dogs tracing back to bears/seals and further.

YouTube - Caniform Carnivore Cladogram Construction

Oh and while at it, here is the one for cats, wich ties in with the previous :>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08

 

[1whirlwind]

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...nt/oup/jhered/1999/00000090/00000001/art00071


Mitochondrial diversity and the origins of African and European cattle — PNAS


Sorry, looks like I've found not only evidence that cows and dogs haven't always been dogs and cows, but they haven't had a common ancestor within the time frame you suggest.

You have found nothing but man's ideas, man's theories, man's concept. Dogs do not have cats. Cats do not have rabbits. Apes do not have men.

As for the suggested time frame...where did I suggest that?

Most straw men of evolutionary theory are.

You do understand that this discussion is about...the lie of apes to man?



.