Humans are unique, not evolved

[Confused-by-christianity]

Here, you merely doubt the power of God to make a universe in which complex behaviors can evolve. Your lack of faith is not an argument against reality
... ... ...
high school biology class, it's pretty funny.

Are you a scientist or teacher??

 

[Wings like Eagles]

An enlightening discussion:

Meyer, Behe, and Lennox on Science, God, and Darwin’s Other Doubt

On today’s ID the Future, Oxford’s John Lennox, Lehigh University’s Michael Behe, and Darwin’s Doubt author Stephen Meyer continue a probing conversation with host Peter Robinson on what they see as…

idthefuture.com

 

[Aussie Pete]

Here, you merely doubt the power of God to make a universe in which complex behaviors can evolve. Your lack of faith is not an argument against reality.


Yes, but because you don't know what either is, you confuse the two.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
Adaptation is a change that makes an organism more fit in an environment.

• Getting a sun tan is adaptation, but not evolution.
• A new mutation that doesn't affect fitness is evolution, but not adaptation.
• A new mutation that provides protection against a parasite is evolution and adaptation.

Shouldn't be that difficult, but some people just can't get it.


If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. People who think they hate evolution don't even know what it is. That kind of thing happens in the fantasies of creationists, but not in the real world.


Getting things wrong is not exaggeration. It's just getting things wrong. You're just showing how ludicrous creationist ideas seem on examination.


For example, eukaryotes. Seems pretty new and unique to me. But we've observed bacteria evolve endosymbiotically, becoming an essential part of another organism like our mitochondria, or the chloroplasts in plants.

And given that prokaryotes are actually an independent domain, that would be like saying a human evolving from another ape isn't really evolution because they are still eukaryotes.

You may not know enough about biology to realize how ludicrous it is, but to anyone who paid attention in high school biology class, it's pretty funny.

The flaws in evolutionary theory are obvious. Why? Because evolutionists themselves often have to admit that they got it wrong. What they cannot bring themselves to do is admit that the whole premise of evolution is fundamentally flawed. The fundamental premise of evolution is that it happens because it happens. I don't buy that.

 

[trophy33]

The flaws in evolutionary theory are obvious. Why? Because evolutionists themselves often have to admit that they got it wrong. What they cannot bring themselves to do is admit that the whole premise of evolution is fundamentally flawed. The fundamental premise of evolution is that it happens because it happens. I don't buy that.

The life on Earth is so colorful, complex, interconnected and the mechanisms of various plant and animal bodies are so astonishing that its really hard to think its all some mechanistic coincidence. Some realities in nature are not easily explainable with unplanned small steps. Sure, the providence of God is visible in our universe, if one is open to see it.

It does not mean that the evolution as a process of creation is impossible.

We can clearly see that bodies changed significantly over time. There were no cows among dinosaurs. So, "all was created at once" is not scientifically possible. We are left with progressive creationism and theistic evolution. The latter makes more sense IMO.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The life on Earth is so colorful, complex, interconnected and the mechanisms of various plant and animal bodies are so astonishing that its really hard to think its all some mechanistic coincidence. Some realities in nature are not easily explainable with unplanned small steps. Sure, the providence of God is visible in our universe, if one is open to see it.

It does not mean that the evolution as a process of creation is impossible.

We can clearly see that bodies changed significantly over time. There were no cows among dinosaurs. So, "all was created at once" is not scientifically possible. We are left with progressive creationism and theistic evolution. The latter makes more sense IMO.

That is one of the reasons I believe in a creation prior to Adam. It's also known as the Gap theory. I read "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. It makes fascinating reading.

No one knows for sure as we were not there to witness it. However, it answers a lot of questions. Personally, I see no need for any explantion except what is recorded in Genesis. Just because we do not understand does not mean that we cannot accept.

 

[trophy33]

That is one of the reasons I believe in a creation prior to Adam. It's also known as the Gap theory. I read "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. It makes fascinating reading.

