Let's Set The Fossil Record Straight

[Speedwell]

i think its a fact rather then a belief. on the same base that you know your pc was designed.

Not the same reason at all. I know my PC was designed because I know it was manufactured. I don't know that about the flagellum--it might have occurred naturally.

So what? Why do you care what we think? Why do you care so much that you are willing to spend all this time and effort to try to convince us?

 

[xianghua]

Not the same reason at all. I know my PC was designed because I know it was manufactured. I don't know that about the flagellum--it might have occurred naturally.

we also can manufacture a genome. are you saying that a genome is the result of design too?

 

[Colter]

im not sure. for instance: the first animal in the fossil record is no less complex then modern ones:

Demosponge EST Sequencing Reveals a Complex Genetic Toolkit of the Simplest Metazoans

"Sponges (Porifera) are among the simplest living and the earliest branching metazoans. We show that even the earliest metazoan species already have strikingly complex genomes in terms of gene content and functional repertoire and that the rich gene repertoire existed even before the emergence of true tissues, therefore further emphasizing the importance of gene loss and spatio-temporal changes in regulation of gene expression in shaping the metazoan genomes. Our findings further indicate that sponge and human genes generally show similarity levels higher than expected from their respective positions in metazoan phylogeny"

"Our findings also raise many questions about the roles of numerous genes/proteins in the life of such a simple animal"

this is also true for the first trees:

Oldest Trees Appear To Be The Most Complex That Ever Existed

"
The fossilized remains of a tree that lived 374 million years ago suggest that the earliest trees we know of might also have been the ones with the most complex internal structure in the history of our planet."

“There is no other tree that I know of in the history of the Earth that has ever done anything as complicated as this,"

"This raises a provoking question: why are the very oldest trees the most complicated?”


evolution doesnt predict this.

When I use the term "primitive" I'm not suggesting a lack of creative complexity. Little microorganisms in the mud.

 

[Colter]

we also can manufacture a genome. are you saying that a genome is the result of design too?

And cell phones, I mean, do we really know that Apple made I phones??? Its possible that they found it in the mud and copied it!

 

[Speedwell]

we also can manufacture a genome. are you saying that a genome is the result of design too?

If we know that it was manufactured in a genetics lab then we know it was designed.

If we know it occurred naturally then we can't be sure whether it was designed or not.

If we don't know whether it was manufactured or occurred naturally then we also can't be sure whether it was designed or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

And we all know what that's worth.

Luke certainly did.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[Aman777]

I don't believe that Jonathan W stuff.

Here is the Scripture. Can you refute it?

Gen 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) made the earth and the heavens,

Adam's Earth was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:9-10 These verses are adding details to the events of that 3rd Day/Age.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

See? I told you it was the 3rd Day since plants, herbs and trees GREW on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12

Gen 2:7 ¶ And the LORD God formed man (Heb-Adam) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

See? On the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants herbs and trees, Jesus formed Adam, like a Potter molds the clay. God has NO hands but Jesus does, so He made Adam from the air, dust and water God created in the beginning. Still not sure it was the 3rd Day?

Gen 2:8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Remember that Trees GREW on the 3rd Day. Can you show us another Day when Adam was formed by Lord God? Of course not. Adam was "created in God's Image" or born again Spiritually AFTER Cain killed Abel on the present 6th Day. Gen 5:1-2 That is God's Truth Scripturally which shows that Adam was made BEFORE plants, herbs and trees.

BTW Who is Jonathan W?

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought it was rather a clever coinage, though "uncommon ancestry" might have been better. What do you think, AV?

That'll work too!

 

[pitabread]

If we know that it was manufactured in a genetics lab then we know it was designed.

If we know it occurred naturally then we can't be sure whether it was designed or not.

If we don't know whether it was manufactured or occurred naturally then we also can't be sure whether it was designed or not.

Just as an addendum to this, from my reading on genetic engineering and detection of GM DNA sequences, apparently if the sequence isn't known beforehand it's not possible to detect whether it's a GM DNA sequence or not.

