PROVE EVOLUTION

[Justme]

Hi Driven,

There is a huge difference between variation and evolution.

Is there? First, we are just using this term 'variation' that you tossed out. In the instance of the dandelion it is a geneological change in that plant. Have you heard of genetically altered wheat or potatoes? Where geneologists alter the makeup of a species so that a chemical will wipe out all greenery EXCEPT the preferred grain or the potatoe is ignored by the beetle. That makeup in the plant occurs within nature as well as in the instance of chemical resistance. NO, that is not the same plant! If it was the same plant it would not be chemically resistant. Don't you want to refer to a million such changes over time as evolution? Fine, call it variation. Who cares, it is six of one and a half dozen of the other, no matter what you call it, hee hee, sometimes I even call it creation, because in the ultimate end that is what it is.

The same bones, bone structure, organs and organ structure are present in weenie dogs and great danes. They are both still dogs.

Back to that Sugar Maple chasing sabre tooth.............Show me that same TOOTH structure on today's big cats. Show me the same bone structure that existed in homo erectus, show me the same organ, meaning stomach, that was a carnivore that couldn't eat meat in Genesis 1, yet survived to this day according to those who disallow evolving, show me the same organ stucture of the Neanderthal man which would allow the present day brain to fit in his cranium.

Evolution says new species will originate from other species

Evolution says species evolve, that is what all my examples show you. The former species changes over time to adapt to habitat, environment etc. Did you think that the human just instantly sprang forth from an ancient ape or something?

As long as this theory has been around, there is still no proof. I've never seen it and my granddad never saw it.

I hate to tell you this, but you can't prove creation either. However, there is little doubt scientifically and logically that evolution occurs. Evolution is the miraculous tool with which God created Heaven and earth and all things on it. If not, what method would you say He used? Abra cadabra, mixing of ptions or the old favorite, wand waving? Oh, and provide proof for your answer.

It does not happen. Never has, never will. If you can proove it I know where you can get $250,000.

Are you talking about Hovind?

What is the pricetag on PROVING creation?

Justme

​

 

[Mirror]

Back to that Sugar Maple chasing sabre tooth.............Show me that same TOOTH structure on today's big cats. Show me the same bone structure that existed in homo erectus, show me the same organ, meaning stomach, that was a carnivore that couldn't eat meat in Genesis 1, yet survived to this day according to those who disallow evolving, show me the same organ stucture of the Neanderthal man which would allow the present day brain to fit in his cranium.

Hi Justme,
In the Bible it says that Noah took with him 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal. wouldnt it be possible that the sugar Maple chasing saber tooth was not one of either of those animals. In which case it would have then become extinct.leaving only its closets "cousins" to live.that would explain y there are no "big cats" with that same structure.

P.S. oh and uh what do you think would happen if the government were to release all of Gentry's papers?

 

[DRIVEN]

Hi Driven,



[/size][/color][/font]
Back to that Sugar Maple chasing sabre tooth.............Show me that same TOOTH structure on today's big cats.

Justme

​

The Saber tooth is extinct.

 

[Justme]

Hi Mirror,

In which case it would have then become extinct.leaving only its closets "cousins" to live.that would explain y there are no "big cats" with that same structure.

You are half way there my child! Praise the Lord.

Edit: I forgot this part:

P.S. oh and uh what do you think would happen if the government were to release all of Gentry's papers?

I wasn't aware that the gov't had seized any of Gentry's papers.

Justme

 

[Justme]

Hi Driven,

The Saber tooth is extinct.

Yea, I know and so is the T-Rex and so is the cro-magnan. The T-Rex was wiped out in some massive calamity, but the Cro-magnan man continued on thru history, slowly changing in appearance until now he looks like ...well, the cro-magnan now looks like you and I do. A thousand years from now man may have a larger head and bigger squarish eyes or somehing...the square eyes the result of constantly looking at computer screens...or maybe not. The result of adaption to environmental pressures will cause some changes and that is what we call evolution.

Did you ever look into the Hawaii example?

This isn't really rocket surgery we're dealing with here.

If you want creation to have happened in six literal days it ewould mean that all thoise species would have to be created on the same day.

Genesis 1 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

It is easy to explain that some animals became extinct, but now we have to explain the animals that are here on earth now that were not on earth then.

That would be those pesky carnivores that God forbid to eat meat. They could not have survived so they obviously appeared later, hence, out the window goes the literal meaning of evening and morning of the whatever day.

Now the next thing is do you people ever answer any of my questions or do you just keeping asking of me.

