Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not bad, and very close to modern evolutionary theory. I would rephrase (3) to "some differences affect the organism's ability to live long enough to reproduce." Your statement is correct, but there are some other things at play besides attractiveness.Easiest way to understand evolution...
1) The body is built by proteins, which are built from DNA.
2) DNA mutates, a child's DNA will differ ever so slightly from the parents.
3) Some organisms within a population reproduce more than others due to attractiveness.
That's all there is to it.
Today's winner.I believe that God is truthful in both His word and in His creation.
As I said before, God created "variety in the gene pool". What scientists think are "transitional fossils" are merely creatures that move in and around their "kind". As our friend Stephen J. Gould points out, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks are based on INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT THE EVIDENCE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD" - why don't you listen to Mr. Gould and stop trying to establish as "fact" what is mere fiction?You were misled about that, too...
The fossilized remains of a bizarre-looking reptile are giving scientists new insights into how turtles got their distinctive shells.
Some 240 million years ago, this early turtle-like creature lived in a large lake, in a fairly warm, subtropical climate. But it didn't have the kind of shell modern turtles have, says Hans-Dieter Sues, a curator at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.
Sues describes this primitive turtle, which the scientists named Pappochelys, as being about 8 inches long (20 cm), with slender legs, a long tail and neck, and then "a strange, boxy trunk region."
"It has the real beginnings of the belly shell developing," says Sues, "little rib-like structures beginning to fuse together into larger plates."
How about we stop worrying about how to define it and get on with finding evidence for it? Has anyone ever observed "biological evolution"? If so, why must biologists "constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but evolved"?You, for example, were unable to tell me what it is, or even the scientific definition of it.
I never said there was nothing that could be construed as evidence for evolution - I'm saying it's wrong to do so, and it's wrong to use non-evidence like radiometric dating as "evidence" because of so many assumptions required for it, while ignoring the Biblical testimony that some super-catastrophe involving not only the landscape, but also the subterranean Earth, as well as the "windows of heaven". There's evidence that isotope decay rates have remained constant and evidence that it hasn't, right? We can't just throw out an entire body of evidence against evolution and declare Darwin the victor.You got that a bit mixed up. It's "missing lynx." And they've found it:
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 136, Issue 4, August 2022, Pages 536–551
The diversification of the lynx lineage during the Plio-Pleistocene—evidence from a new small Lynx from Longdan, Gansu Province, China
As your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admits, the huge number of transitional form and the large number of series of transitional forms are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." We find important new fossils almost monthly.
The "knee" - not "knees" - that is claimed to belong to Lucy was found in completely different strata, and her "ape-like hip" did not "get twisted during fossilization" from human to ape - it's fully ape.You were really fooled by that story. Pygmy chimps lack the knees and hips to be bipedal as Lucy was. They don't have long legs and short arms as Lucy does. And they have much more robust jaws and teeth than she did.
"Genetically closest" reminds me of how "close" humans are to apes. We have something like 78% of genes in common with a mouse, and not too much less in common with bananas.You missed that one, too. Not only are hippos structurally and behaviorally like early whales, genetically they are the closest relatives to whales. No point in denying the facts.
Well, let's take a look at that assumption...
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon
[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by thefamily Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs:
toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series.
Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology
method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.
At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise
Again, Dr. Wise disagrees with evolution, but he's honest enough to admit that the evidence supports evolution, and does not fit creationist ideology.
He trusts God enough to admit the truth. Wouldn't it be great if all people were like him?
You keep talking about the fossil record as if it's evidence for something. You should know science says it only takes about 10-15 million years for erosion to wash all the continents into the oceans by constant removal of material from the top - and that the reason they're still here is because of "uplift" keeping from below keeping up with what is disappearing from the top.Can't find any place here where I said he did. Link?
You can't get closer to God by hating His people. Try to find some way to deal with that, and you'll find some peace.
I suppose anything looks simple, if you don't know anything about it. As you see, the discovery of DNA gives us the same phylogenies as the fossil record does, to a very high precision.
No. As you see, he admits that old species give rise to new ones. Which is macroevolution. AIG even admits the evolution of new genera and sometimes families.
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
Speciation
Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.answersingenesis.org
Because you seem to know nothing at all about it. Here's your chance. What do you think biological evolution is? Either Darwin's definition or the definition after the rediscovery of genetics will be acceptable. What do you think it is?
As I said, if you don't even know the scientific definition for biological evolution, is it any surprise that you have such difficulties here?
Reduced iron deposits in ancient rocks, and the banded iron formation clearly show a reducing atmosphere.
