Missing link found by Norwegian scientist

[Junaid0]

There's a reason public school don't teach or debate abortion and evolution.

 

[TheReasoner]

Jesus tells the truth,he believed in the account of genesis,i think christians who believe that we evolved from monkey like animals are also doing great damage.

Did he believe in the genesis account like creationists do? Jesus was God's son, 100% God, 100% man. But do we know He believed that we were not the result of evolution?

We evolve as individuals, and new species of flies, wasps, earthworms and plants have been discovered, and even seen evolve in the lab. So some extent of evolution is obviously true. I believe God could have used evolution to create us. As the bible says He created us from earth, is the difference between that being a single step or gradual from single-cell organisms to larger organisms ending up in a human with a soul at a certain time?

I shall not claim to know how God created us. I do believe He has created us with a desire to seek knowledge though, including knowledge of our origin. I do not think we should dismiss scientific findings too easily. Whatever we discover can only point to God anyway, so we should welcome scientific research.

 

[JGL53]

Uh, back to the OP:

So, the thousands of scientists who have accepted the 47 million year old primate fossil as a type of our direct ancestor - are they knowing or unknowing servants of the Evil One attempted to lead us away from Jesus and salvation - or are they just stupid? If the former, why did the conspiracy start in Norway, ya think?

Could some high-I.Q. YEC please 'plain all that to the rest of us? Inquiring minds and all that. And please include plenty of relevant bible verses. That always helps.

 

[Cabal]

There's a reason public school don't teach or debate abortion and evolution.

No link between the two, and there's no viable alternative for evolution?

 

[praisejahupeople]

Did he believe in the genesis account like creationists do? Jesus was God's son, 100% God, 100% man. But do we know He believed that we were not the result of evolution?

Yes he did believe in genesis,Mark 10:6 Matthew 19:4.

We evolve as individuals, and new species of flies, wasps, earthworms and plants have been discovered, and even seen evolve in the lab.

They are still flies wasps earthworms and plants.DNA allows for variation but not adding new information which changes the organism to something else.This is a killer for those who believe in common descent.Changes are due to a loss of genetic information or a replication of genetic information that is already there.

I believe God could have used evolution to create us. As the bible says He created us from earth,

He formed adam from clay and breathed life into him,i wouldnt have a problem if the bible said he formed adam from beasts but it doesnt..

is the difference between that being a single step or gradual from single-cell organisms to larger organisms ending up in a human with a soul at a certain time?

No,we are his special creation made straight from him.Its obvious to me we were given special abilities that animals do not have.

I shall not claim to know how God created us. I do believe He has created us with a desire to seek knowledge though, including knowledge of our origin. I do not think we should dismiss scientific findings too easily.

Im not dismissing it,its hard to argue against actually.But in my opinion the evidence for creation by something or someone very very intelligent outweighs the evidence that we are just a series of random events shaped by an abstract force.See above about information adding to the genome,what evos propose ,contradicts genetics anyway.

Whatever we discover can only point to God anyway, so we should welcome scientific research.

Sure..just make sure its true though

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes he did believe in genesis,Mark 10:6 Matthew 19:4.

And Einstein said that God doesn't play dice. Using idioms, metaphors, and poetic language is one thing, but don't confuse it with a literal affirmation of belief.

They are still flies wasps earthworms and plants.

And if they were anything else, evolution would be disproven. The point is that they've gone from a single species of fruit fly (say) to several species, none of which can breed with the others. That's evolution.

DNA allows for variation but not adding new information which changes the organism to something else.

Two words: point mutation.

Nucleotides and codons are physically inserted into the genome: new 'information' has been added (inasmuch as the word 'information' has any meaning in genetics).

This is a killer for those who believe in common descent.Changes are due to a loss of genetic information or a replication of genetic information that is already there.

Nope. The famous two-decady long Lenski experiment showed that E. coli can evolve the completely novel ability to ingest citric acid. There is also the existence of nylon-eating bacteria: since nylon never existed before 1935, it can hardly be said that the 'information' to digest nylon existed beforehand.