 

[pitabread]

we also can manufacture a genome. are you saying that a genome is the result of design too?

How would you distinguish between a genetically engineered genome and one that isn't?

 

[PsychoSarah]

we also can manufacture a genome. are you saying that a genome is the result of design too?

I can chisel a rock to be a square shape, but it is also possible for natural processes to form a rock into that shape. What would distinguish whether or not a particular square rock is manufactured by me or a product of nature wouldn't be the fact that I could make one in that shape, but rather the differences between one made by hand and one made by nature.

Also, the only genome I know of that is 100% manufactured by us is one with a 6 base genome (ours is comprised of 4 different bases). All of the base pairs do not occur naturally as well. DNA with Man-Made Bases Functions Just Fine

Basically, you and I both know that it is possible for both an intelligent force AND natural processes to be capable of producing the same basic product, and that this is not the case for every possible product in existence. We know computers are the product of an intelligence (our species) BECAUSE it is our species that makes them and there is no natural process that would produce a computer. The configuration of elements in a computer have no chemical attraction to each other and no means by which to grow and expand without our intelligent input. Living cells like our own do not have these same limitations. But, the artificial genome with 6 artificial bases does have many of the limitations that computers do.

In fact, that we can create a functioning genome out of bases that do not form in any natural context just begs the question of why any proposed creator of life on Earth wouldn't have used equally improbable bases if they wanted it to be known that said life was not a product of natural processes.

 

[xianghua]

If we know that it was manufactured in a genetics lab then we know it was designed.

If we know it occurred naturally then we can't be sure whether it was designed or not.

If we don't know whether it was manufactured or occurred naturally then we also can't be sure whether it was designed or not.

so you can say the same for your pc. you dont know if it was designed or not.

 

[xianghua]

How would you distinguish between a genetically engineered genome and one that isn't?

its like asking how would you distinguish between a genetically engineered pc and one that isn't?

 

[xianghua]

We know computers are the product of an intelligence (our species) BECAUSE it is our species that makes them and there is no natural process that would produce a computer.

right. as there is no natural process (as far as we know) that can evolve a human from a fish.

as for the artificial genome i refer to this one:

First Live Organism with Synthetic Genome Created

 

[Speedwell]

so you can say the same for your pc. you dont know if it was designed or not.

I do know it was designed, because I know it was manufactured.

 

[Speedwell]

right. as there is no natural process (as far as we know) that can evolve a human from a fish.

So you say. People who know more about it than you do say otherwise.

as for the artificial genome i refer to this one:

First Live Organism with Synthetic Genome Created

We know it's designed because the people who designed it told us so. If we found it out in the woods we might not be able to tell.

 

[pitabread]

its like asking how would you distinguish between a genetically engineered pc and one that isn't?

There is no such thing as a "genetically engineered pc", so your comparison is nonsensical.

But to answer my own question, there is no way that I'm aware of to distinguish a naturally occurring genome from a genetically engineered one without knowing the DNA sequence of the genetically engineered one beforehand.

 

[PsychoSarah]

right. as there is no natural process (as far as we know) that can evolve a human from a fish.

Evolution. The topic of discussion literally is that process. I wish I knew what your first language was so I could explain this stuff in it instead of English, because the English explanations of our understanding of the evolutionary process clearly aren't sticking in your memory.

as for the artificial genome i refer to this one:

First Live Organism with Synthetic Genome Created

-_- you mean the exact same one my more reliable source mentions?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Evolution. The topic of discussion literally is that process. I wish I knew what your first language was so I could explain this stuff in it instead of English, because the English explanations of our understanding of the evolutionary process clearly aren't sticking in your memory.

Mandarin.

FYI his name (xianghua) is probably 像话 which means "reasonable" or "proper". But it could also be 香花 "fragrant flower" or 香滑 "creamy" lol

 

[Colter]

Luke certainly did.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

BTW The Bible actually says that Joseph didn’t conceive Jesus. The Nicene creed implys that as well. I was banned on CF for suggesting such.