Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[tas8831]

Oh man, I missed this...

Going to claim additive genetic variance means that hybridization creates new 'allies'?

They do create new alleles, you just wont accept the truth in that or anything else. But fanatics never do.

Your very quote you chose to introduce for some odd reason.

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one.""

You can make all the claims you want, but they just told you alleles were created by mating.

The rest of your claims are just as erroneous.

Is this guy for real?


Let us parse this - the creationist justatruthseeker is claiming "alleles were created by mating". Right? That is actually what he is claiming.
He is claiming SUPPORT for the claim that 'mating creates new alleles' by using this quote:

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection). Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."

Right? He DID just use THAT ^^^^ quote as support for his claim that 'mating creates new alleles', right? I am not making that up, right?

I need to process this for a moment -

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization."


OK, I guess if that was all one ignorant of genetics had read, they might be able to at least be justified, being ignorant of genetics and all. But justatruthseeker provides the rest of the quote:

"The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

So.... Did justatruthseeker not read beyond the fist sentence of this quote? Did the bold/dark red text come across to him in a foreign language? Wingdings maybe? Because that bolded/dark red text up there pretty clearly explains that the allele "introduced by hybridization" was ITSELF the product of mutation - just to reiterate:

"...the one introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

Or maybe he read the first sentence and this last one below and ignored the middle part because it had too many adult words in it?

"Intuitively, I would therefore think that an allele introduced by hybridization on average is more likely to do something good for the organism it enters than a mutated one."

Because, as stated previously, the introduced allele has already been molded by selection...

Dude... You must realize that you just keep making yourself look worse and worse... No?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

They do? So in developing an eye the body keeps these useless mutations until the point where it becomes functional?
Expends energy keeping alive what until the entire process is complete what is useless on its own?

Why are they useless? Why couldn't they be doing something else useful in the mean time? We have a well-established pathway of vision in life forms that have evolved several different times using several different pathways - I thought you said you studied evolution??

It’s your failure to admit to the blah, blah, blah part that shows your cognitive dissonance.

You see, unlike you I can recognize that both produce variation, one simply to a greater number of loci at one time. And therefore has a greater impact on variation. You on the other hand need to ignore that to keep your world view alive.

heh doubtful...

I "failed to admit to the blah, blah, blah part", because it was a thunderous argument from incredulity over changes not coming from mutations where right at the end you basically admitted that "some" changes from mutation does happen after all. I just felt all that tapdancing detracted from the bit you got correct at the end, and I wanted to highlight it.

 

[Heissonear]

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.

Try finding evolution in the fossil record.

There fossil record shows evolution never happened once.

The best you can present is mixed and matched fossils that represent macro-assemblages.

Missing are the fossils between the macro-assemblages.

The foundation of observed evidence to state evolution occurred is missing.

Evolution is based on conjecture not evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Try finding evolution in the fossil record.

There fossil record shows evolution never happened once.

The best you can present is mixed and matched fossils that represent macro-assemblages.

Missing are the fossils between the macro-assemblages.

The foundation of observed evidence to state evolution occurred is missing.

Evolution is based on conjecture not evidence.

You keep re-stating these claims as if you have not been shown that they are false on numerous occasions. You have failed to admit that you are not an expert - by any stretch - on fossils.
You ignore all evidence for evolution.

Do you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[tas8831]

Blast from the recent past...


"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."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Try finding evolution in the fossil record.

There fossil record shows evolution never happened once.

The best you can present is mixed and matched fossils that represent macro-assemblages.

Missing are the fossils between the macro-assemblages.

The foundation of observed evidence to state evolution occurred is missing.

Evolution is based on conjecture not evidence.

Sorry, asking for motion blurred fossils is unreasonable.

 

[Erik Nelson]

in principle, the GRADUAL emergence of fully formed modern mankind ...

is completely COMPATIBLE with a hypothetical supernatural agent guiding that evolution and so crafting humanity thereby

 

[46AND2]

in principle, the GRADUAL emergence of fully formed modern mankind ...

is completely COMPATIBLE with a hypothetical supernatural agent guiding that evolution and so crafting humanity thereby

Well, of course it is....because literally anything is COMPATIBLE with a hypothetical supernatural agent.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Well, of course it is....because literally anything is COMPATIBLE with a hypothetical supernatural agent.

exaggerated hyperbole aside, glad we agree that there's a lot more such compatibility than is frequently recognized

 

[46AND2]

exaggerated hyperbole aside, glad we agree that there's a lot more such compatibility than is frequently recognized

Hyperbole? Can you name even one thing that would be incompatible with a hypothetical supernatural agent?

I exaggerated nothing--hence the word "literally."