Im not dismissing it,its hard to argue against actually.But in my opinion the evidence for creation by something or someone very very intelligent outweighs the evidence that we are just a series of random events shaped by an abstract force.See above about information adding to the genome,what evos propose ,contradicts genetics anyway.

That's (alleged) evidence against evolution, not evidence for Creationism. Could you cite some? PM me, if you don't want to go off-topic.

 

[praisejahupeople]

And Einstein said that God doesn't play dice. Using idioms, metaphors, and poetic language is one thing, but don't confuse it with a literal affirmation of belief.

I just gave the scriptures,its straightforward.

And if they were anything else, evolution would be disproven. The point is that they've gone from a single species of fruit fly (say) to several species, none of which can breed with the others. That's evolution.

Thats speciation and doesnt prove anything.How does it prove the idea all living organisms descended from single celled eukaroytes?It doesnt...

Two words: point mutation.

You missed a word...beneficial.Im curious as to which animal you can point to that as a result of beneficial mutations can change from one kind to another?

Nucleotides and codons are physically inserted into the genome: new 'information' has been added (inasmuch as the word 'information' has any meaning in genetics).

See above give some examples of animals where through this process,new information is added,and a new kind of animal is the result.

Nope. The famous two-decady long Lenski experiment showed that E. coli can evolve the completely novel ability to ingest citric acid. There is also the existence of nylon-eating bacteria: since nylon never existed before 1935, it can hardly be said that the 'information' to digest nylon existed beforehand.

Google is your friend i see.Firstly whats nylon made of and secondly is the organism still e.coli or not?

That's (alleged) evidence against evolution

Indeed it is.

not evidence for Creationism.

Elimination of false,brings out truth.

Could you cite some?

Like evidence theres intelligence in the design of the universe our planet and our minds and bodies?I would think thats self evident,however if you dont accept it,you simply dont accept it...

 

[praisejahupeople]

strangely you are the second person on this board in 2 days that claims theres evidence in the animal kingdom that beneficial information can be added to the genome by mutations,whereas ive done a bit of looking around and no scientist claims this..Even Dawkins was stumped when asked this particular question..
Genetic information is either lost or existing information is replicated,this is what gives variety,however no new kind is made..In the case of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics its more accurate to say that its natural selection,not any new genetic information being added.Bacteria that have no resistence are killed off,those with some, well they stay behind and breed..

 

[TheReasoner]

Yes he did believe in genesis, Mark 10:6 Matthew 19:4.

These says God created us male and female. Sure. All animals are male and female. And it is clear that this is part of God's design. I don't see how this conflicts with a common ancestry.

They are still flies wasps earthworms and plants.DNA allows for variation but not adding new information which changes the organism to something else.This is a killer for those who believe in common descent.Changes are due to a loss of genetic information or a replication of genetic information that is already there.

True enough on the first part. But if you add 1 to 1 enough times you get a very different answer than 2. Small change added to small change added to small change makes a great change. Sure, I've heard the arguments creationists come with before, about irreducable complexity and the second law of thermodynamics prohibiting a reduction of entropy thus making evolution impossible as it requires a reduction of entropy. Well, so do crystals. Or reproduction. Or growth. We know animals, plants and humans all adapt to their environments. I, for example, am able to digest cows milk. Most northern Europeans are. Few from Asia, however, have the same capability. However, I am more vulnerable to Malaria, as Africans are more resistant to it. Changes happen. And if you keep adding change to change to change, you end up with something very different.

Besides, information can change into something very different. Just look at all the different mutations that can occur. Most are not beneficial, but some - like the mutation that renders you immune to HIV clearly are. If you add enough of these together...
And there are things that I, unlearned though I may be, take as indications of common ancestry that are evident even today, like people born with tails. Or people with their entire body covered with thick hair. And what about male nipples? Talk about useless.

The fossil records indicate that huge changes have occurred, even if these take a long time. If small changes happen and stack through millions of years, of course you'll see a big change.

He formed adam from clay and breathed life into him,i wouldnt have a problem if the bible said he formed adam from beasts but it doesnt..

