No DNA from Flores man...why?

[FredVB]

Or they never had modern DNA. Who really knows?

If DNA is not found in an old life form that is recovered, it would not mean there was no DNA in it. Nucleic acid is universal to all physically living things that are known, and there is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be without it, especially if they are in the same family with others that definitely do have it.

 

[dad]

If DNA is not found in an old life form that is recovered, it would not mean there was no DNA in it.

Nor, I guess would it mean that there was, or that if there was it was the same and worked the same as that of taday's genetics.

Nucleic acid is universal to all physically living things that are known, and there is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be without it, especially if they are in the same family with others that definitely do have it.

How hydrogen bonds are formed, and why carbon-nitrogen rings are formed, how things like phosphates react or behave, and how and why sugars behave or react..etc etc etc all depend on the forces in nature. Unless these forces in place now that make things do what they do were also in place and existing the same in the past, then you simply cannot look at reactions and groups and sugars and phosphates and bonds and etc today, and claim that this is how it all worked/happened in the far past also.
Once we have a difference in how atoms behave, and the forces that determine how they must exist, then we obviously cannot think of complex reactions based on these atoms and forces (DNA etc) as being identical!

The issue

 

[FredVB]

If DNA is not found in an old life form that is recovered, it would not mean there was no DNA in it.

Nor, I guess would it mean that there was, or that if there was it was the same and worked the same as that of taday's genetics.

But as I was showing there is good basis to seriously expect DNA to have been in the living beings, that might just not have been found in fossils of them yet, and no basis to figure that there wouldn't be any or anything that would work as what is seen in today's genetics, except for some assumptions to make.

If DNA is not found in an old life form that is recovered, it would not mean there was no DNA in it. Nucleic acid is universal to all physically living things that are known, and there is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be without it, especially if they are in the same family with others that definitely do have it.

How hydrogen bonds are formed, and why carbon-nitrogen rings are formed, how things like phosphates react or behave, and how and why sugars behave or react..etc etc etc all depend on the forces in nature. Unless these forces in place now that make things do what they do were also in place and existing the same in the past, then you simply cannot look at reactions and groups and sugars and phosphates and bonds and etc today, and claim that this is how it all worked/happened in the far past also.
Once we have a difference in how atoms behave, and the forces that determine how they must exist, then we obviously cannot think of complex reactions based on these atoms and forces (DNA etc) as being identical!

The issue

That doesn't seem to be a good position to take, you might find it desirable to reconsider it. I believe in eternity after this, but it will be put into doubt, as the physicality of all that eternity to come, which I believe in, would be put to serious doubt, if physical laws have all been changing, so that they would then keep changing, and nothing would be stable. But I see there is design with no basis for physical laws changing, which isn't needed. Except for certain assumptions that might be made, but those assumptions aren't needed.

 

[dad]

But as I was showing there is good basis to seriously expect DNA to have been in the living beings, that might just not have been found in fossils of them yet, and no basis to figure that there wouldn't be any or anything that would work as what is seen in today's genetics, except for some assumptions to make.

I didn't see how you 'showed' there was good reason to believe that the forces and nature was the same so that DNA would have also had to have been the same. There is no basis to claim nature was the same. It is purely a matter of belief.

That doesn't seem to be a good position to take, you might find it desirable to reconsider it. I believe in eternity after this, but it will be put into doubt, as the physicality of all that eternity to come, which I believe in, would be put to serious doubt, if physical laws have all been changing, so that they would then keep changing, and nothing would be stable. But I see there is design with no basis for physical laws changing, which isn't needed. Except for certain assumptions that might be made, but those assumptions aren't needed.

Well, no, the spirit realm doesn't change, or heaven or eternal life ...or us or angels etc. But the world will not be the same in the coming kingdom of God, in much the same ways it was not the same in Noah or Adam's days. People will live 1000 years again, plants will grow gast again, animals will eat grass again etc etc.

 

[Turkana]

Could this be because ancient man did not have modern DNA because the nature was different then?

Populations within species change and start to diverge due to a number of factors:

1. genetic drift, the change in genetic make-up that brings variation on its own
2. changes in the environment, urging populations of organisms to adapt and thus change, in order to survive and reproduce under those new living conditions
3. endosymbiosis, where two different organisms merge (a failed infection or predation for instance or just one organism entering another producing new possibilities).

So when nature changes, DNA follows. But not all change in DNA is due to environmental pressure (factors 1 and 3 above).

 

[dad]

Populations within species change and start to diverge due to a number of factors:

1. genetic drift, the change in genetic make-up that brings variation on its own
2. changes in the environment, urging populations of organisms to adapt and thus change, in order to survive and reproduce under those new living conditions
3. endosymbiosis, where two different organisms merge (a failed infection or predation for instance or just one organism entering another producing new possibilities).

So when nature changes, DNA follows. But not all change in DNA is due to environmental pressure (factors 1 and 3 above).

OK. I am sure that after nature changed, there was some changes also, however minor in comparison. Too bad you have no DNA at all from Noah's day. I guess you have no way of comparing.

 

[FredVB]

But as I was showing there is good basis to seriously expect DNA to have been in the living beings, that might just not have been found in fossils of them yet, and no basis to figure that there wouldn't be any or anything that would work as what is seen in today's genetics, except for some assumptions to make.

I didn't see how you 'showed' there was good reason to believe that the forces and nature was the same so that DNA would have also had to have been the same. There is no basis to claim nature was the same. It is purely a matter of belief.

Well, dad, as you say you are Undefeated, it may be you are not open to considering anything new outside of what you believe and conclude for yourself. I will still answer as I can. I had showed this.

If DNA is not found in an old life form that is recovered, it would not mean there was no DNA in it. Nucleic acid is universal to all physically living things that are known, and there is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be without it, especially if they are in the same family with others that definitely do have it.

