Evolution's Brick Wall

[Job 33:6]

That's not unreasonable but you still are not dealing with a couple of critical points. First, the skull is a quarter the size of humans, how does this giant leap of evolution occur since the line leading up to higher primates is sketchy at best. So maybe we have the common ancestor for man and ape, and that's a big maybe. How did the chimpanzee line disappear after that?

Also, sahelanthropis skull size is estimated between 320-380cc, with Australopithecus species being around 400.

So this isn't exactly a "giant leap" as you seem to suggest.

So this isn't some abnormally huge jump.

 

[inquiring mind]

Wow tas, I’m impressed. I just don’t have that much energy, so here are the answers to my questions in order:

None; And your answer is; I’m sure; and yet you countered with a video, post #210; Nope & Nope; I’m always suspicious when ‘dime words’ and ‘ashamed’ are used in a response

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure. I think it has been explained to you ad infinitum that brain size started small, and that the common ancestor of chimps and humans most likely lived in damp forests where fossilization is rare.

We dnt nd to fi evry intmdt spc to cnfm evoln.

Not only that but see post 281.

The skull might be a quarter the size of modern man, but it's maybe 90% the Size of Australopithecenes (if that's the word for them), and when on the higher end of sizes, range into the smaller sizes of homo habilis and erectus, which on the higher end, are similar in size to modern day people.

 

[tas8831]

Wow tas, I’m impressed.

Wow, I'm not.

I just don’t have that much energy, so here are the answers to my questions in order:

None; And your answer is; I’m sure; and yet you countered with a video, post #210; Nope & Nope; I’m always suspicious when ‘dime words’ and ‘ashamed’ are used in a response

I countered with a video as your 'argument' was made with a video, should have been obvious.

I am always suspicious when someone pretends to have made a great creationist argument yet clearly does not understand the basis for their own claims.

I guess by "dime words" you were referring to terms used in the field that you made an 'argument' in?
Hilarious.

 

[tas8831]

Sure we do... there just ain't-a-body of definite proof to be found.

It is so precious when a creationist makes some sweeping, uninformed generalization ('no transitional fossils') and then is quickly reduced to countering with cutesy little 'joke' replies.

An implicit admission of their failure, not that they can admit it.

 

[USincognito]

Here we go with more citations. I've provided a reference already, but apparently you don't want to watch it (they put their titles and universities they work for on the screen and everything), but you've got to pay attention and (clue) watch the end.

In the time it took you to type this you could just have provided a citation. Why do Creationists always do this?

 

[tas8831]

In the time it took you to type this you could just have provided a citation. Why do Creationists always do this?

That one video he watched is the ultimate source of all information. No need for anything more. There is a video of George Carlin proclaiming all religion to be bunk. Nobody can possibly do better than that video as proof.

 

[USincognito]

It looks like the above article discusses how humans and chimps have lived in different environments in Africa. Chimps being in more forested areas with higher acidity in soils (less conducive for fossilization) while mankind being in more semi arid, as being a potential reason for many human fossils with fewer chimp fossils.

He's had that explained to him for like five years, but he's convinced himself of his conspiracy theory that every time they find a chimpanzee fossil they classify it as a non-Pan hominin.

 

[tas8831]

It is always telling to see what creationists omit from their replies. The quoted post was replied to, but I have left the part that was ignored:

Can you provide definitive corroboration for the claims in Mark that the sky went dark for three hours when Jesus died on the cross?

That was supposed to have happened but a few thousand years ago, when there were all kinds of sophisticated human cultures all around the world, most with systems of writing and social hierarchies that were interested in recording events and such.

Surely it would be far, far easier for the Christian to present reams of verifiable, valid, corroborated evidence for such events being observed and recorded around the world, or at least in the middle east and adjoining areas where such events would have to have been observed as opposed to finding some specific set of fossils from millions of years ago?

This is why I ask creationists who think they have some kind of brilliant argument about fossils how much they actually understand about the topic.

Do you know under what conditions fossils can form? Do you know how prevalent such conditions are? It seems not.

The response focused on my use of the words "non sequitur" and "ashamed" (which I omitted here...).