By the same token the bible repeatedly describes the world as a flat thing, with a solid sky above it. Job describes the sky as hammered solid like a mirror. Or something close. Isiah describes the earth as round - like a coin. Not a ball. Can we take that literally? No? What about the revelation? No? Then why can we take Genesis, which is obviously not an eyewitness account, literally? Without any cultural understanding or even any shred of humility in our own interpretation of it.

No,we are his special creation made straight from him.Its obvious to me we were given special abilities that animals do not have.

And our special abilities cannot have been added to a creature like an ape? We have a lot of genetic traits in common with other apes. I seem to recall reading about a genetic marker that was the same in man as it was in a chimpanzee, indicating a common ancestor. Regardless, there is clear evidence that puts the origins of the human race far further back than the biblical geneology would allow us to calculate if we go back to Adam. And there are other things too, like the cities described in Genesis. Where did they come from if man was not here even before Adam and Eve arrived? Are you so sure it isn't?

Say, when a man or a woman comes to know Christ, is He not changed from lost to found? Does he/she not 'evolve' as it were upon this change occurring? What about when someone gets spiritual gifts like prophecy or tongues, is this not the granting of new gifts to a creature that did not possess the same gift at an earlier time? Why can this not have happened with our very souls at one point? Is it impossible that our souls were at one point a gift from God, given in accordance with His wishes and His plans?

Im not dismissing it,its hard to argue against actually.But in my opinion the evidence for creation by something or someone very very intelligent outweighs the evidence that we are just a series of random events shaped by an abstract force.See above about information adding to the genome,what evos propose ,contradicts genetics anyway.

Oh, but when everything indicates that God used evolution... Why should we believe differently? Does it make God less intelligent that He uses the laws of nature He himself has placed down? Does it make Him less intelligent that He set in motion certain events roughly 14 billion years ago that would end up in us human beings eventually? We use it, as I have said. We even use it to create new and different machines. Or plants. Or medical products and procedures. Or dogs... Mathematically it is beautiful, we set up a series of equations and run them through an evolutionary process, and end up with a new series of equations that are streamlined and ideally adapted to the desired situation. It is a marvelous tool that allows us to make something wonderful out of something greatly inferior. We can even make it teach robots and artificial intelligences how to evolve themselves, to adapt to new circumstances. Why would God make a static life when everything else is adaptive and evolving? Our very universe is evolving. We evolve greatly fom when we are children, not to mention our life as Christians can evolve greatly too.

Sure..just make sure its true though

How? By measuring them up to our subjective interpretation of a text which is probably a parable or an extreme simplification of a complex and long process? I don't trust my own interpretation that much. If I can read out of God's creation that He did it through evolution, who am I to argue? God is God. We make engines, new plants like corn or new fruits through different application of evolution. Why is God supposedly unable to do so?
Should we not instead measure our subjective understanding of the parts of the bible referring to science up against what we can read out of God's own creation? Should not the litmus test of any interpretation of scientific content of the bible be God's own creation? If we hold the bible up as the standard by which science should be confirmed or rejected we can easily end up believing the world is unmovable, flat, on pillars and with a hard dome above it we call sky. Of course, we interpret the verses that can give those impressions as poetry, or prophecy or parables. Not as scientific fact, even though some actually do read them that way. And prior to our own "enlightened" age a lot more believed it. That's one reason why heliocentrism was so opposed at the beginning. Now people need to change their view of Genesis as well. It doesn't make the bible flawed or false. Or even Genesis. But it is a reminder that we need to be humble and recognize our humanity, our fallibility.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I just gave the scriptures,its straightforward.

Hardly.

Thats speciation and doesnt prove anything.How does it prove the idea all living organisms descended from single celled eukaroytes?It doesnt...

And since I never said it does, your point is moot.

You missed a word...beneficial.Im curious as to which animal you can point to that as a result of beneficial mutations can change from one kind to another?

None. Species don't change 'kind' (by which I assume you mean 'taxa'). The descendants of the first mammal species will always be mammals. The descendants of the first tetrapod species will always be tetrapods. The descendants of the first species of Taxon X will always be Xians.