That no DNA had yet been recovered, which is all I found about this "Flores man" DNA, does not mean the same thing as that no DNA can be found, whatever they do to find DNA. How easy is it, would you say, to recover DNA from fossils? It would depend on how much mineral replacement had happened, wouldn't it? So you just have assumptions, without basis that I see, that there must be changes in "forces and nature", that there are to explain that DNA cannot be found in those fossils, which I find wasn't said. And I stated my reason to doubt there is such change. There is change in the world, but that happens without changes in the forces being needed to explain that. It would be something extra to invoke, that I don't see basis for.

I believe in eternity after this, but it will be put into doubt, as the physicality of all that eternity to come, which I believe in, would be put to serious doubt, if physical laws have all been changing, so that they would then keep changing, and nothing would be stable. But I see there is design with no basis for physical laws changing, which isn't needed. Except for certain assumptions that might be made, but those assumptions aren't needed.

Well, no, the spirit realm doesn't change, or heaven or eternal life ...or us or angels etc. But the world will not be the same in the coming kingdom of God, in much the same ways it was not the same in Noah or Adam's days. People will live 1000 years again, plants will grow gast again, animals will eat grass again etc etc.

Eating just from edible vegetation is the perfect design for us, and Yahweh's perfect will for us, there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that, as it was in the beginning, and the animals will then as well.

It is not all spiritual ultimately with nothing physical, I see the promises for eternity for the redeemed along with the restored creation being with what is physical, while all is submitted with the spiritual. And the physical won't have anything unstable about it.

 

[dad]

Well, dad, as you say you are Undefeated, it may be you are not open to considering anything new outside of what you believe and conclude for yourself. I will still answer as I can. I had showed this.

Your opinion of what there is or is not reason to believe. Sorry...you need more than opinion.

That no DNA had yet been recovered, which is all I found about this "Flores man" DNA, does not mean the same thing as that no DNA can be found, whatever they do to find DNA.

If none has been found, we might suspect none could be found actually. If some was found, well, then we might suspect some was there!

Meanwhile, we don't know.

How easy is it, would you say, to recover DNA from fossils? It would depend on how much mineral replacement had happened, wouldn't it? So you just have assumptions, without basis that I see, that there must be changes in "forces and nature", that there are to explain that DNA cannot be found in those fossils, which I find wasn't said. And I stated my reason to doubt there is such change. There is change in the world, but that happens without changes in the forces being needed to explain that. It would be something extra to invoke, that I don't see basis for.

The problem is there is no need to invoke a same nature in the past either. So why would we care what anyone invoked? The issue is what is known.

Eating just from edible vegetation is the perfect design for us, and Yahweh's perfect will for us, there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that, as it was in the beginning, and the animals will then as well.

Yet we got told it was cool to eat flesh after the flood. So why would I think just veggies were best for us now?

It is not all spiritual ultimately with nothing physical, I see the promises for eternity for the redeemed along with the restored creation being with what is physical, while all is submitted with the spiritual. And the physical won't have anything unstable about it.

How about atoms? Unstable atoms are what cause decay, if I recall, no? You think there will be a change in the fundamental forces in the future?

 

[Turkana]

OK. I am sure that after nature changed, there was some changes also, however minor in comparison. Too bad you have no DNA at all from Noah's day. I guess you have no way of comparing.

We have enough DNA to connect Neanderthals with Denisovians and humans. We also have enough anatomical evidence that classifies Floresiensis well as hominids. They were entirely different from humans, not only in size but did fabricate and use tools.

In order to retrieve DNA from fossils, you need a bit of luck. To my estimates we eventually will find and sequence DNA from Floresiensis. It's my guess it's close to species like Homo habilis. In 2015 we had a paleontological study applying Bayesian statistics using more than 300 different, morphological characteristics of fossil hominins to compare. This study revealed that Floresiensis shows greatest similarity with Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis and Dmanisi Man. Floresiensis most likley survived that long due to living isolated on Flores island.

Hominds like Floresiensis and Homo habilis testify of human evolution. Especially Habilis is a nice transitional species between Australopithecines ("Southern apes", so still morphological clearly ape-like creatures) and odern humans. Habilis had a far less cranial volume than humans (550 cm3 to 687 cm3). It also still had a protruding muzzle, a sloped forehead, much longer and strong arms and storter legs than humans, with evidence it regularly climbed trees. Nevertheless it walked upright. And it manufactured and used tools (Oldowan technology).

 

[dad]

We have enough DNA to connect Neanderthals with Denisovians and humans. We also have enough anatomical evidence that classifies Floresiensis well as hominids. They were entirely different from humans, not only in size but did fabricate and use tools.

I think what you are saying is that we have no DNA, but they sorta seem the same and kinda look similar as modern man with current DNA? Do clarify if there is more.

The question arises in my mind 'what would Adam or Noah have looked like, regardless of if they had modern DNA'? Also 'How in tarnaion would you know'? Ha.

In order to retrieve DNA from fossils, you need a bit of luck. To my estimates we eventually will find and sequence DNA from Floresiensis.

Well, OK, a guess. Fine. If you are correct, I guess we would classify Flores man as a modern DNA man. Meanwhile, I guess we really do not know at all.

It's my guess it's close to species like Homo habilis. In 2015 we had a paleontological study applying Bayesian statistics using more than 300 different, morphological characteristics of fossil hominins to compare. This study revealed that Floresiensis shows greatest similarity with Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis and Dmanisi Man. Floresiensis most likley survived that long due to living isolated on Flores island.

The problem with science gawking at a bunch of skulls is that they have no idea what they are looking at.

Some might be animals..apes monkeys etc. Some might be post flood man. Some might be early post flood/pre nature change man.

Poor science, it really is pitiful how ignorant and muddled they are. I can't say I feel sorry for them though, since their godless methodology was bound to lead them to a horrible dark swamp.

Hominds like Floresiensis and Homo habilis testify of human evolution.

