Lines of Evidence

[Gracchus]

But aren't you taking this process that occurs within a species and then expanding on it into places where is shouldn't go. What is happening within the fly genus has all the info within the gnome of those flies. The genetics are either deleting or recombining to create new combinations that can make changes to the flies ability to grow bigger, change colour and even have a new feature or ability. But its still a fly with a new ability and doesn't change into a frog or lizard. Where is the evidence for this.

You still don't get it. The fly and all its descendents will be flies. All the descendents of the first mammals are still mammals, but some have become, dogs, cats, bears and apes. And some of the apes became gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans but they are still apes.

 

[stevevw]

You still don't get it. The fly and all its descendents will be flies. All the descendents of the first mammals are still mammals, but some have become, dogs, cats, bears and apes. And some of the apes became gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans but they are still apes.

So then you take everything back to the common ancestor of all and then there are points at which we did have some major jumps from uncommon creatures. At one point there had to be new info that created brains, hearts, lungs out of something that never had the info to make those things in the first place. So the mechanism for creating various adjusted features in animals that comes from genetic info that was already there is then taken by evolutionists and expanded beyond the limits of what it is capable of. Whenever they have done experiments with breeding there are limits.

That expanded mechanism that darwinian evolutionists use makes new info come from an unplanned and guided random and accidental process. Is there evidence for this. How many mutations would it take for these new features to be created. Remembering that primarily a mutation is a copying mistake that is mostly corrected or becomes error that is deleterious.

It also doesn't take into consideration HGT. There is plenty of evidence for horizontal transfer of genetics. Some creature on distant branches of the Darwinian tree of life have some closely related genetics. There is evidence that HGT was rampant in the micro world which was suppose to be the beginning of everything. There is evidence for HGT in more complex creatures. How do we know that a lot of genetic info was not already there in the gnomes of many creatures waiting to be tapped into for creatures to gain new features. How do we know that HGT played an even bigger role than we think in the transference of genes.

I can accept that there is evolution within a kind of animals. There may have been major types of creatures that had vast abilities within their genetics to creature many different types of animals. I But all that ability was already there in the genetics. It didn't come from an unguided accident through mutations. One common ancestor didn't create all of life.

 

[[serious]]

But aren't you taking this process that occurs within a species and then expanding on it into places where is shouldn't go. What is happening within the fly genus has all the info within the gnome of those flies. The genetics are either deleting or recombining to create new combinations that can make changes to the flies ability to grow bigger, change colour and even have a new feature or ability. But its still a fly with a new ability and doesn't change into a frog or lizard. Where is the evidence for this.

Well sure there's evidence for what evolution is, but what about the lack of evidence for what evolution isn't? I'm not asking about cats changing into dog, I'm asking about flies changing into lizards. Those are totally different!

If we were to look at the last common ancestor of lizards and flies, we would be going back to the deuterostome-protostome split. So what we would be looking at is the primary use of the blastopore being that of a mouth or and anus in simple bilateria.

Sure, the blastopore-as-anus eukaryotic hetrotroph might have developed a spinal cord and scales, and the blastopore-as-mouth one might have developed an exoskeleton and halteres but they are both still eukaryotic heterotrophs.

 

[Doveaman]

That human and ape genomes fall into a phylogeny is the evidence.

Why would this produce results that are indistinguishable from the process of evolution?

Why would evolution produce results that are indistinguishable from the process of re-creation?

 

[stevevw]

Well sure there's evidence for what evolution is, but what about the lack of evidence for what evolution isn't? I'm not asking about cats changing into dog, I'm asking about flies changing into lizards. Those are totally different!

If we were to look at the last common ancestor of lizards and flies, we would be going back to the deuterostome-protostome split. So what we would be looking at is the primary use of the blastopore being that of a mouth or and anus in simple bilateria.

Sure, the blastopore-as-anus eukaryotic hetrotroph might have developed a spinal cord and scales, and the blastopore-as-mouth one might have developed an exoskeleton and halteres but they are both still eukaryotic heterotrophs.

