Man is Evolving into...

[inquiring mind]

Maybe you should get into it. All we have been doing so far is posing obvious questions of the sort which would occur to any layman. That you have no answers is telling. If maintaining "kinds" as a impenetrable barrier to evolution (or "adaptation" if you prefer) is as essential to the Christian faith as creationists insist, then a credible response is surely called for.

Telling of what? I’m not insisting any of this ‘more lack of understanding than understanding,’ yours or mine, layman or otherwise, is essential to the Christian faith. And, what man can give a credible response for God’s work? I just 'believe everything was created' and there is 'insufficient scientific evidence for macroevolution' in the process.

 

[inquiring mind]

Yet those same creationists keep telling biologists they have it all wrong. Odd, that.

all wrong???

 

[ViaCrucis]

If you believe in macroevolution, what do you think man will evolve into next?

Not how evolution works.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Man After Man - Wikipedia

Evolution? Not as we know it. Artificially augmented humans are going to be the issue. In the corporatist case, only the very rich will be able to afford augmentation (i.e., Gattaca, Deus Ex). But I'm actually more afraid of the combination of socialized medicine with augmentation. There is no reliable evidence to falsify the idea that vaccines have more benefits than risks. Yet as a libertarian conservative, I believe you should have the right to refuse vaccination if you want. Other people don't share my belief. When it comes to crazed Leftists making the completely functional social institutions that we inherited from our ancestors fit their Procrustean bed of "equality," I have no doubt that they'll stoop to forcing people to receive augments as the only option that the government-subsidized healthcare will pay for.

Either way, it will suck.

I like Dougal Dixon's books, if just for the artwork.

But Man After Man always struck me as more science fiction than speculative evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[xianghua]

The issue isn't just rapid speciation. The issue is the generation of the genetic diversity we observe in nature today.

so basically you agree that its possible to evolve millions of species in about less than 5000 years. am i right?

now about the genetic diversity. according to this article the majority of species actually exist no more than 200,000 years:

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

"The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.

"That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?"

now, 100,000 years isnt 10,000 years but its much closer to the young earth model than to the evolutionery one (millions of years).

 

[Speedwell]

now, 100,000 years isnt 10,000 years but its much closer to the young earth model than to the evolutionery one (millions of years).

Is that important to you?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

100,000 years isnt 10,000 years but its much closer to the young earth model than to the evolutionery one (millions of years).

How many ancestor species did these current species evolve from? What you ignore is that the finding is for current species, not for all their parent species. And I bet that number of parent species wouldn't fit on the Ark, so you still have the same problem.

 

[inquiring mind]

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

“The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.”

More rationale for the possibility that God created in quick bursts by divine intervention. Darwin (and the concept of macroevolution) led scientists, and their desire for a natural explanation for life, down a rabbit hole that they are unwilling to back out of, and only dig deeper.

 

[Speedwell]

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

“The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.”

More rationale for the possibility that God created in quick bursts by divine intervention. Darwin (and the concept of macroevolution) led scientists, and their desire for a natural explanation for life, down a rabbit hole that they are unwilling to back out of, and only dig deeper.

LOL! They won't know until they get to the bottom of it, whether God created life in one "burst" or many, so I think they should keep digging.

 

[pitabread]

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

“The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.”

More rationale for the possibility that God created in quick bursts by divine intervention. Darwin (and the concept of macroevolution) led scientists, and their desire for a natural explanation for life, down a rabbit hole that they are unwilling to back out of, and only dig deeper.

Unfortunately the paper in question has been completely misrepresented in the news and consequently misunderstood by everyone reading news articles about it.

Biologos had a good write up on to clear things up:

Did Stoeckel and Thaler conclude that “90% of animal species appeared at same time as humans”?

The answer is No. Here is the relevant quote from the published paper:

the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years.​

In other words, the genetic diversity observed in mitochondrial genomes of most species alive today can be attributed to the accumulation of mutations from an ancestral genome within the past 200,000 years.