I agree that a lot of evolving happened. The thing is that most of it, and all the important evolving all happened in the former nature which means it was fast. Not like the slow evolving of the current nature. The other thing is, it all started form creation, not some comet or swamp or vent under the sea. So merely mouthing the words evolved does not help your religion (that you thought was part of actual science).



Especially Habilis is a nice transitional species between Australopithecines ("Southern apes", so still morphological clearly ape-like creatures) and odern humans. Habilis had a far less cranial volume than humans (550 cm3 to 687 cm3). It also still had a protruding muzzle, a sloped forehead, much longer and strong arms and storter legs than humans, with evidence it regularly climbed trees. Nevertheless it walked upright. And it manufactured and used tools (Oldowan technology).[/QUOTE]

A good example of not knowing.

"
Leakey believed that habilis was a direct human ancestor, with erectus out of the picture. While H. habilis is a generally accepted species, the opinion that it was a direct human ancestor seems to be in question. There are now at least two species of early Homo (whether habilis and rudolfensis or an undescribed species) living prior to 2.0 myr. In addition, H. erectus (which is almost universally accepted as a direct human ancestor) continues to be pushed further back into the paleontological record, making it possible that it is the first Homo ancestor of modern humans.

Other problems include that some people see KNM-ER 1813 as a near perfect erectus, except for its small brain and size. It could be an erectus that was at the small scale of a wide variation of traits, or it may belong to ergaster, which some believe to be the ancestor of erectus. The questions are far from solved, and new specimens are needed. Homo habilis may be a direct human ancestor, a dead-end side-branch that leads nowhere, an invalid species whose designated examples belong in other species, or Wolpoff may be right, and all these species are basically part of one highly variable widespread species."

http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/

Well I can play may be could be might be also. Sounds like fun. I would say I believe it may be an animal and totally unrelated to man kind. That was fun.

How anyone takes this stuff seriously is beyond me.

 

[Turkana]

I think what you are saying is that we have no DNA, but they sorta seem the same and kinda look similar as modern man with current DNA? Do clarify if there is more.

No, not just "comparison" of how (much) they are just "lookalikes". All groups of organisms (whether on the level of species, genera, families, orders, classes or even phyla or kingdoms) have unique traits. Otherwise it wouldn't be impossible to tell them apart as different taxa in the first place.

Mammals have unique traits that tells them apart from other animals, for instance (but far from alone) the anatomy of the inner ear. So if a paleontologist receives only a small, seemingly insignificant part of some skull with the ear region still exact, maybe only a tiny piece of bone of 1 by 1 inch, and he observes the typical mammals ear anatomy, his first response will be: "it's a mammal". When he also has one other part of that fossil at hand, say, the ankle bone and this bone has a typical double bulged, distal ends unique for artiodactyls, he also knows it actually is an artiodactyl.

So let's put the pieces of the puzzle together. The point of transitional fossils is that they have unique traits of two taxa of organisms. For instance Archaeopteryx had clear, unique traits that makes it a bird. Because such traits are only found in birds. So Archaeopteryx WAS a bird. When creationists in their glorious and blissful ignorance cry victory and state "Archaeopteryx is just a bird", paleontologists just shrug their shoulders and continue their course.

The point is that Archaeopteryx also had clear traits that are unique for dinosaurs. By the dozens. Archaeopteryx therefore is classified within the clade of dinosaurs. It was a dinosaur. Birds are dinosaurs. They belong to the avian dinosaurs. That's there taxonomic classification. Birds are also reptiles, because all dinosaurs belong to the order of reptiles. Dinosaurs and birds are reptiles. Because dinos, birds and reptiles share a set of traits that are not found in any other group of animals, for instance the mammals.

This is called nested hierarchy. So not just "similarities".

Archaeopteryx had a mix of unique bird traits and unique dinosaur traits. Many of those dinosaur traits are meanwhilst lost in modern birds. And we have a fossil record of subsequent birds after Archaeopteryx where we gradually observe ever more dinosaur traits getting lost.

And we also have a neat fossil record of theropod dinosaurs gradually becoming ever more "birdish".

The question arises in my mind 'what would Adam or Noah have looked like, regardless of if they had modern DNA'? Also 'How in tarnaion would you know'? Ha.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea how two individuals looked like who didn't exist at all. It's genetically entirely impossible that the whole of humankind descended from only two individuals 6000 years ago. I am not interested in fantasies except it's an enjoyable SF movie.

Well, OK, a guess. Fine. If you are correct, I guess we would classify Flores man as a modern DNA man. Meanwhile, I guess we really do not know at all.

If any, I implied the very opposite. The current evidence indicates that Floresiensis do not belong to the hominins (human-likes) but are more closely to the pithecines (ape-likes).

The problem with science gawking at a bunch of skulls is that they have no idea what they are looking at.

This is simply not true. The problem is that you have not the slightest clue about what paleontology actually is about. You are simply not in the position of commenting on paleontology. To be entitled to criticize things, you must be knowledgable about it. Otherwise you are a deceiver.

Some might be animals..apes monkeys etc. Some might be post flood man. Some might be early post flood/pre nature change man.

Poor science, it really is pitiful how ignorant and muddled they are. I can't say I feel sorry for them though, since their godless methodology was bound to lead them to a horrible dark swamp.
I agree that a lot of evolving happened. The thing is that most of it, and all the important evolving all happened in the former nature which means it was fast. Not like the slow evolving of the current nature. The other thing is, it all started form creation, not some comet or swamp or vent under the sea. So merely mouthing the words evolved does not help your religion (that you thought was part of actual science).

Dishonest tattle by a layman who has no idea what he is blabbing about, no less.

Also note the pointless handwaving without any details or explanations or observational evidence. Just

A good example of not knowing.

A good example of someone who knows he's busted and can't address the factual arguments and the factual evidence presented and whom is left nothing but irrelevant and lame platitudes like "not knowing".