No one knows for sure as we were not there to witness it. However, it answers a lot of questions. Personally, I see no need for any explantion except what is recorded in Genesis. Just because we do not understand does not mean that we cannot accept.

The gap theory is problematic, because:
a) its theology is not accepted by broad Christian community
b) its explanations are not compatible with science

So, its an answer that fits nowhere.

 

[The Barbarian]

The flaws in evolutionary theory are obvious.

But you can't show us one? Why?

Why? Because evolutionists themselves often have to admit that they got it wrong.

That's the nature of science. Newton got some of it wrong, too. Boyle got some of it wrong. Einstein got some of it wrong. Science changes to fit the evidence. Creationism has to try to change the evidence to fit the beliefs. Do us a favor and show us which of Darwin's four points have been falsified. What do you have?

The fundamental premise of evolution is that it happens because it happens.

This confirms what people have noticed about creationists. Those who think they hate evolution, have no idea what it is. Look up the four points and then show us which of them has been falsified. Prediction: not going to happen.

The life on Earth is so colorful, complex, interconnected and the mechanisms of various plant and animal bodies are so astonishing that its really hard to think its all some mechanistic coincidence. Some realities in nature are not easily explainable with unplanned small steps. Sure, the providence of God is visible in our universe, if one is open to see it.

It does not mean that the evolution as a process of creation is impossible.

Yes. I worry about those of so little faith that they cannot accept a God great enough to create a universe in which all these wonders would appear as He intended.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just because we do not understand does not mean that we cannot accept.

Yes. Exactly. We see now, as through a glass, darkly. But we will know. There are mysteries of faith, but our faith sustains us.

 

[QvQ]

Do us a favor and show us which of Darwin's four points have been falsified. What do you have?

The Four Points are variation in populations, inherited traits, offspring competition, and survival of the fittest.

Point 1) More individuals are produced than can survive; (offspring competition)

A) Refutation The seeds that produce seeds, are genetically identical to the ones that don't, except for minor variations. Which seeds survive is providential. Matthew 3: 3 -23. A

Point 2) There is therefore a struggle for existence (survival of the fittest)

A) Refutation: @Barbarian "For example, eukaryotes. Seems pretty new and unique to me. But we've observed bacteria evolve endosymbiotically, becoming an essential part of another organism like our mitochondria, or the chloroplasts in plants."

Endosymbiosis: one organism lives inside another to mutual advantage. That sounds cosy: colonization and cooperation

That is Evolution. Variables to retroviral mutagenesis and recombination include proximity, opportunity and ability among others.

Survival is not to the fit, the lucky or the strong. There are too many variables, Matthew 13: 3-23

Note Struggle for existence is a simple fact of life.
Genesis 3: 15 will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.
Genesis 3: 17 Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.

Point 3) individuals within a species show variation; (variation in population)
Note: "within Species according to the chemical composition of the environment (air, water, dirt) within the parameters of the information contained within their specific genome.

Point 4) offspring tend to inherit their parents' characteristics. (inherited traits)
Note: Offspring inherit genetic information used for coding genomes to produce individuals patterned to the specific code in that DNA.

 

[The Barbarian]

A) Refutation The seeds that produce seeds, are genetically identical to the ones that don't, except for minor variations. Which seeds survive is providential. Matthew 3: 3 -23. A

Nope. If you take a pile of seeds and put them very close together in the earth, a few will survived to produce more seed, but most won't.

Point 2) There is therefore a struggle for existence (survival of the fittest)

The actual point is "some of the variations make an organism more likely to survive long enough to reproduce. And that's an observed fact, also. You seem to have lost focus after this.

Here's the actual points...
1. more are born than can live.
2. every organism is slightly different than its parents
3. some of these differences affect its likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce
4. the useful ones tend to spread in a population, and the harmful ones tend to disappear.

That's all it takes.