Their conclusions are interesting (and to some extent unexpected) but they are not shocking, nor do they defy evolutionary theory. To see why, let’s unpack what the authors have claimed. First, it is important to note that the authors never claim that most “species” came into existence within the past 200,000 years. Rather, what has come into existence within that time frame is the genetic variation observed in one gene in the mitochondrial genome. By tracing the mutations in that one gene, we can trace the origin of the gene back to the last common female ancestor of all living members of a certain species (the so-called “mitochondrial Eve”). But this discovery, at best, tells us the minimum age of the species. It tells us little to nothing about the maximum age of a species.​

https://biologos.org/articles/did-90-of-animal-species-appear-about-the-same-time-as-human-beings

 

[pitabread]

so basically you agree that its possible to evolve millions of species in about less than 5000 years. am i right?

Not based on the observed genetic diversity among extant species.

now about the genetic diversity. according to this article the majority of species actually exist no more than 200,000 years:

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

No, that's not what that paper said at all. Unfortunately that paper has been completely misinterpreted and misrepresented ever since news sites picked it up.

I suggest reading this biologos article on it as it clears up what the authors of the paper were really saying and what the results of their study actually means:

Did Stoeckel and Thaler conclude that “90% of animal species appeared at same time as humans”?

The answer is No. Here is the relevant quote from the published paper:

the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years.​

In other words, the genetic diversity observed in mitochondrial genomes of most species alive today can be attributed to the accumulation of mutations from an ancestral genome within the past 200,000 years.

Their conclusions are interesting (and to some extent unexpected) but they are not shocking, nor do they defy evolutionary theory. To see why, let’s unpack what the authors have claimed. First, it is important to note that the authors never claim that most “species” came into existence within the past 200,000 years. Rather, what has come into existence within that time frame is the genetic variation observed in one gene in the mitochondrial genome. By tracing the mutations in that one gene, we can trace the origin of the gene back to the last common female ancestor of all living members of a certain species (the so-called “mitochondrial Eve”). But this discovery, at best, tells us the minimum age of the species. It tells us little to nothing about the maximum age of a species.​

Full article here: https://biologos.org/articles/did-90-of-animal-species-appear-about-the-same-time-as-human-beings

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you believe in macroevolution, what do you think man will evolve into next?

Well, he keeps getting more and more sinful, more wicked every day, without repentance. The result is he gets killed off..... that's GOOD !

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And the two conflict every time I pass the bakery.

hmm... most bakeries kill the head, the gut and the body, over time. All the while weakening the immune system so the head , gut and the body are wide open to a host of various diseases , illnesses, pains, sorrows, and weaknesses.
Thus, people are slowly exterminating themselves..... "whose bellies are their god"...
is that described in macro ? \\
Study Bible
Citizenship in Heaven
…18For as I have often told you before, and now say again even with tears: Many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame. Their minds are set on earthly things. 20But our citizenship is in heaven, and we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,…
Berean Study Bible · Download

 

[pitabread]

n'mind

 

[timothyu]

Thus, people are slowly exterminating themselves....

Exactly.. as God intended

 

[pitabread]

delete

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well, he keeps getting more and more sinful, more wicked every day, without repentance. The result is he gets killed off..... that's GOOD !

What a disgusting philosophy to live by. No wonder I'm not a Christian. :/

Since mankind is wicked, and doomed, why should God save anyone at all ?
Why should God ALLOW ANYONE to be saved(to be a Christian)......

But no one is forced to become a Christian. Most remain doomed.

Even a lot of so-called (false) 'Christians' are still doomed, for pretending.... not truly obeying God.

Exactly.. as God intended

Those who are being destroyed, once had a choice not to be destroyed.....

it is not a philosophy, no. It is REALITY. No one can escape , except by calling on Jesus for His Salvation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Is this really the philosophy you guys want to convey? You're not exactly making Christianity look appealing.

Jesus DID NOT make Christianity "look appealing".

Still, He is the ONLY WAY to be saved from evil, from sin, and from destruction.

Note that 'Christianity' has not been what Jesus ordained, for over a thousand years, over all the world. The fake Christianity is much more widespread than the truth.

 

[pitabread]

delete

 

[pitabread]

delete