From a scientific POV human evolution is a theory (in the scientific sense) that makes predictions. In order to human evolution being true, we must observe transitional forms that still are much ape-like but also already have some typical human traits, right? For instance, we want to find a creature that still has typical pithecine-like traits like a protruding muzzle, sloped forehead, long arms that must have been very strong, shorter legs and, say, hals the cranial volume humans have. On the other hand there must be also clearly typical traits found back in such creature. Like walking upright and having quite human-like feet and hands and body build.

That's what we want to find back in the fosiil record, a transitional species. And we did, I just described Habilis.

And you have nothing to argue against that.

Leakey believed

that habilis was a direct human ancestor, with erectus out of the picture. While H. habilis is a generally accepted species, the opinion that it was a direct human ancestor seems to be in question. There are now at least two species of early Homo (whether habilis and rudolfensis or an undescribed species) living prior to 2.0 myr. In addition, H. erectus (which is almost universally accepted as a direct human ancestor) continues to be pushed further back into the paleontological record, making it possible that it is the first Homo ancestor of modern humans.

Other problems include that some people see KNM-ER 1813 as a near perfect erectus, except for its small brain and size. It could be an erectus that was at the small scale of a wide variation of traits, or it may belong to ergaster, which some believe to be the ancestor of erectus. The questions are far from solved, and new specimens are needed. Homo habilis may be a direct human ancestor, a dead-end side-branch that leads nowhere, an invalid species whose designated examples belong in other species, or Wolpoff may be right, and all these species are basically part of one highly variable widespread species."

http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/

Now isn't that lovely, all the quarrel among creationists (and paleontologists) about Erectus being a true human while others say it certainly was just an ape. I LOVE IT. Because ambiguous fossils testify of evolution. When evolution is true, we must find transitional fossils that combine traits of the ancestral forms and descendant forms. And often they are so mixed up, you really can't tell the difference. Transitional fossils are often extremely difficult to classify. Thanks for pointing out to that.

 

[dad]

No, not just "comparison" of how (much) they are just "lookalikes". All groups of organisms (whether on the level of species, genera, families, orders, classes or even phyla or kingdoms) have unique traits. Otherwise it wouldn't be impossible to tell them apart as different taxa in the first place.

I suggest that regardless of DNA, traits would exist, whether from different nature DNA or present nature DNA.

Mammals have unique traits that tells them apart from other animals, for instance (but far from alone) the anatomy of the inner ear. So if a paleontologist receives only a small, seemingly insignificant part of some skull with the ear region still exact, maybe only a tiny piece of bone of 1 by 1 inch, and he observes the typical mammals ear anatomy, his first response will be: "it's a mammal". When he also has one other part of that fossil at hand, say, the ankle bone and this bone has a typical double bulged, distal ends unique for artiodactyls, he also knows it actually is an artiodactyl.

Nothing to do with telling is what DNA was like if the animal was from long ago where we can get no DNA.

As for your preferred grouping of types of creatures together....sorry. No. The resons for grouping are not really so good.

So let's put the pieces of the puzzle together. The point of transitional fossils is that they have unique traits of two taxa of organisms. For instance Archaeopteryx had clear, unique traits that makes it a bird. Because such traits are only found in birds. So Archaeopteryx WAS a bird. When creationists in their glorious and blissful ignorance cry victory and state "Archaeopteryx is just a bird", paleontologists just shrug their shoulders and continue their course.

For all I know birds did change/adapt/evolve into dinos, and maybe back to birds in some cases again! Rapidly. All from the created kind of birds. That would not help your belief set. The problem is that we do not know in cases of what you call transitional fossils, whether there was similar created kinds, or whether the created kind did evolve!

This is called nested hierarchy. So not just "similarities".

Well, the reasons for the similarities/nesting is what matters. You simply try to cram it all into your religious reasons of godless evolution of life on earth.

Archaeopteryx had a mix of unique bird traits and unique dinosaur traits. Many of those dinosaur traits are meanwhilst lost in modern birds. And we have a fossil record of subsequent birds after Archaeopteryx where we gradually observe ever more dinosaur traits getting lost.

Precisly as we would expect if the birds rapidly evolved in the former nature! Or what we would expect if God created similar creatures. In any case, there is zero need to default to your beliefs.

I have no idea how two individuals looked like who didn't exist at all.

You have no way to declare they never lived actually. None at all.

It's genetically entirely impossible that the whole of humankind descended from only two individuals 6000 years ago.

It is only impossible with present nature genetics. That means squat unless there was one and you certainly cannot prove there was! All is lost for your case. I am not interested in fantasies except it's an enjoyable movie.

If any, I implied the very opposite. The current evidence indicates that Floresiensis do not belong to the hominins (human-likes) but are more closely to the pithecines (ape-likes).

Meaningless if you go just by the body features. Who knows what early post flood man could have looked like? Have you some reason to claim he was not a man??

This is simply not true. The problem is that you have not the slightest clue about what paleontology actually is about. You are simply not in the position of commenting on paleontology. To be entitled to criticize things, you must be knowledgable about it. Otherwise you are a deceiver.

Paleontology is a belief based deception. It is simply in no position to comment on origins.

A good example of someone who knows he's busted and can't address the factual arguments and the factual evidence presented and whom is left nothing but irrelevant and lame platitudes like "not knowing".

As much as you may think factual arguments consist of your religious twaddle, sorry. No.

From a scientific POV human evolution is a theory (in the scientific sense) that makes predictions. In order to human evolution being true, we must observe transitional forms that still are much ape-like but also already have some typical human traits, right? For instance, we want to find a creature that still has typical pithecine-like traits like a protruding muzzle, sloped forehead, long arms that must have been very strong, shorter legs and, say, hals the cranial volume humans have. On the other hand there must be also clearly typical traits found back in such creature. Like walking upright and having quite human-like feet and hands and body build.

The darkness of your godless methodology and belief set is that you seize on the unknown (example some skull we don't know was from a man or ape or etc) and insert your religion as if it were more than belief only.

