Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[Sanoy]

Have you considered that apes may be devolved humans?

No I haven't. Are you thinking of the Jewish text, iirc Jubilee or Jasher that says something to that effect? Or are you thinking of entropy combined with selective pressures.

 

[Sanoy]

Top 2 reasons?

1. Humungous amounts of independent evidence that mankind evolved from other organisms

Can you sum up two of those reasons or are you giving a cumulative/preponderance case. (Which is fine)

1.) DNA
2.) fossil record

Anything in particular?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Can you sum up two of those reasons or are you presenting a cumulative/preponderance case. (Which is fine)

For the evidence that humans evolved, it is not one particular bit of evidence that stands out, but the number of different evidences from independent sources that agree. The fossil record would be enough. The genetic evidence even better. The morphological evidence would be enough. And so on. Put them all together, and it's orders of magnitude more convincing than any one evidence on its own.

As for the lack of evidence of a creator, how do you sum up a big fat zero?

 

[Juvenal]

Please read.

List the top 2 reasons why man MUST have evolved from a primate or X rather than specially created by God. [...]

Genetic evidence of common descent with the primates is overwhelming, but perhaps none of this evidence is as compelling as the case of human chromosome 2, a fusion of two chimp chromosomes since renamed chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b in recognition of their common descent.

The seminal paper is Yunis and Prakash, 1982.

The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy​

The fusion region can be identified from the banding achieved by dyes. From left to right, here are the shared regions for humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans for our human chromosome 2.

Analogous regions for the remaining chromosomes is available in Yunus, above. Further research, with better tools, has served to confirm and provide further details of the fusion region in chromosome 2.

Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.

J W IJdo, A Baldini, D C Ward, S T Reeders, and R A Wells

Abstract
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres.​

Telomeres are the end caps of chromosomes, as opposed to the centromeres at their centers. We know they represent a chromosome fusion because of the framing structure:

(telomere)-(active centromere)-(telomere)-(telomere)-(inactive centromere)-(telomere)

While die-hards may wish to argue for common design for the analogous DNA sequences on either side of the fusion region, no similar argument suggests itself for the inclusion of telomeres and pre-telomeres away from the chromosome ends, or the presence of an inactive centromere.

 

[Jack Meredith]

No I haven't. Are you thinking of the Jewish text, iirc Jubilee or Jasher that says something to that effect? Or are you thinking of entropy combined with selective pressures.

inbreeding.

 

[jacknife]

Can you sum up two of those reasons or are you giving a cumulative/preponderance case. (Which is fine)



Anything in particular?

Pretty much all of it, the entirety of dna and the fossil record fly in the face of specefic creation.

 

[Gene2memE]

It looks to me like these muscles help stabilize the ear-to-surrounding-tissue connection, and are therefore quite useful. Of course the real test is to remove these muscles and see what happens. If they are just vestigial there will no effect, but if otherwise functional there will be a response.

I'll wager a small but significant amount that such a procedure has never been done on any so-called 'vestigal' organs, because evolutionary researchers know there is a high probability of a negative effect, as the organ is still functional in some way.

I'll take that wager.

https://www.spine-health.com/condit...coccygectomy-surgery-coccydynia-tailbone-pain

 

[Job 33:6]

@Sanoy

I think the fact that dna based phylogenetic trees and the fossil record phylogenetic tree match, is really proof in and of itself.

There is no other reason that could explain this but common descent via some form of evolution.

For example, DNA similiarities, cytocrome C similarities, comparative anatomy based trees, endogenous retrovirus based trees and paleontology based morphological trees all are identical.

Why else would it be that we could use the DNA in our bodies to predict the location of fossils in the earth if the two were not connected to one another in a very special way?

Well of course the fossil record is a product of change in our DNA, which is why they match one another.

If you would like specific examples and details, feel free to let me know.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It looks to me like these muscles help stabilize the ear-to-surrounding-tissue connection, and are therefore quite useful. Of course the real test is to remove these muscles and see what happens. If they are just vestigial there will no effect, but if otherwise functional there will be a response.