Ok well thats where you begin to lose me. I can sort of understand what you are saying and I would have to investigate those points of change. But I suspect that it is still not a solid way to prove evolution. Its still based on observation as far as I can see. You can make some good cases for the similarities in those creatures and then how it can be traced to show where the possible splits may occur. But I am not sure this is no more than an interpretation of what is seen. There are also many contradiction in some of the lines of decent that I have read but I will have to go back and find them. I think from memory something about the horse is closely related to humans through genetics but the hoof and hand are so different. So genetics is actually throwing up some contradictions to the interpretation of using anatomy as a way of showing the similarities in closely related creature and therefore casting doubt on the lines of decent.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why would evolution produce results that are indistinguishable from the process of re-creation?

Because "re-creation" was made up later to describe the results evolution already explained.

 

[Doveaman]

Resurrected how? A mechanism would be appreiciated.

God-did-it.

Nine months ago, Bob and Sally were childless; now they have a baby. The baby is the evidence.

One theory says they had sexual intercourse and she got pregnant.

Another theory says a stork delivered the baby.

Two different theories, same evidence.

Nine months ago, Josepth and Mary were childless; now they have a baby. The baby is the evidence.

One theory says they had sexual intercourse and she got pregnant.

Another theory says God-did-it.

Two different theories, same evidence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

God-did-it.

Ah -- no mechanism; just magic.

Nine months ago, Josepth and Mary were childless; now they have a baby. The baby is the evidence.

One theory says they had sexual intercourse and she got pregnant.

Another theory says God-did-it.

Two different theories, same evidence.

And one of those theories has a lot more behind it than the second one.

Also, you're forgetting a third theory...

Hint: you said they had sexual intercourse; you're assuming that Joseph was involved...

 

[Doveaman]

Except you said that the evidence was BETTER explained by recreation instead of evolution, and I asked you to provide science to support this. You have not done so, you've just repeated your claim and said that the same evidence supports both.

I provided the facts of DNA similarities, and I provided the facts of history. Any theory must be consistent with all the facts. Otherwise it's just a make-belief story like evolution theory.

 

[Doveaman]

What a difference a hyphen makes: recreation, re-creation.

Thanks for the clarity.

 

[FredVB]

I think similarities in the physical and genetic make up of creatures in nature is to be expected if it is the case that they are designed from one Creator, and that has basis. The fossil evidence that many believe to be the strong evidence for evolution is full of gaps, though there are myriads of fossils now available to science. So evolution in between where the gaps separate populations in what is seen as geologic history is assumed.

We all agree that a common designer could mix and match different design units to produce new designs, a designer can mix and match these design units any which way. For example, a designer could take feathers from a bird, three middle ear bones from mammals, and a forward facing retina from squid to produce a new species.
Evolution, on the other hand, can not freely mix design units. Evolution is limited to modifying features found in ancestors. That means that if none of your ancestors were birds, then you can't have feathers. Adaptations that evolve on one branch of the tree of life can not disconnect and attach elsewhere. Evolution can only produce what is called a nested hierarchy, or phylogeny. A common designer is not limited in this way.
This means that if life was created separately by a common designer that we would not expect to see a nested hierarchy. There is no reason for a designer limit themselves to the pattern of similarities that evolution would produce. Therefore, if we see the pattern that we would expect from evolution, a nested hierarchy, this is evidence against design and evidence for evolution.
What do we see when we compare complex life? We see a nested hierarchy which has no reason to be there if design is true and evolution is false.
What features would a fossil need in order to fill the gap between modern humans and earlier apes?
Or is it just a matter of you rejecting any fossil, no matter what it looks like?

Maybe your flying spaghetti monster would mix designed parts for making new creatures, but I wouldn't ever attribute that method to the Creator. It would be expected that there is grouped categories of creatures according to features and parts that are alike, with modification to the different creatures with some differences with those in how they live. Linnaeus expected that with no difficulty in that understanding that it would be from the Creator with the logical systematic process of creating with intelligent planning. Whatever you reason, that is what I expect, and it is what I see.

The gaps mentioned are not just between humans and other similar primates, these are gaps between fossil groups in all categories. I don't reject fossils, and I don't have to, other than what we can agree were falsifications such as the Piltdown fossil. There are so many fossils with that still being the issue, for a long time, that awareness of that led to theories being formulated as the Hopeful Monster, and Punctuated Equilibrium, to deal with that issue, where there are not the fossils to show transition where they would be expected with so many fossils. So evolutionary theory needs to keep being modified.