Now isn't that lovely, all the quarrel among creationists (and paleontologists) about Erectus being a true human while others say it certainly was just an ape. I LOVE IT.

I am not sure anyone much cares what it was. The thing that matters is you claiming something one way or the other based on squat.

Because ambiguous fossils testify of evolution. When evolution is true, we must find transitional fossils that combine traits of the ancestral forms and descendant forms. And often they are so mixed up, you really can't tell the difference.

When creation and a former nature is true we must find them also. Get in line.

Transitional fossils are often extremely difficult to classify. Thanks for pointing out to that.

Difficult for your religion. Not mine.

 

[FredVB]

"I was showing there is good basis to seriously expect DNA to have been in the living beings, that might just not have been found in fossils of them yet, and no basis to figure that there wouldn't be any or anything that would work as what is seen in today's genetics, except for some assumptions to make.

"If DNA is not found in an old life form that is recovered, it would not mean there was no DNA in it. Nucleic acid is universal to all physically living things that are known, and there is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be without it, especially if they are in the same family with others that definitely do have it.

"That no DNA had yet been recovered, which is all I found about this "Flores man" DNA, does not mean the same thing as that no DNA can be found, whatever they do to find DNA. How easy is it, would you say, to recover DNA from fossils? It would depend on how much mineral replacement had happened, wouldn't it? So you just have assumptions, without basis that I see, that there must be changes in "forces and nature", that there are to explain that DNA cannot be found in those fossils, which I find wasn't said. And I stated my reason to doubt there is such change. There is change in the world, but that happens without changes in the forces being needed to explain that. It would be something extra to invoke, that I don't see basis for."

Your opinion of what there is or is not reason to believe. Sorry...you need more than opinion.

But it is not merely opinion. There is a logical approach that you are missing. If all living and many that are deceased including the fossilized have recognizable DNA which enables processes for life, and there is no known basis to conclude there is change of physical forces, when DNA has not yet been recovered from a fossil, it would be expected that the creature still had the DNA for it, and in some cases DNA could yet still be recovered.

If none has been found, we might suspect none could be found actually. If some was found, well, then we might suspect some was there!
Meanwhile, we don't know.

But we have basis to expect. You do not show there is basis to conclude there are changes in physical forces to explain that DNA would not be there, when DNA is not recovered. And whenever it would be recovered, it shoots that thinking out of the water. Why not support argument with much more basis? People here argue against God even being there, and we have strong basis to argue against their position, and for the resurrection.

The problem is there is no need to invoke a same nature in the past either. So why would we care what anyone invoked? The issue is what is known.

But having the same forces that there are is not invoking them, you would need sure basis for concluding convincingly that forces have been changing, instead of saying there was according to missing things that may yet be found.

"Eating just from edible vegetation is the perfect design for us, and Yahweh's perfect will for us, there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that, as it was in the beginning, and the animals will then as well."

Yet we got told it was cool to eat flesh after the flood. So why would I think just veggies were best for us now?

There was permission but not anything said to make it "cool". It doesn't make anything better, it wasn't in the perfect design.

"I believe in eternity after this, but it will be put into doubt, as the physicality of all that eternity to come, which I believe in, would be put to serious doubt, if physical laws have all been changing, so that they would then keep changing, and nothing would be stable. But I see there is design with no basis for physical laws changing, which isn't needed. Except for certain assumptions that might be made, but those assumptions aren't needed.

"It is not all spiritual ultimately with nothing physical, I see the promises for eternity for the redeemed along with the restored creation being with what is physical, while all is submitted with the spiritual. And the physical won't have anything unstable about it."

How about atoms? Unstable atoms are what cause decay, if I recall, no? You think there will be a change in the fundamental forces in the future?

If you are right that physical forces change, all atoms would be unstable. I don't think that, I am sure it isn't the case. Believers have eternity assured to them. So physical forces don't change. And if those who expect that protons decay are right, there will be no such eternity.

 

[FredVB]

"Eating just from edible vegetation is the perfect design for us, and Yahweh's perfect will for us, there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that, as it was in the beginning, and the animals will then as well."

Yet we got told it was cool to eat flesh after the flood. So why would I think just veggies were best for us now?

"There was permission but not anything said to make it "cool". It doesn't make anything better, it wasn't in the perfect design."

This permission that gets cited ignores a lot. It moves away from the topic, but you did mention something involving this to start with, and questioned my statement that just eating from vegetation edible for us is of the perfect design. So I can completely defend that, such that it can't be shown to be otherwise, should there be any tempting inclination to do so. Genesis 1:29 shows Yahweh permitting what would be for food, it was this way at least for about sixteen hundred years. When the flood happened globally and Noah and his family got out of the ark when the animals had been released from it, could they have still had that way of eating? Hardly anything would be growing for that. But what then did God permit? It was meat permitted from animals, as the edible vegetation had been permitted all along, and it wasn't required to have it, but what was permitted was only that which was without abuse to animals and no blood in the meat that would be prepared. Who is obeying that permission? You? I said there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that. The best health from whole plant-based food is very well established, conclusively, that can be shown at length. Would God not want that with God's perfect will? I am sure God would. Besides problems to health that are definitely linked to continued use of animal products, a great amount more of resources including land for feed, and water, are used up for continued breeding of animals kept in confined conditions for slaughter for use to us privileged humans, while all the resources could be going to growing more food that would feed starving people, which would save human lives, while those of the privileged people who get enough food, but are eating animal products, and processed foods, are getting heart attacks and strokes from clogging arteries, cancers, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and any of many other problems. The environments are being severely diminished with this, also the oceans are being depleted. The waste and emissions from animal agriculture with all the animals bred for human use are enormous, with affecting this world with ruining environments and contributing hugely to greenhouse gases.

 

[dad]

"I was showing there is good basis to seriously expect DNA to have been in the living beings, that might just not have been found in fossils of them yet, and no basis to figure that there wouldn't be any or anything that would work as what is seen in today's genetics, except for some assumptions to make.