I'll wager a small but significant amount that such a procedure has never been done on any so-called 'vestigal' organs, because evolutionary researchers know there is a high probability of a negative effect, as the organ is still functional in some way.

[/ATTACH]

Your theory of "stabilizing" ear to surrounding-tissue connection is simply a made up idea without foundation. And you would have to account for the nerve connections, unused by most people, that are just as much vestigial as the muscles themselves. Nerves don't stabalize tissue.

Here's a quote I once copied from a mother who described the results from having a son with no coccyx. Some people claim we need our coccyx.

Hi there, I was just looking up information about this condition my son has out of curiosity. He was diagnosed at 3 1/2 with partial sacral agenisis, and is missing his tailbone too. He was diagnosed as a result of gastroenterology treatment for severe constipation. It took 18 months to get the constipation sorted and he is now nearly 11 years old. What problems has the partial sacral agenisis caused? Nothing really. It turns out you don't really need a tailbone & if the spinal cord passes correctly through the deformed sacrum, all is well. He's a good athlete, plays football, runs really fast & is a very fit, healthy active boy. We've always needed to keep his constipation in check which we do. He naturally chooses very good foods, unlike his brother, so this helps.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your theory of "stabilizing" ear to surrounding-tissue connection is simply a made up idea without foundation. And you would have to account for the nerve connections, unused by most people, that are just as much vestigial as the muscles themselves. Nerves don't stabalize tissue.

Here's a quote I once copied from a mother who described the results from having a son with no coccyx. Some people claim we need our coccyx.

It seems to me that the coccyx might cause some discomfort if sitting too long, especially for women. If so then God didn't intend for us to sit on our butts for long periods, and so provided a warning system.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Which is why we need to stop opposing science when it points out our evolutionary past, because when we do that, then as soon as people realize that evolution is, after all, true, they are tempted to think that the opposition to evolution from religious people proves religion itself is wrong.

So people trying to save their religion wind up hurting their religion.

Wrong. evolution false, creation, true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please read.

List the top 2 reasons why man MUST have evolved from a primate or X rather than specially created by God. This is specifically contrasted with Genesis 2:7, not theistic evolution. The default will be a literal interpretation, but please feel free to present your own. Please summarize your reasons as stand alone points, don't just link stuff. No videos please, but charts are fine. If you don't have a logical proof give your best 2 reasons against it. If you have a logical proof against Genesis 2:7 please open your statement with the following phrase. "Genesis 2:7 can't be true because...." By proof I dont mean to get into epistemic philosophy here, a simple disjunctive approach (not A therefore B) will suffice.

Please avoid petty remarks on all sides, please do not make ad hominems against links. Please don't overwhelm a poster by bulk or by too many respondants. Please address your rebuttals according to the statements made and resist going too far off topic from the 2 reasons given. This is a huge topic and it's easy to drift away. General evolution is NOT the topic. The topic is only regarding man and only what is written in Genesis 2:7, so evidence of the evolution in fish is not evidence against Gen2:7 here unless you can make the point that there is some remnant of a prior evolution in man. Oh, 1 last prerequisite, naturalism (only the natural world exists) is not assumed here. Assume that God is metaphysically possible and Gen 2:7 is metaphysically possible. So in other words anything you say must compete to be a good explanation, it's not automatically the only explanation.

I'm making all these restrictions because I'd really like to know what cases can be made and what the strength of thoses cases are when you strip the rhetoric and bravado from it which is prevalent here. For example I was really interested in the recent article about 90% of animals appearing at the same time but despite two long threads very little substance was given to it.

I am a creationist but I doubt I will be able to add much in rebuttal due to preparation and the fact that my intent is exploratory here. I will try to personally moderate the progression, so thank you to both sides in advance.

Sorry, but your request is dishonest.

You are asking for the "top 2 reasons why man evolved" and then you restrict the reasoning to the bible only.

The top x reasons why man evolved, is found in the evidence of the biological sciences.

As for why the biblical narrative is false, same story: because of the extra-biblical evidence.

If you want to restrict this only to bible citations, then no progress on this topic will be made whatsoever, as you are literally inviting circular reasoning.