And you misunderstand...this is not a virtue. If one can surmise a hypothetical supernatural explanation for something...it is, by its very nature, not an explanation at all.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Hyperbole? Can you name even one thing that would be incompatible with a hypothetical supernatural agent?

I exaggerated nothing--hence the word "literally."

And you misunderstand...this is not a virtue. If one can surmise a hypothetical supernatural explanation for something...it is, by its very nature, not an explanation at all.

not everything is mutually compatible

if the earth really actually were to be 5 billion years old...

then it couldn't be 6 or 7 thousand years old

but evolution = mutation + selection (as a theory) could admit a God in heaven somehow able to (say) induce mutations into terrestrial lifeforms... and/or influence the survival & selection of earth life... so as to "guide" evolution on earth

(even as humans have long claimed that the Gods can affect who lives & dies on planet earth = manipulation of selection, hence manipulation of evolution, on earth)

not absolutely everything is mutually compatible, but there's much more possible overlap between Religion & Science than is usually acknoweldged

 

[46AND2]

not everything is mutually compatible

if the earth really actually were to be 5 billion years old...

then it couldn't be 6 or 7 thousand years old

I know of at least one Christian here who has argued just that--that it is both.

but evolution = mutation + selection (as a theory) could admit a God in heaven somehow able to (say) induce mutations into terrestrial lifeforms... and/or influence the survival & selection of earth life... so as to "guide" evolution on earth

(even as humans have long claimed that the Gods can affect who lives & dies on planet earth = manipulation of selection, hence manipulation of evolution, on earth)

not absolutely everything is mutually compatible, but there's much more possible overlap between Religion & Science than is usually acknoweldged

But a hypothetical supernatural agent which defies even logic has been, and is continuously, proposed.

It is "supernatural" after all, and not bound by the laws of nature we observe, right? I mean, even your personal definition, regardless of how liberal that definition may or may not be, at some point, would likely embody something analogous to the earth being two different ages (in other words, logic-defying).

 

[Job 33:6]

" Can you name even one thing that would be incompatible with a hypothetical supernatural agent?" ~46AND2

"not everything is mutually compatible

if the earth really actually were to be 5 billion years old...

then it couldn't be 6 or 7 thousand years old" ~ Erik Nelson

This doesnt really answer the question.

 

[46AND2]

" Can you name even one thing that would be incompatible with a hypothetical supernatural agent?" ~46AND2

"not everything is mutually compatible

if the earth really actually were to be 5 billion years old...

then it couldn't be 6 or 7 thousand years old" ~ Erik Nelson

This doesnt really answer the question.

This, too.

 

[46AND2]

Hyperbole? Can you name even one thing...

if the earth really actually were to be 5 billion years old...

then it couldn't be 6 or 7 thousand years old

Also...the earth being two different ages isn't a thing.

But if it was...I rather suspect a hypothetical supernatural agent would be offered as explanation...

 

[Erik Nelson]

I know of at least one Christian here who has argued just that--that it is both.



But a hypothetical supernatural agent which defies even logic has been, and is continuously, proposed.

It is "supernatural" after all, and not bound by the laws of nature we observe, right? I mean, even your personal definition, regardless of how liberal that definition may or may not be, at some point, would likely embody something analogous to the earth being two different ages (in other words, logic-defying).

the existence of God in the heavens defies no logic, and some would say is even to-be-expected

 

[46AND2]

the existence of God in the heavens defies no logic, and some would say is even to-be-expected

That all depends on how you define him.

Do you believe Jesus was 100% man, and 100% god? illogical.
Is your god tri-omni? A host of illogical attributes there.
Do you believe an omnipotent creator god imbibed free will in his created subjects? illogical.
The trinity? illogical.

 

[Erik Nelson]

That all depends on how you define him.

Do you believe Jesus was 100% man, and 100% god? illogical.
Is your god tri-omni? A host of illogical attributes there.
Do you believe an omnipotent creator god imbibed free will in his created subjects? illogical.
The trinity? illogical.

not really

you have a mind, hands, and a mouth

God, Word, and Holy Spirit (by which God communicates to humanity through prophets)

 

[46AND2]

not really

you have a mind, hands, and a mouth

God, Word, and Holy Spirit (by which God communicates to humanity through prophets)

I also don't claim that my hands are FULLY me, but rather a part of me. If that's how you see the trinity, fine, but you'd find plenty of disagreement among your peers.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That all depends on how you define him.

Do you believe Jesus was 100% man, and 100% god? illogical.
Is your god tri-omni? A host of illogical attributes there.
Do you believe an omnipotent creator god imbibed free will in his created subjects? illogical.
The trinity? illogical.

God is, of necessity, infinite in nature. And God is, of necessity, the origin of God. (Nothing else is great enough)

God as the origin of God is God the Father. God as originated by God is God the Son. God as the organizer of His origin from Himself is God the Holy Spirit.