Lines of Evidence

[bhsmte]

Clear? Makes sense?
I am trying to understand how you went from:

'… deny evidence, which contradicts their beliefs.…'

'…some respond out of fear and a need to protect a tightly held belief, that will be the priority and not much rational thinking will take place.…'

' …I was never a creationist, when I was a Christian, so I didn't have the issue of holding onto a fundamental belief like biblical creationism.…'

'…When I was very young, I may have just assumed how the bible defined the creation of man to be correct, because I didn't have the knowledge or education to know any better.

By the time I took any science in school, biblical creation sort of went out the window.'

So, when exactly was it that you became a Christian?

When does anyone become a Christian, when they are brought up that way as a young child, they accept that God exists, that Jesus was real and they believe the basic story?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

When does anyone become a Christian, when they are brought up that way as a young child, they accept that God exists, that Jesus was real and they believe the basic story?

Monkey see, monkey do.

 

[bhsmte]

Monkey see, monkey do.

Sometimes, until Monkey can see for themselves.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Sometimes, until Monkey can see for themselves.

A lot of kids go through that, maybe not God, maybe Tom Jones, Elvis, Satre, Camus, Einstein, Nietzsche or Bach whatever -- eventually they toss it off like an old skin. After that, some journey far like Buddha, Assisi, Augustine or Krishna and find answers, while others get it off others - teachers, mentors etc, but like the mythical Supertamp -- some don't. It is a hard call but if after checking out God, one comes up with zip and Jesus and Bible nada, then I guess like Marley sings : 'keeps on movin'

 

[stevevw]

Of course there are.
Horses: Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years
Whales: Philip D. Gingerich
Mammal-like reptiles: Palaeos Vertebrates Cynodontia Overview
Fishapods: Devonian Times - Front Page

This where some have a different view of how animals can change over time. Take the horse example used. It shows pictures of a horse like creature. Apart from size and a couple of other features like the amount of toes and the placement of teeth they all look similar. Nothing in their changes cant be accounted for in variation with that horse species. The fossil record is actually more complicated than what those pictures show with the horse evolution. It is actually more like a bush pattern than a singlular line of changes like evolutionists try to paint. The patter shows that its not just a case of the horse going from small to the larger horse we have today. It shows that at times their sizes decreased and then increased only to decrease again.

Non evolutionists have the view that each creature doesn't stem back to common ancestors and originally all stem back to a common ancestor like a tree of life with a single trunk. The view they have is that there was many stems that represented many different animal types. Like the dog type that includes wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos and domestic dogs. However, dogs are distinctly different from, and unrelated to, other groups (e.g. cats, bears, weasels). But with those original types of animals they had all the genetic info already there sitting dormant to allow for all those changes like the reduction of toes for horses or the changes in teeth ect.

The Basic Type concept has been applied to horses, both living and extinct forms (Cavanaugh et al 2003; Garner 1998; Stein-Cadenbach 1993). These studies suggest that all horses, including the 150 or so fossil species, are probably related in a single Basic Type. The ancestor(s) of these horses probably possessed latent (i.e. unexpressed) genetic information that gave the horse type tremendous potential for variety. One way in which this latent genetic potential may be regulated is by differential gene expression. By this we mean that in living organisms there are mechanisms by which genes can be turned on (i.e., expressed) or turned off (i.e., not expressed). For example, horses may have a genetic ‘switch’ that determines whether they develop side toes. Other regulatory genes may control size, shape of the teeth, and so on.

It appears that modern horses retain the genetic potential for extra toes, but that regulatory genes switch off the structural genes for side toes during embryological development. Occasionally, something goes awry with this regulatory mechanism and foals are born with side toes (e.g., Marsh 1879, 1892; Struthers 1893).

This seems consistent with the mapping of the genome. Scientists have found that the so called junk DNA may have more function than first though possible.
Horse Evolution

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Of course there are.

Steve,
I think you need to use the quote function correctly, if you want a reply from Sky Rock.

 

[Split Rock]

This where some have a different view of how animals can change over time. Take the horse example used. It shows pictures of a horse like creature. Apart from size and a couple of other features like the amount of toes and the placement of teeth they all look similar. Nothing in their changes cant be accounted for in variation with that horse species. The fossil record is actually more complicated than what those pictures show with the horse evolution. It is actually more like a bush pattern than a singlular line of changes like evolutionists try to paint. The patter shows that its not just a case of the horse going from small to the larger horse we have today. It shows that at times their sizes decreased and then increased only to decrease again.