So, the answer the question (without the restrictions), here are my 2 top reasons to say man evolved from earlier, non-human, primates:

- the nested hierarchy based on genetics

That alone is actually already enough, since it constitutes MUCH more then just "2" reasons. It rather makes up for millions, even billions, of reasons. As this nested hierarchy is found in full genomes, DNA sequences, individual genes, genetic markers (ERV's for example), etc.

Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you assume Man must have evolved then you have death before sin while word of God tells us there was no death before sin .

When the evidence of reality points to something that contradicts your religious bronze age text, it's not the evidence of reality that is incorrect.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well you presuppose that animals died before Adam , show me the evidence in Scriptures .

The scriptures aren't evidence. The scriptures are a collection of claims.
Evidence that things died before humans existed?

Oil fields. Fossils older then 150.000 years. Etc.

“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.”

What evidence do you have in support of this claim?

 

[Sanoy]

Genetic evidence of common descent with the primates is overwhelming, but perhaps none of this evidence is as compelling as the case of human chromosome 2, a fusion of two chimp chromosomes since renamed chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b in recognition of their common descent.

The seminal paper is Yunis and Prakash, 1982.

The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy​

The fusion region can be identified from the banding achieved by dyes. From left to right, here are the shared regions for humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans for our human chromosome 2.

View attachment 232839​

Analogous regions for the remaining chromosomes is available in Yunus, above. Further research, with better tools, has served to confirm and provide further details of the fusion region in chromosome 2.

Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.

J W IJdo, A Baldini, D C Ward, S T Reeders, and R A Wells

Abstract
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres.​

Telomeres are the end caps of chromosomes, as opposed to the centromeres at their centers. We know they represent a chromosome fusion because of the framing structure:

(telomere)-(active centromere)-(telomere)-(telomere)-(inactive centromere)-(telomere)

While die-hards may wish to argue for common design for the analogous DNA sequences on either side of the fusion region, no similar argument suggests itself for the inclusion of telomeres and pre-telomeres away from the chromosome ends, or the presence of an inactive centromere.

Thank you, that is the kind of stuff I was looking for.

Let me pick your brain on number 2 with two questions if you don't mind.

Is it possible that man, still distinct from apes in the ways we now see, once had 24 pairs of Chromosomes but lost a pair, through a fusion into Chromosome 2, or is this fusion thought to be the main source of distinction between ape and man? Still under the same hypothetical, do you know if man and ape would be capable of fertile offspring with an ape when they had 24 pairs. Thats a tough question so let me put it another way, if we had 10 children, is it likely that at least 1 would function normally and be fertile? I tried searching but it seems to be a tricky thing to predict.

 

[Chinchilla]

The scriptures aren't evidence. The scriptures are a collection of claims.
Evidence that things died before humans existed?

Oil fields. Fossils older then 150.000 years. Etc.



What evidence do you have in support of this claim?

What evidence do you have for 150 000 years old fossils ?

 

[Sanoy]

@Sanoy

endogenous retrovirus based trees
If you would like specific examples and details, feel free to let me know.

This one if you don't mind. I was hoping it would show up because I have wanted to look into it since it's strong counter evidence like Chromosome 2, but I couldn't remember what to search.

 

[Sanoy]

Sorry, but your request is dishonest.

You are asking for the "top 2 reasons why man evolved" and then you restrict the reasoning to the bible only.

I am contrasting evidence against a specific verse, because that is what I want to know. There is nothing dishonest about that. I put this thread out to challenge my own beliefs on that verse, and you call it dishonest. Incredible... I was hoping you would post here because this might be something in your wheelhouse, even thought about pinging you and a few others like Komatiite, but I never expected that. Good grief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am contrasting evidence against a specific verse, because that is what I want to know. There is nothing dishonest about that. I put this thread out to challenge my own beliefs on that verse, and you call it dishonest. Incredible... I was hoping you would post here because this might be something in your wheelhouse, even thought about pinging you and a few others like Komatiite, but I never expected that. Good grief.

I owe you an apology.

I re-read the OP and it seems that I was too quick to jump to conclusions. I should have read more attentively.

Sorry.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What evidence do you have for 150 000 years old fossils ?

Physics, chemistry, the way atoms work (atomic decay),...