Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[Justatruthseeker]

I am a Creationist, but I'm mostly on board with what you are seeing, that the earth is old, and that we have a series of emergent species but I don't know how it happened. I'm not a Theisitic Evolutionist because I don't think God used or guided evolution. I'm still forming my thoughts but for now I think God caused the changes directly, either in fully completed chunks, or whole cloth. If we look at the curse in Genesis literally, then we have to believe God changed the DNA of plants and ourselves instantly with a word. I don't know if science can bare that out, but it gives us an example that can orient our thoughts on how God makes changes in the world - that He can change our DNA directly. Machines operate our DNA, and He programed them, and they will do whatever He says. I believe there is a good trajectory of evidence for Evolution, but it's too much for me to believe that trajectory occurred naturally. Even if Christianity disappeared I could believe we evolved, but it's too much for me to think it happened randomly, so I guess the furthest I could be is a deist. There are too many things left over that it won't explain like consciousness, free will, the richness of our intelligence, qualia and experiences. Evolution is on target, it's aimed at the bullseye, if it can pull it's own trigger it will hit the bullseye, but the caliber is such that it will leave the majority of the red intact so even with God supervening it, He's going to have to be putting in the lions share of the work so what does He need randomness and selective pressures for. Thats where I am on my figuring this out.

It happened by mating, not that they will ever admit that except in rare unguarded moments.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

They don't like these little kernels of truth because it nullifies their need for mutations.

They don't like the kernel of truth that God separated the genome at the beginning, and it is during the recombining of the different chromosomes (when they become "one flesh") that the variation happens.

I've no problem with seeing variation from the creation on wards - it's a natural result from mating, but it seems they are unable to tell when the variation results only in the same species except in humans and dogs. In every other animal they claim separate species - as well as in the fossil record where it is impossible to see what creature mated with what creature.

They take a natural process - variation - and usurp it to mean change of species or evolution. This is not what is observed. They admit all dogs are of the same species. There are over 100 different breeds - they can't even bring themselves to say subspecies - because that might call into question their classification of others as species. Yet the variation between dogs is greater than the variation between other animals they classify as separate species. They can't do this with dogs because they are aware of their lineage, and their lineage shows they are all of the same species.....

Evolution is simply a classification error. If you correctly classified all of creation, evolution would disappear.

 

[Sanoy]

It happened by mating, not that they will ever admit that except in rare unguarded moments.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

They don't like these little kernels of truth because it nullifies their need for mutations.

They don't like the kernel of truth that God separated the genome at the beginning, and it is during the recombining of the different chromosomes (when they become "one flesh") that the variation happens.

I've no problem with seeing variation from the creation on wards - it's a natural result from mating, but it seems they are unable to tell when the variation results only in the same species except in humans and dogs. In every other animal they claim separate species - as well as in the fossil record where it is impossible to see what creature mated with what creature.

They take a natural process - variation - and usurp it to mean change of species or evolution. This is not what is observed. They admit all dogs are of the same species. There are over 100 different breeds - they can't even bring themselves to say subspecies - because that might call into question their classification of others as species. Yet the variation between dogs is greater than the variation between other animals they classify as separate species. They can't do this with dogs because they are aware of their lineage, and their lineage shows they are all of the same species.....

Evolution is simply a classification error. If you correctly classified all of creation, evolution would disappear.

I think 'In child birth' is probably the best way to go in my current thoughts of how God may have instantiated the changes. While it wouldn't be needed for some groups many groups require dutiful parents for survival. So 'in child birth' seems to be needed for the changes to survive.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think 'In child birth' is probably the best way to go in my current thoughts of how God may have instantiated the changes. While it wouldn't be needed for some groups many groups require dutiful parents for survival. So 'in child birth' seems to be needed for the changes to survive.

Well I assumed child birth, else there would be no descendants with variation. But yes, that is totally acceptable.

God split Adams genome to make Eve. That is the reason a man shall leave his mother and father and go to his wife. So that the two (which were one) shall again be "one flesh" a new life.

 

[Jimmy D]

Evolution is simply a classification error. If you correctly classified all of creation, evolution would disappear.

Maybe it's time to make a name for yourself and put your money where your mouth is then.

Your fame will surpass Darwin's!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Maybe it's time to make a name for yourself and put your money where your mouth is then.

Your fame will surpass Darwin's!

Nah, they'd just ignore it like they ignore finches mating right in front of their noses.....

Like you and Tas ignore that mutation is simply a copy error and does nothing except write what already existed in a different way.... Then try to claim its not continuous variation, but yet claim its continuous variation that enables one to decipher lineage... Loop de loop.

 

[Ophiolite]

With respect, I disagree that this presents an impasse, even by analogy. While the general evolutionary (mut. mut. gravitational) processes remain, there's no more impediment to an independent discussion of the evolutionary origins of any particular species, including our own, than there is to measuring Michael Jordan's hang-time, independent of the orbits of the planets around our sun.

The fossil record shows that seven million years ago, there were primates but no hominids. Three million years ago, there were hominids, but no humans. And throughout that time, primate species have appeared and disappeared as branches have radiated and become pruned, leaving markers in the DNA of the survivors. If every other species on earth were specially created, the evidence written into the genome within each of our cells would still show that humans evolved from our primate ancestors.

There is also a natural interest in the evolution of our species on "Christian Forums" that goes beyond our natural self-regard. Christians have a specific, theological interest in the evolution of our species quite apart from the evolution of our evolutionary cousins. The evolutionary path from birds to dinosaurs, for example, does not, and indeed can not, challenge the fall of man and consequent need for a vicarious atonement by their god-become-man.

