Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[DogmaHunter]

That's just it. I don't believe their were carnivores (during man's creative period) until sometime right before the flood, which where still able to eat grass also.

Genesis 1:30

"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

But just before the flood.

Genesis 6:12

"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth."


So we today see the end result of that corruption. Lions that eat only meat. So we assume incorrectly that at the time of Noah, that they could only eat meat.

It's sad to see to what lengths you need to go, just to be able to believe these obviously false stories.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where do you think the variety comes from initially?

Seeing at what "miraculous" excuses @Justatruthseeker is inventing just to be able to defend the obviously false and nonsensical flood tale, I guess his answer will be "magic".

That seems to be his go-to answer for everything that he can't explain in context of his fundamentalist religious beliefs.... "when all else fails, just invoke magic".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's sad to see to what lengths you need to go, just to be able to believe these obviously false stories.

https://www.livescience.com/42342-tiny-carnivore-ancestor-discovered.html

"Part of the challenge of uncovering carnivore history is that, on the whole, meat-eating mammals aren't that common, Gunnell said — there are many more herbivores and omnivores on the planet and in the fossil record. In addition, Solé said, fossils from Europe, which appears to be an important stop for, and potentially the origin of, carnivore evolution and spread, are rarer than fossils from North America.

The geographical origin of the carnivoraforms remains mysterious,"

Part of the mystery would go away if they didn't ignore the truth.

 

[Jimmy D]

https://www.livescience.com/42342-tiny-carnivore-ancestor-discovered.html

"Part of the challenge of uncovering carnivore history is that, on the whole, meat-eating mammals aren't that common, Gunnell said — there are many more herbivores and omnivores on the planet and in the fossil record. In addition, Solé said, fossils from Europe, which appears to be an important stop for, and potentially the origin of, carnivore evolution and spread, are rarer than fossils from North America.

The geographical origin of the carnivoraforms remains mysterious,"

Part of the mystery would go away if they didn't ignore the truth.

How does that offer any support for your outlandish claims?

"I don't believe their were carnivores (during man's creative period) until sometime right before the flood, which where still able to eat grass also."

So you read that fossils of carnivores are much less common than those of herbivores and omnivores and understood that to mean that no carnivores existed before "the flood"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

https://www.livescience.com/42342-tiny-carnivore-ancestor-discovered.html

"Part of the challenge of uncovering carnivore history is that, on the whole, meat-eating mammals aren't that common, Gunnell said — there are many more herbivores and omnivores on the planet and in the fossil record. In addition, Solé said, fossils from Europe, which appears to be an important stop for, and potentially the origin of, carnivore evolution and spread, are rarer than fossils from North America.

The geographical origin of the carnivoraforms remains mysterious,"

"Part of the challenge of uncovering carnivore history is that"


Yes, I'ld expect that finding out historical events from millions of years ago, is kind of challenging.

Sounds like you are creationists nr-I-lost-count who has problems distinguishing between the process of evolution and the genetic fact of common ancestry on the one hand, and evolutionary history on the other.

Part of the mystery would go away if they didn't ignore the truth.​

You mean, by appealing to an even bigger mystery, indistinguishable from fiction, untestable, unsupportable etc that is itself inexplicable?

Appealing to bronze age religion vs appealing to 21st century science.

Doesn't sound like that hard a choice though.​

 

[DogmaHunter]

How does that offer any support for your outlandish claims?

"I don't believe their were carnivores (during man's creative period) until sometime right before the flood, which where still able to eat grass also."

So you read that fossils of carnivores are much less common than those of herbivores and omnivores and understood that to mean that no carnivores existed before "the flood"?

When one has to defend undefendable and obviously false bronze-age tales, one will actively try to grasp at pretty much anything. And if you need to misrepresent some things along the way, so be it... I guess.

 

[xianghua]

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.

the chromosomal fusion isnt evidence for a common descent with chimp or gorila. its actually a fusion that happened in the human lineage:

 

[DogmaHunter]

the chromosomal fusion isnt evidence for a common descent with chimp or gorila. its actually a fusion that happened in the human lineage:

View attachment 233115

That doesn't explain why, when split at the fusion site, we get an exact match with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing".

Not to mention, that this again seems to be another diagram that you seem to have invented out of thin air and drew up in paint.

 

[Juvenal]

That doesn't explain why, when split at the fusion site, we get an exact match with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing".

Matching DNA is often attributed to "common design."

It's an odd claim from my point of view. Why bother creating inheritance, a mechanism that passes along DNA, and then leaving it on the shelf in favor of duplicating the effort by hand.

That's cause for termination at any engineering company.

It should also be noted that seven million years ago, there were no humans, and there were no chimps. It's just possible that a common ancestor, transported into the present via time machine, would be able to breed with both of these modern species, but that ancestor would be recognizably neither human nor chimp.

For reference, note that this creature preceded Lucy by about as many millions of years as Lucy predates us.