 

[QvQ]

Nope. If you take a pile of seeds and put them very close together in the earth, a few will survived to produce more seed, but most won't.

If #4 (inherited traits) is true then #1 (offspring competition) is false

The ones that survive will, with very small genetic variation, be copies of the Type of parents. A mouse will be a mouse.
There will be variations between individuals based on the recombination of the genetic material.
Whether or not the seed falls on stony ground, it will produce a sunflower.
A sunflower seed that grows weak planted on stony ground will produce a seed that becomes a strong sunflower on fertile soil
Which or how many survive and reproduce is moot. Sunflowers beget sunflowers.
Are you saying that planting close together affects "natural selection? The is demonstrably false as "natural selection" depends on proximity, opportunity and ability more than on cultural condition such as crowding.

1. more are born than can live.
2. every organism is slightly different than its parents
3. some of these differences affect its likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce
4. the useful ones tend to spread in a population, and the harmful ones tend to disappear.

Natural Selection #3 variations #4 inherited
Man is disassembling the genome
When all the part are on the table.
If man had the tools, the know how and the technical ability:
A technician could, in a vat of chemical, place all the stands of genetic material (virus)
He could weave the basic strands into prokaryotes.
Mush handfuls of prokaryotes together, producing eukaryotes.
This is the basic single cell ancestor supposedly.
Now, using retroviral insertion, he could insert strands of virus from the same chemical soup into that basic one cell genome. Different strands into different basic cells, (differentiation) That would mean one cell would contain mouse information, another cell human using the same strands but in different combinations.
Reproducing a particular critter would involve recombination. All organisms, mouse or man, have basically the same set of dna but during reproduction the chromosomes have the ability to recombine using existing material from both parents.

The Environment:: Now the original single cell is in a vat which has a mix of dirt (chemicals) and water.
To crawl out of the vat, when the environment changes (dirt to water ratio) the original cell must contain at that point all the necessary information to "adapt" or evolve to the changing environment (chemicals). The gene would have to contain the information Before the change and the chromosomes must have the ability to select and recombine existing material to adapt to the existing and the changing conditions.

Now tell me, if man eventually acquires the tools, material, the know how and a good technician, how long in a laboratory would it take that technician to reassemble a person and mouse?

At what point in this process were the cells differentiated? At what point did a mouse and a man contain the information necessary to replicate himself?

 

[The Barbarian]

If #4 (inherited traits) is true then #1 (offspring competition) is false

Nope. Every organism is slightly different than the others. Even "identical twins" are not perfect genetic copies of each other.

The ones that survive will, with very small genetic variation, be copies of the Type of parents. A mouse will be a mouse.

One ornithologist discovered that the difference of 1mm in the length of the breastbone of a sparrow would matter in survival in a hard midwest winter.

A sunflower seed that grows weak planted on stony ground will produce a seed that becomes a strong sunflower on fertile soil

It's likely to produce no seed at all. But sunflowers with genes that make them more likely to survive such stress tend to leave more seeds.

Are you saying that planting close together affects "natural selection?

Environment matters. In fact, fitness only matters in terms of environment.

The is demonstrably false as "natural selection" depends on proximity, opportunity and ability more than an environmental condition such as crowding.

Why do you think gardeners thin out seedlings after planting?

1) Now tell me, if man eventually acquires the tools, material, the know how and a good technician, how long in a laboratory before a technician could assemble a person and mouse?

If scientists eventually manage to build a living cell from scratch, would it harm your faith? If so, you have your faith in the wrong things.

 

[QvQ]

Nope. Every organism is slightly different than the others. Even "identical twins" are not perfect genetic copies of each other.

However, those differences exist in the inherited genetic material. It is not added from an outside source. It is recombination of existing genes.

It's likely to produce no seed at all. But sunflowers with genes that make them more likely to survive such stress tend to leave more seeds.

Stress is mostly cultural. Soil fertility, adequate water. The flowers may be small, seeds low in number but when seeds are planted in better cultural conditions, the plants are normal or better.