 

[juvenissun]

Their both right, God created life and it evolved from there.

Life form changes. But no evolution.
Definition problem here.

 

[mark kennedy]

Life form changes. But no evolution.
Definition problem here.

Yes, exactly. The basic definition for evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time. That one came from Ernst Mayr, a famous biologist who worked on the Modern Synthesis back in the 30s. It was an attempt at blending Dawinism and genetics. Darwinian evolution had long held that all life came from a single common ancestor ultimately. Genetics had enjoyed considerable success predicting the traits expression using statistics, thus the emphasis on populations over time.

Good definitions help.dispel confusion, I couldn't agree more.

 

[pitabread]

Their both right, God created life and it evolved from there.

Out of curiosity what do you believe God created? What did that first life look like?

 

[mark kennedy]

Out of curiosity what do you believe God created? What did that first life look like?

Fully formed with pristine genomes. They had not had time to accumulate mutations, you were born with about 70, give or take. There were not very many if Adam had time to name them in a day. That led to to the diversity around us and it comes down to the gene pool. They would have had a much bigger one and I don't really have a clue what they actually looked like but I'm sure they were truly magnificant.

 

[inquiring mind]

Fully formed with pristine genomes. They had not had time to accumulate mutations, you were born with about 70, give or take. There were not very many if Adam had time to name them in a day. That led to to the diversity around us and it comes down to the gene pool. They would have had a much bigger one and I don't really have a clue what they actually looked like but I'm sure they were truly magnificant.

I used to “reason” that God may have made us more ape-like, animal-like, or something so we could adapt to a harsh world, but that was before I really thought about what the Bible tells us (the Garden, made in His image, etc.). I don’t think God would have made us in His image and then over time changed us to look like something else completely, and I don’t think we’ll change drastically in the distant future (if we have one) either.

 

[mark kennedy]

I used to “reason” that God may have made us more ape-like, animal-like, or something so we could adapt to a harsh world, but that was before I really thought about what the Bible tells us (the Garden, made in His image, etc.). I don’t think God would have made us in His image and then over time changed us to look like something else completely, and I don’t think we’ll change drastically in the distant future (if we have one) either.

You know, humans have never speciated, chimpanzees have and so have gorillas. My thing is that the Scriures are clear and science is inconclusive, if not contrived. Let's not forget that there is much to be leared from the life sciences. But the witness of Scripture is clear, God is the author of life, it's literally on the first and last page of Scripture. This kind of debate is fun, it has its merit. But ultimately you have to decide is God Creator or do you differ to naturalistic mechanisms. I choose the former.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[pitabread]

Fully formed with pristine genomes. They had not had time to accumulate mutations, you were born with about 70, give or take. There were not very many if Adam had time to name them in a day. That led to to the diversity around us and it comes down to the gene pool. They would have had a much bigger one and I don't really have a clue what they actually looked like but I'm sure they were truly magnificant.

What does "pristine genomes" mean? What would such a genome look like?

And how long ago do you think that creation event was?

 

[inquiring mind]

What does "pristine genomes" mean? What would such a genome look like?

Genesis 1:27

And how long ago do you think that creation event was?

A long time ago, but probably not as long as you're thinking.

 

[pitabread]

Genesis 1:27

God has a genome made of DNA? Okay, what does God's genome look like?

A long time ago, but probably not as long as you're thinking.

And how long is a long time ago? Give an approximate age range.

 

[inquiring mind]

God has a genome made of DNA? Okay, what does God's genome look like?

I only know (in the process of learning I should say) what the Bible tells us.

And how long is a long time ago? Give an approximate age range.

And the Bible didn't give us a date, so I don't have a clue.

 

[mark kennedy]

What does "pristine genomes" mean? What would such a genome look like?

And how long ago do you think that creation event was?

The creation events would have been 6000 years ago and a pristine genome is the a sense of mutations. You have a gene that should produce vitiman c but it's broke. After generations of inbreeding the gene pool shrinks, thats one of the side effects. Hitler got it backwards, the master race isn't produced by inbreeding Arians. If you want a master race it would be by breeding on the largest possible scale. A bit counter intuitive but the only viable means of expanding the gene pool.