I understand your argument and it is well reasoned, but regretably it does not apply to me. Recall that Sanoy in the OP made two specifications that I have focused on. (The others were not problematic.)

He asked for the two best reasons for accepting human evolution and he excluded any reference to general evolution. For me all of the reasons are tied up in general evolution. I understand this need not be the case for others, but it is the case for me - consequently, for me, the impasse is real and the analogy is applicable.

Some background may help to explain how I arrived at my position. I'm not especially interested in human evolution, though I've made some effort to get a basic understanding. My interest is in evolutionary patterns in such organisms as ammonites, brachipods, graptolites and trilobites. Those I find are much more interesting, informative and useful. Human evolution is just another example of evolution in general. When it comes to primates my primary interest is in ethology, behaviour patterns, and that applies whether I am considering macaques, bonobos, or Democrats.

 

[Jimmy D]

Like you and Tas ignore that mutation is simply a copy error and does nothing except write what already existed in a different way.... Then try to claim its not continuous variation, but yet claim its continuous variation that enables one to decipher lineage... Loop de loop.

To be fair, I never argued for or against such a thing.

 

[xianghua]

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.

because each species has its unique insulin. like each kind of vehicle has its unique kind of wheel.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

because each species has its unique insulin. like each kind of vehicle has its unique kind of wheel.

You didn't answer his question. You just restated part of it.

 

[xianghua]

You didn't answer his question. You just restated part of it.

so what is the question actually?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

so what is the question actually?

You quoted the question in your post just a few posts up. It makes perfect sense to me. What part of it do you not understand?

The best guess that I can make is that you missed the word 'why'.

 

[xianghua]

You quoted the question in your post just a few posts up. It makes perfect sense to me. What part of it do you not understand?

The best guess that I can make is that you missed the word 'why'.

you asking why a pig insulin and a human insulin is different?

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

you asking why a pig insulin and a human insulin is different?

Exactly. Since the pig insulin works in humans, and yet is different . . . why, in light of the common designer theme so treasured by creationists who deny evolution, aren't they identical?

It is my assertion that the variations on the composition of insulin are an argument against separate creation by a common designer who uses the same patterns from one species to another.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Exactly. Since the pig insulin works in humans, and yet is different . . . why, in light of the common designer theme so treasured by creationists who deny evolution, aren't they identical?

It is my assertion that the variations on the composition of insulin are an argument against separate creation by a common designer who uses the same patterns from one species to another.

It is my assertion that they are similar because the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons were used to create everything.

They are dissimilar because new additive genetic variation produced by mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater than that produced by mutation. Just in case you decide we all have to accept your useless mutations as the cause..... The genome is adaptive by design, precisely because the world changes. But back to the laws of nature we then go.

If He wanted a pig instead of a man, He would only have created a pig. That things can be shared, simply points to common design, not random chance.....

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It is my assertion that they are similar because the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons were used to create everything.

They are dissimilar because new additive genetic variation produced by mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater than that produced by mutation. Just in case you decide we all have to accept your useless mutations as the cause..... The genome is adaptive by design, precisely because the world changes. But back to the laws of nature we then go.

If He wanted a pig instead of a man, He would only have created a pig. That things can be shared, simply points to common design, not random chance.....

Is there some kind of coherent point you are trying to make with this word salad?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is there some kind of coherent point you are trying to make with this word salad?

Is there any actual substance to your posts? besides double-talk and deflection?

You asked, you got answered, because you can't respond except with ad-hominem attacks just shows you have nothing.... I understand Paul, it's ok, I forgive you that you think ad-hominem attacks is an actual defense or an actual argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Shemjaza]

It is my assertion that they are similar because the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons were used to create everything.

They are dissimilar because new additive genetic variation produced by mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater than that produced by mutation. Just in case you decide we all have to accept your useless mutations as the cause..... The genome is adaptive by design, precisely because the world changes. But back to the laws of nature we then go.

If He wanted a pig instead of a man, He would only have created a pig. That things can be shared, simply points to common design, not random chance.....

You need to re read your sources. Hybridisation doors not produce new variation, only introduces it.

You have no justification for the source of genetic diversity amongst species and sub species because you have a personal desire to disbelieve in mutation.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It is my assertion that they are similar because the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons were used to create everything.

Wow. So there's no difference between birds and the moon?

They are dissimilar because new additive genetic variation produced by mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater than that produced by mutation.

Mating doesn't make differences. Mating brings differences together that already exist.

Just in case you decide we all have to accept your useless mutations as the cause..... The genome is adaptive by design, precisely because the world changes. But back to the laws of nature we then go.

There is no difference between the adaptive value of pig insulin and the adaptive value of human insulin. Yet they are different enough to tell them apart. Mutations caused the difference we describe the resulting difference as genetic drift. That's in the theory of evolution. You have no creationist theory to explain the insulin situation.

If He wanted a pig instead of a man, He would only have created a pig.

These words do nothing in terms of explaining why the creationist point of view is better than the evolutionist point of view. One wonders why they were even uttered in this context.

That things can be shared, simply points to common design, not random chance.....

Ignores the differences in the insulin molecules. How can you say they are common design when they are NOT exactly identical, and humans can even become allergic to pig insulin? There is a perfectly simple evolutionary explanation for this situation, however. It seems to me you just utter the words "points to common design" in spite of no such pointing being present.

 

[Jimmy D]

That things can be shared, simply points to common design, not random chance.....

The standard creationist get out clause.

Different traits = "special creation!"
Similar traits = "common design!"