 

[Shemjaza]

the chromosomal fusion isnt evidence for a common descent with chimp or gorila. its actually a fusion that happened in the human lineage:

View attachment 233115

Do you also think the similar DNA between parents, children, siblings and cousins might as well be a coincidence?

Your comeback to the evidence that humans and other apes having similar DNA and evidence that it used to be even more alike is: "What of humans used to have more similar DNA to apes... and they just weren't related?"

It's not a response to evidence, it's just denial.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Part of the challenge of uncovering carnivore history is that"


Yes, I'ld expect that finding out historical events from millions of years ago, is kind of challenging.

Sounds like you are creationists nr-I-lost-count who has problems distinguishing between the process of evolution and the genetic fact of common ancestry on the one hand, and evolutionary history on the other.

What common ancestry? Ahhh, you mean those "common ancestors" that are one and all missing you use to link every separate form.....

[quote[
You mean, by appealing to an even bigger mystery, indistinguishable from fiction, untestable, unsupportable etc that is itself inexplicable?

Appealing to bronze age religion vs appealing to 21st century science.

Doesn't sound like that hard a choice though.​

[/QUOTE]
No, I meant exactly what was said, that the origin of carnivora remains mysterious.....

Ahhh, perhaps the problem is you confuse me with those that think there was just one creation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What common ancestry? Ahhh, you mean those "common ancestors" that are one and all missing you use to link every separate form.....

This is just another of your ignorant assertions, and it's getting really boring. What it comes down to is that we have no way of demonstrating that a particular fossil is a common ancestor, so we don't make an unsupportable claim. You then twist this (honest) approach to (dishonestly) assert that it means there were no common ancestors.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, I meant exactly what was said, that the origin of carnivora remains mysterious.....

Just want to make sure that you understand that "carnivora" and carnivores are two different things.

Carnivores are animals that live primarily on eating other macro scale animals.

Carnivora is the family of mammals including bears, cats, dogs, seals and some others. (They are also mostly carnivores).

There is plenty of evidence of carnivores long before even the earliest fossil that could be linked to carnivora.

Ahhh, perhaps the problem is you confuse me with those that think there was just one creation.

Where are the points of recreation? And what evidence is there for them?

Even in the great mass extinctions some plants and animals evidently survive the process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What common ancestry? Ahhh, you mean those "common ancestors" that are one and all missing you use to link every separate form.....

No, I meant exactly what was said, that the origin of carnivora remains mysterious.....

Ahhh, perhaps the problem is you confuse me with those that think there was just one creation.

First of all, there's nothing mysterious about evolution

Secondly, the evolutionary history of a species being unknown / hard to find out based on fossils, is a logical consequence of the rarity of fossils. That doesn't, in any way, raise doubt about the genetic fact that species share ancestry. At all. It's like the difference between on the one hand genetically determining that you and some other person are distant cousins, and on the other hand recreating the exact family tree up until the point of your common ancestor.
If you can't understand how these are two different answers to different questions, then I can't help you....

Perhaps consider determining on the one hand that a fire happened and burned down the house... you conclude this fact from the evidence of the ruins.

It's quite another thing to then find out exactly how and where the fire started, how it spread and how it stopped. Not being able to do that, doesn't diminish the fact that the house burned down.


It's time for you to get a little intellectually honest, becaue this is getting ridiculous.

 

[Jimmy D]

The tree is collapsing and dying....

View attachment 232915

Darwin’s tree scheme has now been replaced by many with a radiation scheme. This revised scheme (pictured) was published in the journal Nature by Nipam H. Patel entitled “Evolutionary biology: How to build a longer beak.” However, the revision has the same problems as Darwin’s tree – no original ancestor and no transitional links.

“The genomic revolution [has]… effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology, the Tree of Life,“ argues Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information in his book The Logic of Chance.

John Archibald of Dalhousie University in his book One Plus One Equals One (2014) finding common ground with Koonin notes, “the tree of life has come upon hard times… [with] the “overall picture emerging is one of mosaicism” – not one of evolutionary changes of “one species… taken and modified” into a new species.

Amazingly, David Baum and Stacey Smith in the book Tree Thinking, an Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (2013) pushes the envelope further arguing that “Our knowledge of molecular process is not good enough to definitively rule out independent origins.”

Plagiarized quote mines.

 

[xianghua]

That doesn't explain why, when split at the fusion site, we get an exact match with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing".

common similarity explain it. by a common designer of course.

 

[xianghua]

Matching DNA is often attributed to "common design."

right. and we also have evidence for a designer. see my signature link for more information.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

right. and we also have evidence for a designer. see my signature link for more information.

What a crock.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

common similarity explain it. by a common designer of course.

OK . . . so why are the insulin molecules different in different species, even though they all work across species barrier? As in, pig insulin can help a diabetic, but human insulin is better because it doesn't give an allergic reaction.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Go back to post 3.

We're not going back. Evolution has been established. You either learn to accept it or remain out of touch with reality.