Environment matters. In fact, fitness only matters in terms of environment.

Fitness does not matter in natural selection. Survival and reproduction are providence, not fit, lucky or strong.

Why do you think gardeners thin out seedlings after planting?

Natural Selection requires these three elements (among others)
Ability I could plant 1 seed of 100 different plants in 10ft space and not get 1 seed. I could thin them out to 10 feet apart and not get 1 seed.
Proximity I could plant 1 sunflower plant 100 ft from 1 sunflower plant and not get one seed.
Opportunity: I could leave the sunflower seeds in the package and not one would flower

If scientists eventually manage to build a living cell from scratch, would it harm your faith? If so, you have your faith in the wrong things.

There are scraps of wooly mammoth chromosomes It is my understanding that scientists are reassembling those scraps into a viable genome to reproduce the animal.

The question is...If all the parts were on the table and man had the tools, the know how, how long would a skilled technician take to reassemble a wooly mammoth or an Iris plant or a man from those parts? 1,5 billion years? 1 million? A few years or just a day?

At what stage of the process would the technician diversify the various genomes into species?

 

[NBB]

We have a soul, that gives life to the body and make it function. Evolution is killed by this fact.

 

[The Barbarian]

However, those differences exist in the inherited genetic material. It is not added from an outside source. It is recombination of existing genes.

No. They are mutations, changes in the genetic code. You have about a hundred that didn't exist in either parent.

Stress is mostly cultural. Soil fertility, adequate water.

Those are environmental factors, not cultural.

Fitness does not matter in natural selection.

Sorry, that's just wrong. Even many creationists now admit the fact that fitness determines survival.

Survival and reproduction are providence, not fit, lucky or strong.

As Napoleon once observed, God favors the side with the most cannon. The race is not always to the swift, but that's where the smart money is.
If scientists eventually manage to build a living cell from scratch, would it harm your faith? If so, you have your faith in the wrong things.

At what stage of the process would the technician diversify the various genomes into species?

Would it matter to your faith? Never define God by what man can not yet do. If you faith is not strong enough, science can't help you.

 

[The Barbarian]

We have a soul, that gives life to the body and make it function. Evolution is killed by this fact.

We observe evolution going on all around us. Trust God, not man's religious inventions.

 

[QvQ]

Those are environmental factors, not cultural.

Definition:
Environment:
1) Environment is the complete chemical composition in which the organism is found.
A) An African violet survives at Ph 6.5 -6.8. If an AV is bought in Arizona the water is as high as Ph 9, the AV will live a while but will slowly wither away. If the person moves to another area the water is 6.5, that withering plant will perk up.
That is why farmer add chemicals to the environment to grow plants outside the plant's Native Range. (culture).

No. They are mutations, changes in the genetic code. You have about a hundred that didn't exist in either parent.

Definition
Mutation:
A) Damage to existing genetic code.
B) Retroviral Insertion: Insert dna material into the genome DNA material could be from same or different species source.
C) Recombination: The organism recombines existing material to create a "seemingly" new genome sequence. DNA recombines existing genetic material successfully. Although plant hybridizers use chemicals (environment) to recombine chromosomes into polyploid, the chemically induced hybrids are sterile or unable to adapt long term to environments.

Speciation:
1) Who can swap genetic material with whom.
A) Prokaryotes could swap genetic material with each other
B) Prokaryotes could swap genetic material with Eukaryotes.
C) Eukaryotes swapped genes with each other, and using recombination, minor amounts of retroviral DNA and gene damage
Now at some point Eukaryotes developed genetic barriers so Eukaryotes could swap genes only with identical Eukaryotes.

Speciation doesn't have anything to do with adapting to the chemicals (Environment)
Species Eukaryotes would still have the same ability to 1) inherit, 2) recombine, 3) with a small amount of damage and a tiny chance to retroviral insertion.