A modified population in transition between one functional kind and another well adapted kind is with its partial change for the transition not likely stable and would die off. But then they would be extinct and the kinds presumed to evolve from them could not be produced from them. Appealing to mutations is a process a lot more likely to kill individuals off.

 

[Doveaman]

Because "re-creation" was made up later to describe the results evolution already explained.

Hey, Darwin was born last week. Re-creation was going on for thousands of years.

I think evolution theory is someone's pathetic attempt to deny history.

 

[Doveaman]

Ah -- no mechanism; just magic.

We call it miracle.

And one of those theories has a lot more behind it than the second one.

One of those theories has God behind it. Any other theory would have less behind it.

Also, you're forgetting a third theory...

Hint: you said they had sexual intercourse; you're assuming that Joseph was involved...

Artificial insemination?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hey, Darwin was born last week. Re-creation was going on for thousands of years.

I think evolution theory is someone's pathetic attempt to deny history.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We call it miracle.
One of those theories has God behind it. Any other theory would have less behind it.

Less than Magic?

Artificial insemination?

Why don't you tell me what the Gospels tell us about Joseph, and we'll see for ourselves?

 

[Split Rock]

Why would evolution produce results that are indistinguishable from the process of re-creation?

Why don't you answer the question first? You are the one asserting this "re-creation" idea.

 

[Split Rock]

Hey, Darwin was born last week. Re-creation was going on for thousands of years.

I think evolution theory is someone's pathetic attempt to deny history.

You are clearly deluded. The theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on this planet.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe your flying spaghetti monster would mix designed parts for making new creatures, but I wouldn't ever attribute that method to the Creator.

Then why do we find fossil and living species with a mixture of features from different groups of animals? We see the very things you now claim that a Creator would not do. For example, the monotremes (e.g. platypus) have a mixture of features from placental mammals and reptiles. They have rudimentary mammary glands and fur, but they also lay reptile-like eggs. They also have a cloaca like a reptile instead of separate digestive and reproductive tracts like we see in placental mammals. Evolution explains this quite easily, but it seems that it falsifies a Creator by your own admission.

It would be expected that there is grouped categories of creatures according to features and parts that are alike, with modification to the different creatures with some differences with those in how they live.

Why is it expected that these groups would fit into a nested hierarchy? Cars don't fit into a nested hierarchy. Paintings don't fit into a nested hierarchy. Buildings don't fit into a nested hierarchy. So why would life?

Linnaeus expected that with no difficulty in that understanding that it would be from the Creator with the logical systematic process of creating with intelligent planning. Whatever you reason, that is what I expect, and it is what I see.

Then tell us why a creator would be limiited to a nested hierarchy. Why would God be limited to only the combinations of features that evolution would produce?

The gaps mentioned are not just between humans and other similar primates, these are gaps between fossil groups in all categories.

What features would a fossil need in order to fill the gap between humans and apes? Until you answer this question, you can claim no gaps.

I don't reject fossils, and I don't have to, other than what we can agree were falsifications such as the Piltdown fossil. There are so many fossils with that still being the issue, for a long time, that awareness of that led to theories being formulated as the Hopeful Monster, and Punctuated Equilibrium, to deal with that issue, where there are not the fossils to show transition where they would be expected with so many fossils. So evolutionary theory needs to keep being modified.

These fossils are all fakes? Really?

You claim you don't reject fossil evidence, and then immediately dismiss them all as fakes while ignoring them.

A modified population in transition between one functional kind and another well adapted kind is with its partial change for the transition not likely stable and would die off.

Why? Where is your evidence that transitionals would be unstable?

 

[Loudmouth]

We call it miracle.

Occam's Razor slices it neatly away. We already have a known and observed mechanism that passes on homologous DNA. It is called biological reproduction. Invoking magic that exactly mimics known natural mechanisms is a non-starter.

 

[Loudmouth]

I provided the facts of DNA similarities, and I provided the facts of history. Any theory must be consistent with all the facts. Otherwise it's just a make-belief story like evolution theory.

Which DNA similarities are inconsistent with evolution?