One of my questions was this:

***********************
I hate to tell you this, but you can't prove creation either. However, there is little doubt scientifically and logically that evolution occurs. Evolution is the miraculous tool with which God created Heaven and earth and all things on it. If not, what method would you say He used? Abra cadabra, mixing of ptions or the old favorite, wand waving? Oh, and provide proof for your answer.
***********************************

What's your answer?

Justme

 

[DRIVEN]

Hi Driven
Back to that Sugar Maple chasing sabre tooth.............Show me that same TOOTH structure on today's big cats. Show me the same bone structure that existed in homo erectus, show me the same organ, meaning stomach, that was a carnivore that couldn't eat meat in Genesis 1, yet survived to this day according to those who disallow evolving,

Human stomachs can digest both meat and plants. If complete nutrition could easily be had from plants alone(as was the case pre flood), then why chase prey? And since you brought up stomachs,
Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

 

[DRIVEN]

Hi Driven

Evolution says species evolve, that is what all my examples show you. The former species changes over time to adapt to habitat, environment etc. Did you think that the human just instantly sprang forth from an ancient ape or something?

You haven't shown me any examples of anything evolving. Evolution says species evolve into new species and that all animals and plants have a common ancestor. All the crossbreeding we've done with domestic dogs has yet to create a new species. And no we did not instantly spring forth from an ancient ape(thats what evolutionists believe). The only relation i have with an ape is we have the same creator.

 

[DRIVEN]

Justme
I'm sure many animals became extinct due to the climate change after the flood. Every animal here now was here before the flood.

As far as Hawaii goes it would depend on the year. Some years none is probably added, some years some is taken away, and some years a whole new island could be added. Whats your point please?

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that God could have created everything in one day if he desired.

Already covered that "carnivores" could catch a plant and wouldn't bother to chase prey if their nutrition was complete.

And no you can't prove either. What would be the fun in that? God definitely wants to keep us challenged.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion. I'm leaving tomorrow for Christmas vacation so i may not post for a while. Until then a very merry Christ filled Christmas to all.

 

[notto]

You haven't shown me any examples of anything evolving. Evolution says species evolve into new species and that all animals and plants have a common ancestor. All the crossbreeding we've done with domestic dogs has yet to create a new species. And no we did not instantly spring forth from an ancient ape(thats what evolutionists believe). The only relation i have with an ape is we have the same creator.

Where do you think dogs came from?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

A few points.

It's asked how we can square evolution with:

factorem coeli et terrae et omnium visibilium et invisibilium

Answer - what is the difficulty?

Question: Who created the universe
Answer: God did

Question: How did He do it from a scientific frame of reference?
Answer: Ask a cosmologist, an earth scientist and a biologist.

It was asked whether an organism had been observed that was different from its parents in a positive way - well, yes. An obvious example is the bacterium that through a frame shift mutation gained the ability to digest nylon. It's actually pretty easy to do - get a bunch of bacteria that can't digest say lactose, put them in a lactose rich environment without much else to eat, and wait a few generations.

It was suggested that speciation has never been observed - this is also nonsense - Google is your friend - try "observed instances speciation".

Finally, no, 'evolutionists' do not believe that humans suddenly sprang from an ape. It is telling that creationists generally attack a strawman version of evolution, owing to the fact that the real one is far too solidly supported by evidence.

 

[Buck72]

I brought up this sabre tooth because it is an obvious meat eater. You will all probably know that the creatures were only allowed to eat this:

Genesis 1

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

That sabre tooth was not allowed to eat meat so how did it stay alive until God changed His mind?

There is no mention of animals, or people eating meat until after the curse in Gen 3. What we do have regarding carnivore behavior in the Millenial Kingdom is this:

Isa 11:6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them.

and...

Isa 65:25 "The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

If this is the ideal standard for the future, we could suppose it was also the way things were originally before the curse? Also, Adam had perfect relationships with the animals until the curse, now animals are afraid of man; it's the law of survival in the wild, but it was not originally that way, nor will it be that way in the future.

 

[Mirror]

That would be those pesky carnivores that God forbid to eat meat. They could not have survived so they obviously appeared later, hence, out the window goes the literal meaning of evening and morning of the whatever day

After Adam and Eve sined was when man and animal were allowed to eat meat, 'cause if God didn't allow it man and animal would have dissapeared.so that window is pretty much shut my friend.

It is easy to explain that some animals became extinct, but now we have to explain the animals that are here on earth now that were not on earth then.

how do you know that they werent here before. just because we havent found them doesnt mean that they werent there before, or that theyre new.