You really haven't shown good basis for a same nature in the past. You have shown that you believe it was the same without any proof.

"If DNA is not found in an old life form that is recovered, it would not mean there was no DNA in it.

Or that there was.

Nucleic acid is universal to all physically living things that are known, and there is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be without it, especially if they are in the same family with others that definitely do have it.

Lots of things may have been available in the previous nature. The question is what was used...then. Not now.

"That no DNA had yet been recovered, which is all I found about this "Flores man" DNA, does not mean the same thing as that no DNA can be found, whatever they do to find DNA.

It means there was none that we know of.

How easy is it, would you say, to recover DNA from fossils?

It would be a lot harder for older fossils from a former nature where there may never may have been modern DNA.

It would depend on how much mineral replacement had happened, wouldn't it?

No. That only applies if there is the current laws/nature, and also if there was modern DNA there to start with at all.

So you just have assumptions, without basis that I see, that there must be changes in "forces and nature", that there are to explain that DNA cannot be found in those fossils, which I find wasn't said.

So you just have assumptions, without basis that I see, that there must have been NO be changes in "forces and nature", that there are to explain that DNA cannot be found in those fossils, which I find wasn't said.

And I stated my reason to doubt there is such change. There is change in the world, but that happens without changes in the forces being needed to explain that. It would be something extra to invoke, that I don't see basis for."

You are not in a position to invoke a same state past.

But it is not merely opinion. There is a logical approach that you are missing. If all living and many that are deceased including the fossilized have recognizable DNA which enables processes for life, and there is no known basis to conclude there is change of physical forces, when DNA has not yet been recovered from a fossil, it would be expected that the creature still had the DNA for it, and in some cases DNA could yet still be recovered.

Meaningless if all the DNA we have found is from this nature.

That says nothing about what was from the previous nature.

But we have basis to expect.

None.

You do not show there is basis to conclude there are changes in physical forces to explain that DNA would not be there, when DNA is not recovered

You do not show there is basis to conclude there are no changes in physical forces to explain that DNA would be there, when DNA is not recovered!

. And whenever it would be recovered, it shoots that thinking out of the water.

Well, if you ever reached the point of knowing and having some evidence rather than belief, then we could list the sample with present nature man DNA. Till then, obviously, no way.

Why not support argument with much more basis? People here argue against God even being there, and we have strong basis to argue against their position, and for the resurrection.

There is no basis for a same nature in the past. Why would I support some imaginary past that disagrees with the reality of Scripture?

But having the same forces that there are is not invoking them, you would need sure basis for concluding convincingly that forces have been changing, instead of saying there was according to missing things that may yet be found.

You need basis to claim nature was the same.

"Eating just from edible vegetation is the perfect design for us, and Yahweh's perfect will for us, there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that, as it was in the beginning, and the animals will then as well."

Yet meat is allowed and seemingly quite good for man in this nature.

"I believe in eternity after this, but it will be put into doubt, as the physicality of all that eternity to come, which I believe in, would be put to serious doubt, if physical laws have all been changing, so that they would then keep changing, and nothing would be stable. But I see there is design with no basis for physical laws changing, which isn't needed. Except for certain assumptions that might be made, but those assumptions aren't needed.

Eternal life requires different laws.

"It is not all spiritual ultimately with nothing physical, I see the promises for eternity for the redeemed along with the restored creation being with what is physical, while all is submitted with the spiritual. And the physical won't have anything unstable about it."

There is more than just physical involved, there is spiritual also in the future. God and angels live here too.

If you are right that physical forces change, all atoms would be unstable.

No. The change did leave some unstable though which is why I think we now have radioactive decay.

I don't think that, I am sure it isn't the case. Believers have eternity assured to them. So physical forces don't change. And if those who expect that protons decay are right, there will be no such eternity.

Who really cares what ignorant man expects?

 

[FredVB]

FredVB: "I was showing there is good basis to seriously expect DNA to have been in the living beings, that might just not have been found in fossils of them yet, and no basis to figure that there wouldn't be any or anything that would work as what is seen in today's genetics, except for some assumptions to make."

You really haven't shown good basis for a same nature in the past. You have shown that you believe it was the same without any proof.

You continue to ignore the logic, with concluding what isn't found in one case proves that forces change to account for DNA as we know it not ever being present. There are no ideas of how that could even work. But there aren't other things to give any support to thinking the forces have been changing.

"If DNA is not found in an old life form that is recovered, it would not mean there was no DNA in it. Nucleic acid is universal to all physically living things that are known, and there is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be without it, especially if they are in the same family with others that definitely do have it."

"That no DNA had yet been recovered, which is all I found about this "Flores man" DNA, does not mean the same thing as that no DNA can be found, whatever they do to find DNA. How easy is it, would you say, to recover DNA from fossils? It would depend on how much mineral replacement had happened, wouldn't it? So you just have assumptions, without basis that I see, that there must be changes in "forces and nature", that there are to explain that DNA cannot be found in those fossils, which I find wasn't said. And I stated my reason to doubt there is such change. There is change in the world, but that happens without changes in the forces being needed to explain that. It would be something extra to invoke, that I don't see basis for."

Lots of things may have been available in the previous nature. The question is what was used...then. Not now.

If something was that different in previous times, there would be real evidence of that. Something hard to find that isn't yet found isn't such evidence. Why are you not talking about other fossils?

"But it is not merely opinion. There is a logical approach that you are missing. If all living and many that are deceased including the fossilized have recognizable DNA which enables processes for life, and there is no known basis to conclude there is change of physical forces, when DNA has not yet been recovered from a fossil, it would be expected that the creature still had the DNA for it, and in some cases DNA could yet still be recovered.

"But we have basis to expect. You do not show there is basis to conclude there are changes in physical forces to explain that DNA would not be there, when DNA is not recovered. And whenever it would be recovered, it shoots that thinking out of the water. Why not support argument with much more basis? People here argue against God even being there, and we have strong basis to argue against their position, and for the resurrection.