That said, an organism and its distant descendant are of different species: sparrows are descendants of archaeopteryx, but they are both different species. They're of the same taxa (e.g., Archosauria), but the ancestor species has speciated into a variety of distinct species (namely, the various species of bird).

See above give some examples of animals where through this process,new information is added,and a new kind of animal is the result.

Lungfish, anglerfish, tiktaalik, protoarchaeopteryx, archaeopteryx, the entire ancestry of the Equus genus, and, of course, E. coli.

Google is your friend i see.

Wikipedia and PubMed, actually.

Firstly whats nylon made of

Nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.

and secondly is the organism still e.coli or not?

Yes, it's still E. coli. It's E. coli with an entirely new, complex mechanism, but it's E. coli nonetheless.

Elimination of false,brings out truth.

Not necessarily. Disproving evolution doesn't prove Creationism. There could, for instance, be another naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

Like evidence theres intelligence in the design of the universe our planet and our minds and bodies?I would think thats self evident,however if you dont accept it,you simply dont accept it...

I accept any evidence you present to me. However, neither the universe, our planet, our minds, nor our bodies, look like they're designed. But please, show us evidence of design.

strangely you are the second person on this board in 2 days that claims theres evidence in the animal kingdom that beneficial information can be added to the genome by mutations,whereas ive done a bit of looking around and no scientist claims this..Even Dawkins was stumped when asked this particular question..

Look closer. Bacteria can acquire small sections of novel genetic information by exchanging DNA with each other ('conjugation'), or by taking raw fragments from the environment ('transformation'). Since genetic information is simply the sequence of codons, new information is created by this rather simple cut-and-paste method: how the nucleotides are arranged and where the fragment is inserted determines what, if anything, the fragment does.

Et voilà! Two methods by which organisms (namely bacteria) acquire new genetic information.

Genetic information is either lost or existing information is replicated,this is what gives variety,however no new kind is made..

Two words: point mutation.

In the case of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics its more accurate to say that its natural selection,not any new genetic information being added.Bacteria that have no resistence are killed off,those with some, well they stay behind and breed..

And why, pray tell, do they have a resistence? Why do they, and not their kin, get a resistence to medicines and drugs that are completely synthetic? If no new 'information' is being created, how do bacteria become resistent in the first place?

Oh, that's right, information is being created.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

These says God created us male and female. Sure. All animals are male and female.

That's not entirely true; there are many animal species with no sexuality, or whose sexuality is blurred (aphids clone themselves, turkeys can hatch from unfertilised eggs, hammerhead and blacktip sharks undergo parthenogenesis, etc).

Just sayin' .

 

[TheReasoner]

That's not entirely true; there are many animal species with no sexuality, or whose sexuality is blurred (aphids clone themselves, turkeys can hatch from unfertilised eggs, hammerhead and blacktip sharks undergo parthenogenesis, etc).

Just sayin' .

I know... But somehow I think you know what I meant

 

[praisejahupeople]

And why, pray tell, do they have a resistence? Why do they, and not their kin, get a resistence to medicines and drugs that are completely synthetic? If no new 'information' is being created, how do bacteria become resistent in the first place?

Oh, that's right, information is being created.

Ill just deal with this point because if we can establish what is true here regarding new information being created and passed on,it has a great bearing on naturalists claims on the extent of evolution.

Now you claim that bacteria exhibiting resistance is the result of new genetic information.however this isnt the case at all and let me reiterate its actually quite a simple process.

Some bacteria already has resistance,and its those particular bacteria that survive.There can be also bacteria mutating to not allow the antibiotics entry into the cell .This is an example of bacteria losing information
However theres no new information created it was present already or its a loss of information.
Theres no cases of new information being made by mutation anywhere by anything...
And the funny thing is that the bacteria that would survive antibiotics in a lab are significantly weaker if released back into the wild,proving that loss of information is hazardous.
Whats the wider implication for evolutionists with common descent?...pretty obvious really.