They are different species, not one species.
Yes, it is a bush rather than a tree. Nowadays, biologists and paleontologists recognize that.

Non evolutionists have the view that each creature doesn't stem back to common ancestors and originally all stem back to a common ancestor like a tree of life with a single trunk. The view they have is that there was many stems that represented many different animal types. Like the dog type that includes wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos and domestic dogs. However, dogs are distinctly different from, and unrelated to, other groups (e.g. cats, bears, weasels). But with those original types of animals they had all the genetic info already there sitting dormant to allow for all those changes like the reduction of toes for horses or the changes in teeth ect.

What evidence so you have that there are genes "sitting there dormant?"

The Basic Type concept has been applied to horses, both living and extinct forms (Cavanaugh et al 2003; Garner 1998; Stein-Cadenbach 1993). These studies suggest that all horses, including the 150 or so fossil species, are probably related in a single Basic Type. The ancestor(s) of these horses probably possessed latent (i.e. unexpressed) genetic information that gave the horse type tremendous potential for variety. One way in which this latent genetic potential may be regulated is by differential gene expression. By this we mean that in living organisms there are mechanisms by which genes can be turned on (i.e., expressed) or turned off (i.e., not expressed). For example, horses may have a genetic ‘switch’ that determines whether they develop side toes. Other regulatory genes may control size, shape of the teeth, and so on.

Yes, there are regulatory genes that modulate the esxpression of other genes.. this is well known. There are also promotors that regulate gene expression as well. I have never seen any evidence, however, that there are unexpressed genes laying around in the genome waiting to be expressed later. Unnecessary genes tend to mutate into non-functionality because there is no selective pressure to maintain their function. The broken gene in humans that would allow us to make vitamin C is a good example.

It appears that modern horses retain the genetic potential for extra toes, but that regulatory genes switch off the structural genes for side toes during embryological development. Occasionally, something goes awry with this regulatory mechanism and foals are born with side toes (e.g., Marsh 1879, 1892; Struthers 1893).

Yes.

So, you have no problem with a small 4-toed browsing animal the size of a dog evolving into the modern horse... yet you insist that man could not evolve from an Australopithecine like Lucy.. why is that?

 

[Split Rock]

Steve,
I think you need to use the quote function correctly, if you want a reply from Sky Rock.

Who is "Sky Rock?"

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Who is "Sky Rock?"

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Please explain what's on the video? I don't have any audio or video functionality.

It's a Giant Human Foot Print in stone. The stone is said to be Millions of years old yet doesn't fit the timeline or the reality of Giants.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It's a Giant Human Foot Print in stone. The stone is said to be Millions of years old yet doesn't fit the timeline or the reality of Giants.

'....Paluxy River "man tracks," then? ....'*

* Evolution and the Origin of Races | NCSE

 

[stevevw]

Steve,
I think you need to use the quote function correctly, if you want a reply from Sky Rock.

Thanks, I forgot to put an end quotation. But the trouble is when I tried to edit it a blank screen comes up.

 

[Gracchus]

Thanks, I forgot to put an end quotation. But the trouble is when I tried to edit it a blank screen comes up.

Yes, in order to edit you have to back up a screen. From the blank screen, go back one screen and you should see the text to be edited. It is very annoying.

 

[[serious]]

It's a Giant Human Foot Print in stone. The stone is said to be Millions of years old yet doesn't fit the timeline or the reality of Giants.

Ok, I've been seeing bunches of "feature in stone and stone is millions of years old".

A piece of marble might be 1000 millions years old, but that doesn't mean Michelangelo's David which may be carved from it is that old.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Ok, I've been seeing bunches of "feature in stone and stone is millions of years old".

A piece of marble might be 1000 millions years old, but that doesn't mean Michelangelo's David which may be carved from it is that old.

Michelangelo was a giant, even painted the creation of Adam and the Last Supper - though he wasn't there at the time , or was he?

 

[bhsmte]

Michelangelo was a giant, even painted the creation of Adam and the Last Supper - though he wasn't there at the time , or was he?

I believe Davinci painted the Last Supper.

 

[stevevw]

They are different species, not one species.
Yes, it is a bush rather than a tree. Nowadays, biologists and paleontologists recognize that.

That maybe what they are called but they are basically the same animals that has changed over the years. The genetic info for those changes was always there. Some mutations do add changes but these are minor and mostly deleterious and cause damage. In fact over time our genetics are collecting more mutations and deteriorating. (Genetic entropy).

The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation (taken from the abstract):
“
Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed." [50]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

What evidence so you have that there are genes "sitting there dormant?"

Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.

p. 58
"A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein."

p. 59
"The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment."

p. 63
"It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin's conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation."



Evolution, by James A Shapiro - Page 6 - TalkRational

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Yes, there are regulatory genes that modulate the esxpression of other genes.. this is well known. There are also promotors that regulate gene expression as well. I have never seen any evidence, however, that there are unexpressed genes laying around in the genome waiting to be expressed later. Unnecessary genes tend to mutate into non-functionality because there is no selective pressure to maintain their function. The broken gene in humans that would allow us to make vitamin C is a good example.

Refer to above.
Evolution - Conservapedia

So, you have no problem with a small 4-toed browsing animal the size of a dog evolving into the modern horse... yet you insist that man could not evolve from an Australopithecine like Lucy.. why is that?

Because there is no evidence. We are different creatures. There are apes and their different breeds or subspecies such as baboons, chimps, orangutangs ect. Then there are humans and their different variations such as Chinese, Indian, aborigines, Negros ect. But each has great capacity to vary within their own kind. They just happen to be made similar. All creatures and organisms have some similarities in their makeup. But that is just common design. But there are more differences between humans and apes than people realize and as they map the genomes they are finding this out.

This is my understanding from what I have learnt and read. I am no expert on genetics but I can gain some understanding from others who do know. I may be wrong or have over simplified things but I think I have got the basic idea right.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, in order to edit you have to back up a screen. From the blank screen, go back one screen and you should see the text to be edited. It is very annoying.

Yes I have done this but it then give me a double post which is a hassle. I tend not to worry unless I have to fix some spelling or add/adjust something.

 

[Split Rock]

That maybe what they are called but they are basically the same animals that has changed over the years. The genetic info for those changes was always there. Some mutations do add changes but these are minor and mostly deleterious and cause damage. In fact over time our genetics are collecting more mutations and deteriorating. (Genetic entropy).

The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation (taken from the abstract):
“
Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed." [50]

Evolution - Conservapedia

If you can argue that Eohippus (Eohippus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is "basically the same" animal as Equus, then I can certainly say the same for Australopithecus and Homo (us).

As far as "Genetic entropy" is concerned, this is an idea not accepted by the biological community. Deleterious mutations are selected against in a population, therefore they do not build up over time.

Finally, please do not cite Conservapedia if you wish me to take you seriously. It is a sad joke. I have read the section on Evolution and it is pathetic. It doesn't even describe the major mechanisms of evolution: natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow. How can an "encyclopedia" not even explain what the subject is before going on a biased rant about how wrong it is?

Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.

p. 58
"A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein."

p. 59
"The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment."

p. 63
"It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin's conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation."



Evolution, by James A Shapiro - Page 6 - TalkRational

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Refer to above.
Evolution - Conservapedia

Yes, recombination is an important mechanism of genetic diversity, but new mutations occur during every generation. In any case, nothing you cited is a response to the fact that genes that are under no positive selective pressure tend to accumulate mutations.

Because there is no evidence. We are different creatures. There are apes and their different breeds or subspecies such as baboons, chimps, orangutangs ect. Then there are humans and their different variations such as Chinese, Indian, aborigines, Negros ect. But each has great capacity to vary within their own kind. They just happen to be made similar. All creatures and organisms have some similarities in their makeup. But that is just common design. But there are more differences between humans and apes than people realize and as they map the genomes they are finding this out.

There are more differences between Eohippus and Equus than you are apparently prepared to accept. If they are the same basic "kind" than so are us and Lucy.

 

[stevevw]

If you can argue that Eohippus (Eohippus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is "basically the same" animal as Equus, then I can certainly say the same for Australopithecus and Homo (us).

As far as "Genetic entropy" is concerned, this is an idea not accepted by the biological community. Deleterious mutations are selected against in a population, therefore they do not build up over time.

Finally, please do not cite Conservapedia if you wish me to take you seriously. It is a sad joke. I have read the section on Evolution and it is pathetic. It doesn't even describe the major mechanisms of evolution: natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow. How can an "encyclopedia" not even explain what the subject is before going on a biased rant about how wrong it is?





Yes, recombination is an important mechanism of genetic diversity, but new mutations occur during every generation. In any case, nothing you cited is a response to the fact that genes that are under no positive selective pressure tend to accumulate mutations.


There are more differences between Eohippus and Equus than you are apparently prepared to accept. If they are the same basic "kind" than so are us and Lucy.

Thanks for the reply but I will have to answer this tomorrow as there is a bit of thought and I am getting tired. 2am.