But it's a moot point. As you just learned, evolutionary theory only explains how living things change over time. It assumes life began somehow. Darwin assumed God just created the first living things.
Such things are observed underseas today. But we don't get a reducing atmosphere. Imagination is no substitute for facts.
Context, friend. When Jesus said, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood", the people murmured against Him, saying, "This guy wants us to eat His flesh and drink His blood".So Jesus' flesh "profits nothing"?
Then why don't you just embrace the literal six day Creation of Genesis and immerse yourself in Creation science, instead of that which Satan announced in that 19th century demonic council would be used to "destroy the Bible without burning it"?I believe that God is truthful in both His word and in His creation.
-CryptoLutheran
"DNA mutates".Not bad, and very close to modern evolutionary theory. I would rephrase (3) to "some differences affect the organism's ability to live long enough to reproduce." Your statement is correct, but there are some other things at play besides attractiveness.
Very true, I tried to simplify as much as possible and went a bit too far. Actually maybe if just scrap the attractiveness part at the end of 3. That generalizes it to include any number of reasons, including both attractiveness and that some organisms will survive while others don't, leaving it as...Not bad, and very close to modern evolutionary theory. I would rephrase (3) to "some differences affect the organism's ability to live long enough to reproduce." Your statement is correct, but there are some other things at play besides attractiveness.
Mutations are generally harmful - and the ones we think are "beneficial" always come with "Fitness Cost" strings attached.
Sickle cell anemia, for instance, is touted as a "positive mutation" with regard to malaria...but a person with sickle cell anemia is still very sick, so much so they used to have telethons and fundraisers all the time when I was a kid. I guess medical advancements is why we don't really hear much about it nowadays
Well said. The interesting thing is that a newer mutation of hemoglobin that resists malaria (HbC) that works well but rarely disables or kills the person with the mutation, is now replacing HbS in areas where malaria is endemic.Like many things connected to evolution, things are a little more complex than you'd like them to be (the bolding below is mine):
You're not accepting His word as it is. Our image of God is not in our bodies. Why should God need nostrils or eardrums? It is in our spirits and souls.Really? God's method of arriving at "the image of God in man" is by millions and millions of years of murderous mutations alongside the one or two that supposedly are "positive"?
Actually, most of them do very little. You have about a hundred of them that were present in neither of your parents. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.Mutations are generally harmful
As your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admits, it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." No point in denial. He cites dozens of series of transitional forms that show evidence for evolution. But that's not the biggest thing. You see, we find them only where evolutionary theory predicts them (as Dr. Wise admits). They never happen where their shouldn't be any. No feathered mammals. No crabs with bones.You keep talking about the fossil record as if it's evidence for something.
That is pure fantasy.Do you not think that there are secret societies or an elite class of humans who do worship demons and the devil?
And how would you know?That is pure fantasy.
This is a classic illustration of the way natural selection works. Suppose people in a malaria area have a 50% chance of getting severe malaria if they are homozygous for normal hemoglobin, but won't get it if they are hetrozygous for the sickle cell genes. (I used those numbers to make the demo simpler for you, but if you like, I can adjust them for more precise numbers)Sickle cell anemia, for instance, is touted as a "positive mutation" with regard to malaria...but a person with sickle cell anemia is still very sick, so much so they used to have telethons and fundraisers all the time when I was a kid. I guess medical advancements is why we don't really hear much about it nowadays.
I don't think he hated God. He hated Christians of certain churches he didn't like.
Can't find any place here where I said he did. Link?Then why did you say he did?
Well over 90%, compared to chimps, and correspondingly less to other apes, mammals, etc."Genetically closest" reminds me of how "close" humans are to apes.
Which is about right, considering we are both mammals, but in different orders.We have something like 78% of genes in common with a mouse,
About 50%, I think. Which is about right considering that we are both eukaryotes, but in difference kingdoms.and not too much less in common with bananas.
Nope. We have Precambrian deposits still here and there. Erosion is not constant and equal in all areas. In fact, there are still a few places on the Earth where the geologic column exists in complete form. Would you like to learn about that?You keep talking about the fossil record as if it's evidence for something. You should know science says it only takes about 10-15 million years for erosion to wash all the continents into the oceans by constant removal of material from the top
Turns out, things like folding, overthrusts, and vulcanism also interfere with uniform erosion. You've been badly misled on this.- and that the reason they're still here is because of "uplift" keeping from below keeping up with what is disappearing from the top.
It didn't until genetics andEvolution never addresses the controlling mechanisms for assembly, which is a whole other ball of wax.
A mansion and a shack both built with wood, tiles, and bricks proves only that the same building materials were used - the designer arranged them in completely different ways.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?