 

[praisejahupeople]

reading over your reply you tended to inadvertantly agree with my premise that animals have enormous variety and have the ability to adapt however you tried to use lungfish?as a transitional?animal between water and land whreas its still a fish last time i checked.And gives birth to lungfish. Overgrown extinct axolotls and the horse family(great variety i agree) is proof that there was far more variety in the past,not that all animals are connected by mythical "transitional" forms.
As i said,the book of genesis allows for variety adaptation and speciation,i have no argument with that.

 

[Hespera]

reading over your reply you tended to inadvertantly agree with my premise that animals have enormous variety and have the ability to adapt however you tried to use lungfish?as a transitional?animal between water and land whreas its still a fish last time i checked.And gives birth to lungfish. Overgrown extinct axolotls and the horse family(great variety i agree) is proof that there was far more variety in the past,not that all animals are connected by mythical "transitional" forms.
As i said,the book of genesis allows for variety adaptation and speciation,i have no argument with that.

Lungfish are similar to / related to the fish that transitioned out of the water.
Modern lungfish are not presented as ancestral to amphibians. Why act as if they were?

As for the variety of animals. is there is not Isle of the Wild Poodle.

Axolotols, "overgrown" or otherwise are not extinct. What is that about?

Your idea about horses would make sense IF all the known varietes lived at the same time. But like other life forms, there is a distinct sequence over time.

Speciation of course, does not depend on any book or its contents. Its going to go on anyway. If tho, you grant that the book "allows' speciation, well, where is the wall that stops it from going any further?

Transitioning from little five toed horse to the Percheron is just a series of small changes. From fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, its just the product of many small changes. What mechanism prevents speciation from continuing until huge changes have teken place?

 

[tanzanos]

Ill just deal with this point because if we can establish what is true here regarding new information being created and passed on,it has a great bearing on naturalists claims on the extent of evolution.

Now you claim that bacteria exhibiting resistance is the result of new genetic information.however this isnt the case at all and let me reiterate its actually quite a simple process.

Some bacteria already has resistance,and its those particular bacteria that survive.There can be also bacteria mutating to not allow the antibiotics entry into the cell .This is an example of bacteria losing information
However theres no new information created it was present already or its a loss of information.
Theres no cases of new information being made by mutation anywhere by anything...
And the funny thing is that the bacteria that would survive antibiotics in a lab are significantly weaker if released back into the wild,proving that loss of information is hazardous.
Whats the wider implication for evolutionists with common descent?...pretty obvious really.

Your knowledge of genetics is laughable! Go sell your theory to the scientists trying to combat malaria and its carrier!

 

[Hespera]

Your knowledge of genetics is laughable! Go sell your theory to the scientists trying to combat malaria and its carrier!

I am not much of a geneticist myself, dont really care for the subject.

I think the idea was in part that mutations / genetic "information" is a zero sum game of some sort. For everything gained via mutation, something else is lost.

Now, it seems to me that if something so simple and obvious and presumably demonstrable were true, then it would be well known and accepted. The ToE would be an amusing bit of scientific history, along with the notion that the four elements were earth air fire and water.

That has not happened tho so it appears not so easy for an amateur with a simple idea can shoot down the ToE. Not that it theoretically COULD NOT happen; the precambrian bunny discovery for example would be a one person one act show.

If you feel qualified to do so, could you explain why it is that evolution is not limited by this gain / loss of "information" ?

 

[mpok1519]

...there was more variety in the past because horses and lungfish exist?

what kind of crockamani college told this guy that?

 

[dad]

Speciation of course, does not depend on any book or its contents. Its going to go on anyway. If tho, you grant that the book "allows' speciation, well, where is the wall that stops it from going any further?

Transitioning from little five toed horse to the Percheron is just a series of small changes. From fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, its just the product of many small changes. What mechanism prevents speciation from continuing until huge changes have teken place?

The book says that it started at creation, and, for example man was made. Any changes are after the fact. More changes are predicted. Evolving is a part of creation. Darwin just thought it was all there was, apparently, poor dolt.

 

[mpok1519]

lol but all those fossils that are hundreds of thousands of years old existed BEFORE creation....

Creation happened AFTER the dinosaurs. lol riiight....