 

[Justme]

Hi Mirror,

how do you know that they werent here before. just because we havent found them doesnt mean that they werent there before, or that theyre new.

oKAY mirror, remember the sabre toothed tiger....you seem to recognize that such a beast existed. The sabre tooth was a carnivore.....God created animals before man.......................you said God allowed the eating of meat after Adam....hence God didn't create the sabre tooth before it could eat, if He did it evolved into a meat eater or it wasn't in the origonal creation and evolved from similar ancesters...either way you argument holds no water.

What's so difficult about all this?

Justme

 

[lucaspa]

Of all of the claimed pre-humans in our so-called evolutionary linage, a few of them should have evolved through a similar but different branch and still be with us. The branch radiating out with one limb becoming human and the other some other closely related human like animal.

You might be able to point to some fragmented skull and say, look here's an off shoot, buts that's about all she wrote. They stopped dead. Despite his newly found hands to make tools, bigger brain, speech and so on.

It appears that man’s branch on the tree has no offshoots, not even a twig.... no signs of adaptive radiation...WERE ALONE!

So I ask those that believe in evolutionism...where are our up-right cousins? Why is our closest so called cousin still a knuckle dragging chimp?

Because we -- H. sapiens -- drove all the related branches to extinction. Why? Because we are better tool-makers than they were.

Ark Guy, Neandertals -- our sister species -- and H. erectus -- another sister species -- only went extinct 20-30,000 years ago. That's a blink of geological time.

Neandertals survived in Europe until Cro-Magnon arrived about 40,000 years ago and then it took 10-20,000 years for Neandertals to go extinct, losing geographical range all the time.

Recently, an H. erectus fossil about 20,000 years old was found in Java.

H. sapiens had better stone tools than either Neandertals or erectus and neither was able to improve their tools even with contact with H. sapiens.

This is a very common trend in evolution. It applies to horses and elephants, for instance. Both were families with many more species in the recent past, but all but 2 or 3 species went extinct.

Darwin talks about this extensively in Origin. He points out that later forms will drive earlier forms to extinction simply because the later forms are better adapted.

"
This subject will be more fully discussed in our chapter on Geology; but it must here be alluded to from being intimately connected with natural selection. Natural selection acts solely through the preservation of variations in some way advantageous, which consequently endure. Owing to the high geometrical rate of increase of all organic beings, each area is already fully stocked with inhabitants; and it follows from this, that as the favoured forms increase in number, so, generally, will the less favoured decrease and become rare. Rarity, as geology tells us, is the precursor to extinction. We can see that any form which is represented by few individuals will run a good chance of utter extinction, during great fluctuations in the nature of the seasons, or from a temporary increase in the number of its enemies. But we may go further than this; for, as new forms are produced, unless we admit that specific forms can go on indefinitely increasing in number, many old forms must become extinct. That the number of specific forms has not indefinitely increased, geology plainly tells us; and we shall presently attempt to show why it is that the number of species throughout the world has not become immeasurably great. ...

From these several considerations I think it inevitably follows, that as new species in the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct. The forms which stand in closest competition with those undergoing modification and improvement, will naturally suffer most. And we have seen in the chapter on the Struggle for Existence, that it is the most closely-allied forms,—varieties of the same species, and species of the same genus or of related genera,—which, from having nearly the same structure, constitution, and habits, generally come into the severest competition with each other; consequently, each new variety or species, during the progress of its formation, will generally press hardest on its nearest kindred, and tend to exterminate them. " http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_04.html

That pretty much answers your question, Ark Guy. Might I suggest you read Origin of the Species? It is online at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th and it will answer nearly all the questions I have ever seen you pose in this forum.

 

[lucaspa]

You haven't shown me any examples of anything evolving. Evolution says species evolve into new species and that all animals and plants have a common ancestor. All the crossbreeding we've done with domestic dogs has yet to create a new species. And no we did not instantly spring forth from an ancient ape(thats what evolutionists believe). The only relation i have with an ape is we have the same creator.

1. Dogs are no longer a single species. They are 4 species according to the data.
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

In plants, humans have created a whole genus of several species. Triticosecale.
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979.

2. I have a whole long list of observed speciation in the lab and the wild. I'll post it in another thread of that topic rather than here.

3. We did not "spring instantly" from apes to humans. There were many, many species in between. Transitionals link us -- H. sapiens ( which includes Cro-Magnon) to H. erectus to H. habilis to A. afarensis. These are transitional individuals that are in between the species. Here's a list I have compiled from my reading. It is not complete.