If scientists eventually manage to build a living cell from scratch, would it harm your faith? If so, you have your faith in the wrong things.

Somebody did manage to build a living cell from scratch. The only interest I have in that fact is who and how.
And when did that living cells contain all the information necessary to be man.
God did that
And how God does creation is not Darwin 4 Point Evolution.
Darwin is a man 200 years out of date.

 

[The Barbarian]

Those are environmental factors, not cultural.

Definition:
Environment:
1) Environment is the complete chemical composition in which the organism is found.

No. Environment is every factor that could change the likelihood of that organism surviving to reproduce.
So climate, herbivores, insects, disease, water, etc. all matter. The gardener just tries to change the environment to improve the likelihood.

Definition
Mutation:
A) Damage to existing genetic code.

No. Change in genetic code. Most mutations don't damage the code at all. In fact, it's likely that none of the maybe 100 you have does any damage whatever.

Speciation:

From the dictionary of Biology:

Speciation​

Definition
noun, plural: speciations
The process in which new genetically distinct species evolve usually as a result of genetic isolation from the main population​

Speciation doesn't have anything to do with adapting to the chemicals (Environment)

In fact, many speciations occur in response to the environment. The evolution of the apple maggot fly from the hawthorne maggot fly was because of a change in environment. Would you like to learn about that?

If scientists eventually manage to build a living cell from scratch, would it harm your faith? If so, you have your faith in the wrong things.

Somebody did manage to build a living cell from scratch.

No, that's wrong. God has no body, according to Jesus. No one else has done it. But you dodged the question. If scientists eventually manage to build a living cell from scratch, would it harm your faith?

And how God does creation is not Darwin 4 Point Evolution.

I just cited an example of God creating via evolution. Would you like to see some more examples? Creationists are not comfortable with a God great enough to make a world that would produce new living things according to His will.

 

[QvQ]

o. Environment is every factor that could change the likelihood of that organism surviving to reproduce.

I knew you were going to say that. That is why I used Ph of water. Water is a chemical, H2O. It is more likely that critters such as deer and rabbits would eat the biggest, juiciest plants, the most Darwinian Favored Races, so foraging doesn't prove survival of the fittest.
Genesis 2:7 KJV
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.
Environment is the complete chemical composition in which an organism is found including climate.

Speciation

Definition​

noun, plural: speciations​

The process in which new genetically distinct species evolve usually as a result of genetic isolation from the main population​

Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Meanwhile, species is Chromosomes. (generally).
Lately in technical research papers I have seen the insert "Of course we know angiosperms evolved at least once, but..." And angiosperms can be eukaryotes or any number of species.
Those inserts of....the Theory, we know X evolved at least once,", however that isn't what the research is showing.
That phrasing.... "Of course, we know..evolved at least once but...., "That apologetic tag is the kiss of death for Darwin.

The evolution of the apple maggot fly from the hawthorne maggot fly was because of a change in environment.

That "evolution" is not completed.
That is akin to saying that because Long Horn Cattle eat the native American corn, grass and sunflowers, they are evolving into a different species than European Cattle.

Barbarian, the Origin of the Species is being researched by scientist studying the Chromosomes. That is a huge subject.
There are book being published about recombination, stating that the genome is sufficient to provide all the "species evolving" upon which Darwin based his grand theory.

Darwin's observations, classification and definition of Species could be more correctly classed Hybrids or Breeds.
Those changes in feathers, beaks, coloration are merely expressions of the existing genetic codes of the species, just like all the different breeds of dogs and the 16,000 cultivars of African Violets.

What can actually be classed as "evolution" has been reduced to maybe "evolved at least once.
But true speciation is not showing in the research.

Meanwhile, I might not post here for a while
I have certainly enjoyed our talk of many things, Long Horns and genes.
Good conversation.

 

[Niels]

Cats and humans are 90% genetically identical. DNA is a necessary component for life on this planet, whether evolved or not.