"But having the same forces that there are is not invoking them, you would need sure basis for concluding convincingly that forces have been changing, instead of saying there was according to missing things that may yet be found."

"I believe in eternity after this, but it will be put into doubt, as the physicality of all that eternity to come, which I believe in, would be put to serious doubt, if physical laws have all been changing, so that they would then keep changing, and nothing would be stable. But I see there is design with no basis for physical laws changing, which isn't needed. Except for certain assumptions that might be made, but those assumptions aren't needed.

"It is not all spiritual ultimately with nothing physical, I see the promises for eternity for the redeemed along with the restored creation being with what is physical, while all is submitted with the spiritual. And the physical won't have anything unstable about it."

"If you are right that physical forces change, all atoms would be unstable. I don't think that, I am sure it isn't the case. Believers have eternity assured to them. So physical forces don't change. And if those who expect that protons decay are right, there will be no such eternity."

"Eating just from edible vegetation is the perfect design for us, and Yahweh's perfect will for us, there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that, as it was in the beginning, and the animals will then as well."

"There was permission but not anything said to make it "cool". It doesn't make anything better, it wasn't in the perfect design."

"This permission that gets cited ignores a lot. It moves away from the topic, but you did mention something involving this to start with, and questioned my statement that just eating from vegetation edible for us is of the perfect design. So I can completely defend that, such that it can't be shown to be otherwise, should there be any tempting inclination to do so. Genesis 1:29 shows Yahweh permitting what would be for food, it was this way at least for about sixteen hundred years. When the flood happened globally and Noah and his family got out of the ark when the animals had been released from it, could they have still had that way of eating? Hardly anything would be growing for that. But what then did God permit? It was meat permitted from animals, as the edible vegetation had been permitted all along, and it wasn't required to have it, but what was permitted was only that which was without abuse to animals and no blood in the meat that would be prepared. Who is obeying that permission? You? I said there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that. The best health from whole plant-based food is very well established, conclusively, that can be shown at length. Would God not want that with God's perfect will? I am sure God would. Besides problems to health that are definitely linked to continued use of animal products, a great amount more of resources including land for feed, and water, are used up for continued breeding of animals kept in confined conditions for slaughter for use to us privileged humans, while all the resources could be going to growing more food that would feed starving people, which would save human lives, while those of the privileged people who get enough food, but are eating animal products, and processed foods, are getting heart attacks and strokes from clogging arteries, cancers, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and any of many other problems. The environments are being severely diminished with this, also the oceans are being depleted. The waste and emissions from animal agriculture with all the animals bred for human use are enormous, with affecting this world with ruining environments and contributing hugely to greenhouse gases."

So you just have assumptions, without basis that I see, that there must have been NO changes in "forces and nature", that there are to explain that DNA cannot be found in those fossils, which I find wasn't said.

You are not in a position to invoke a same state past.

Meaningless if all the DNA we have found is from this nature.

That says nothing about what was from the previous nature.

You do not show there is basis to conclude there are no changes in physical forces to explain that DNA would be there, when DNA is not recovered!

Well, if you ever reached the point of knowing and having some evidence rather than belief, then we could list the sample with present nature man DNA. Till then, obviously, no way.

There is no basis for a same nature in the past. Why would I support some imaginary past that disagrees with the reality of Scripture?

You need basis to claim nature was the same.

Yet meat is allowed and seemingly quite good for man in this nature.


Eternal life requires different laws.
There is more than just physical involved, there is spiritual also in the future. God and angels live here too.
No. The change did leave some unstable though which is why I think we now have radioactive decay.
Who really cares what ignorant man expects?

You do not have better bases, making assumptions yourself.

Permission being given in a specific situation, with requirements that you do not obey at all, does not make it all fine.

 

[dad]

FredVB: "I was showing there is good basis to seriously expect DNA to have been in the living beings, that might just not have been found in fossils of them yet, and no basis to figure that there wouldn't be any or anything that would work as what is seen in today's genetics, except for some assumptions to make."

That basis is that nature now has DNA of a certain type, and you want to claim it always was the same nature. That is belief, not basis.

You continue to ignore the logic, with concluding what isn't found in one case proves that forces change to account for DNA as we know it not ever being present. There are no ideas of how that could even work. But there aren't other things to give any support to thinking the forces have been changing.

Yes there are many other things, such as history and Scripture. Since science doesn't know either way it is sidelined on the issue.
I did not conclude that Flores man was pre present nature or not. I simply pointed out that the evidence of DNA if found, would place him in the proper category. So far, none was found, so how can we make any claim?

"If DNA is not found in an old life form that is recovered, it would not mean there was no DNA in it.

..Or that there was.

Nucleic acid is universal to all physically living things that are known,

That says nothing about what is not known. The issue is not what is alive today or in the recent past.

and there is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be without it, especially if they are in the same family with others that definitely do have it."

There is no basis to say that there are any living things that would be with it, especially if they are in the far past when we do not now it existed the same.

"That no DNA had yet been recovered, which is all I found about this "Flores man" DNA, does not mean the same thing as that no DNA can be found, whatever they do to find DNA. How easy is it, would you say, to recover DNA from fossils? It would depend on how much mineral replacement had happened, wouldn't it? So you just have assumptions, without basis that I see, that there must be changes in "forces and nature", that there are to explain that DNA cannot be found in those fossils, which I find wasn't said. And I stated my reason to doubt there is such change. There is change in the world, but that happens without changes in the forces being needed to explain that. It would be something extra to invoke, that I don't see basis for."

The issue is not 'how hard would it be to find/preserve present nature DNA IN the present nature'!!

If something was that different in previous times, there would be real evidence of that. Something hard to find that isn't yet found isn't such evidence. Why are you not talking about other fossils?

I am. I do not think the current nature existed in the time when dinos lived for example.

"
Still, it's unclear just how long DNA can survive.