F. Clark Howell, Early Man Time Life Library, 1980
Francis M Clapham, Our Human Ancestors, 1976

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis
B Asfaw, T White, O Lovejoy, B Latimer, S Simpson, G Suwa, Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284: 622-629, 1999. All individuals are intermediate between A. afarensis and H. habilis.

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Bouri http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0611_030611_earliesthuman.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_bones-background.shtml
actual paper: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/nature01669_r.html
Vertesszollos, 400 Kya. Teeth like H. erectus but occipital bone like H. sapiens. brain ~ 1300 cc
Petroloma skull (complete): brow ridges and low forehead like erectus but not quite as primitive but not as derived as sapiens or neandertalis. Back of head resembles sapiens. 250 Kya

Erectus to neandertalis:
Stenheim and Swanscombe, 250 Kya: called H. heidelbergensis but have characteristics of both erectus and neandertalis. Large brows and small cranium ( ~1200cc) but otherwise looks like neandertalis
Ehrendorf in Germany and Saccopestore in Italy: mixture erectus and early neandertals, classed as archaic H. sapiens or H. heidelbergensis.

 

[Ark Guy]

What the evos fail to realize is that the YEC's accept speciation.

What they do not accept is that mutations over the millions upon millions of years have the ability to add up and create new or change appendages.

To date the mutations has not been demonstrated to have occured and created life in that fashion.

The bible still presents the best answer...which by the way is the correct answer.

 

[Bushido216]

Umm... tell me again how a population can speciate without significant changes?

I'm just itching to hear this.

 

[lucaspa]

What the evos fail to realize is that the YEC's accept speciation.

What they do not accept is that mutations over the millions upon millions of years have the ability to add up and create new or change appendages.

To date the mutations has not been demonstrated to have occured and created life in that fashion.

The bible still presents the best answer...which by the way is the correct answer.

You said "change appendages". Here is a paper detailing the mutation that changes the number of appendages from many to just 6. The exact mutation.

1a. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature716_fs.html Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan. Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, McGinnis W. Nature 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):914-7 Mutate one serine to alanine and change limb # from multiple limbs of crustaceans to 6 limbs of insects. "To test this, we generated mutant versions of Artemia Ubx in which C-terminal Ser/Thr residues were mutated to Ala. In the first such mutant (Art Ubx S/T to A 1–5), the first five Ser and Thr residues in the C-terminus are changed to Ala. This mutant Ubx has little limb-repression function, similar to wild-type Artemia Ubx (Fig. 3). However, the mutation of one additional Ser in a CKII consensus site (Art Ubx S/T to A 1–5 and 7) results in a Ubx that strongly represses embryonic limbs (Fig. 3)."

This paper details the mutation that results in a tail.
"Tracing a Backbone's Evolution Through a Tunicate's Lost Tail" Science vol. 274, pp 1082-1083, Nov. 15, 1996' Primary article is "Requirement of the Manx Gene for Expression of Chordat Freatures in a Tailless Ascidian Larvae" pp 1205-1208.

This one details the mutations that convert scales to feathers.
2. RO Prum and AH Brush, Which came first, the feather or the bird? Scientific American, 84-93, March 2003.

And that's only part of it. We have just started to document individual mutations because the technology to sequence genes has just started. So basing your argument on "lack of evidence" is already refuted and we've only just begun the search.

 

[lucaspa]

What the evos fail to realize is that the YEC's accept speciation.

Then they accept evolution.

What they do not accept is that mutations over the millions upon millions of years have the ability to add up and create new or change appendages.

How wouldn't they? What is the mechanism to stop this?

To date the mutations has not been demonstrated to have occured and created life in that fashion.

The mutations to create and change appendages have been demonstrated. That was in the previous post.

The bible still presents the best answer...which by the way is the correct answer.

We are not dealing with "the bible". We are dealing with a particular interpretation of the Bible.

BTW, Ark Guy, which answer are we talking about in the Bible? The Bible presents 3 different creation stories. Which one do you think provides the correct answer?

 

[Mirror]

oKAY mirror, remember the sabre toothed tiger....you seem to recognize that such a beast existed. The sabre tooth was a carnivore.....God created animals before man.......................you said God allowed the eating of meat after Adam....hence God didn't create the sabre tooth before it could eat, if He did it evolved into a meat eater or it wasn't in the origonal creation and evolved from similar ancesters...either way you argument holds no water.

hey Justme,
I didnt say it was created after adam and eve sined. i said it was destroyed after they sined. for all we know it Adapted[not evolved] in to a carnivor. because its a carnivore doesnt mean any thing. man didnt eat meat untill after sin either. so what; we were created after they sined?