Scientists have proposed that DNA can survive as long as a million years, but definitely not more than 5 million or 6 million years, Schweitzer said. That's woefully short of 65 million years ago, when the asteroid slammed into Earth and killed the nonavian dinosaurs.

However, more experiments are needed to determine how long, and in what conditions, DNA can survive, Schweitzer said.

Moreover, don't expect a "Jurassic Park" twist to work. In the 1993 blockbuster, scientists find dinosaur DNA in an ancient mosquito caught in amber. But amber, it turns out, does not preserve DNA well. Researchers tried to extract DNA from two stingless bees preserved in copal, a precursor of amber, in a 2013 study published in the journal PLOS ONE.

The researchers couldn't find any "convincing evidence for the preservation of ancient DNA" in either of the two copal samples they studied, and they concluded that "DNA is not preserved in this type of material," they wrote in the study.

They added, "Our results raise further doubts about claims of DNA extraction from fossil insects in amber, many millions of years older than copal." [What If a Giant Asteroid Had Not Wiped Out the Dinosaurs?]"

https://www.livescience.com/54574-can-we-clone-dinosaurs.html

"But it is not merely opinion. There is a logical approach that you are missing. If all living and many that are deceased including the fossilized have recognizable DNA which enables processes for life, and there is no known basis to conclude there is change of physical forces, when DNA has not yet been recovered from a fossil, it would be expected that the creature still had the DNA for it, and in some cases DNA could yet still be recovered.

No fossilized DNA from the time of the flood or before exists apparently at all. ( My current opinion of when the flood happened is about 4500 real years ago, or about 70,000,000 so called science imaginary years ago). ( I deduce the nature change happened a century or so after the flood)

"But we have basis to expect. You do not show there is basis to conclude there are changes in physical forces to explain that DNA would not be there, when DNA is not recovered. And whenever it would be recovered, it shoots that thinking out of the water. Why not support argument with much more basis? People here argue against God even being there, and we have strong basis to argue against their position, and for the resurrection.

The issue then is what evidence exists for the claim that nature or the forces and laws we know today, being the same in the early fossil record.

So....have any?

"But having the same forces that there are is not invoking them, you would need sure basis for concluding convincingly that forces have been changing, instead of saying there was according to missing things that may yet be found."

You need sound basis for any claim you make including that nature was the same. Says who? The bible? No. History? No. Science? No...they do not know. Who does that leave?

"I believe in eternity after this, but it will be put into doubt, as the physicality of all that eternity to come, which I believe in, would be put to serious doubt, if physical laws have all been changing, so that they would then keep changing, and nothing would be stable. But I see there is design with no basis for physical laws changing, which isn't needed. Except for certain assumptions that might be made, but those assumptions aren't needed.

"It is not all spiritual ultimately with nothing physical, I see the promises for eternity for the redeemed along with the restored creation being with what is physical, while all is submitted with the spiritual. And the physical won't have anything unstable about it."

"If you are right that physical forces change, all atoms would be unstable. I don't think that, I am sure it isn't the case. Believers have eternity assured to them. So physical forces don't change. And if those who expect that protons decay are right, there will be no such eternity."

God is in control of nature. Both now and in the future and in the far past. He changes not. It is not that nature changes on it's own in some fluke happenstance. God tweaks things as needed for any particular time of man.

"This permission that gets cited ignores a lot. It moves away from the topic, but you did mention something involving this to start with, and questioned my statement that just eating from vegetation edible for us is of the perfect design. So I can completely defend that, such that it can't be shown to be otherwise, should there be any tempting inclination to do so. Genesis 1:29 shows Yahweh permitting what would be for food, it was this way at least for about sixteen hundred years. When the flood happened globally and Noah and his family got out of the ark when the animals had been released from it, could they have still had that way of eating? Hardly anything would be growing for that.

I disagree. God planted a garden and trees were bearing fruit that week. Noah sent out a bird, and no trees were found the bird returned. In another week, there was trees. The former nature still existed after the flood for quite a while. Sp grasses and trees etc could grow super super super fast. Lots of food around for all.

But what then did God permit? It was meat permitted from animals, as the edible vegetation had been permitted all along, and it wasn't required to have it, but what was permitted was only that which was without abuse to animals and no blood in the meat that would be prepared. Who is obeying that permission? You? I said there is the best health for us with that, without problems that there are otherwise, because of it, and we are to return to that. The best health from whole plant-based food is very well established, conclusively, that can be shown at length.

You think meat is a killer?

Would God not want that with God's perfect will?

After the return of Christ to earth in His kingdom here, lions will again eat grass, wolves also. Etc. Then we will return to the original perfection intended. Meanwhile in this present nature, a little meat seems to do me well.

I am sure God would. Besides problems to health that are definitely linked to continued use of animal products, a great amount more of resources including land for feed, and water, are used up for continued breeding of animals kept in confined conditions for slaughter for use to us privileged humans, while all the resources could be going to growing more food that would feed starving people, which would save human lives, while those of the privileged people who get enough food, but are eating animal products, and processed foods, are getting heart attacks and strokes from clogging arteries, cancers, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and any of many other problems. The environments are being severely diminished with this, also the oceans are being depleted. The waste and emissions from animal agriculture with all the animals bred for human use are enormous, with affecting this world with ruining environments and contributing hugely to greenhouse gases."

Plants will again grow fast in the Millennium..no starving then at all. Even today I hear that most of the poverty on earth is due to greed and sin of man..no?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Good points. If they have DNA I guess they are modern man.

guys . . . guys . . . every living thing on earth we know of has DNA except some viruses.

 

[dad]

guys . . . guys . . . every living thing on earth we know of has DNA except some viruses.

What you know, of course is limited to the recent past...so how about the dino age?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What you know, of course is limited to the recent past...so how about the dino age?

DNA from those fossils millions of years ago has degraded and is unrecoverable. But all life today came from that life then and the idea of DNA not being present then would not make any sense at all.