Top 2 reasons why man evolved from prior life.

[46AND2]

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.

Ok, if that works for you, great.

As I said, a hypothetical supernatural agent is capable of explaining literally anything.

 

[46AND2]

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.

It also doesn't really solve the problem, though. Still three entities which are each fully the one and only god (origins of each are irrelevant). And you utilize an oxymoron in your definition when you talk about the "origin" of something infinite.

 

[Erik Nelson]

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.

please please, that's not really true

you would never allow anyone to try to separate your hands from your mouth or mind & brain

you want to keep all your facilities together in full and complete harmonious union, without separation... Yet also without confusion, ie yes INTEGRATED, but not CROSS WIRED

and so on,

no analogy is perfect obviously, but you have 5 primary external senses even though there is just one you

 

[Erik Nelson]

It also doesn't really solve the problem, though. Still three entities which are each fully the one and only god (origins of each are irrelevant). And you utilize an oxymoron in your definition when you talk about the "origin" of something infinite.

still think you are being overly simplistic

Christians are very humble when it comes to God and the Divine

Divinity is so much more than mankind that Christians hardly dare to assign relative rank amongst the Godhead

each element of the Godhead is fully DIVINE, a "separate species apart" from the humble inhabitants of planet earth (so to speak)..

even if those three primary elements are distinct in function & role (brain, hands, mouth)

there really is nothing mathematically contradictory about this, Jesus said He and the Father were ONE, and everyone knows he meant UNITED, in one harmonious relationship of like mind & purpose

nobody is saying "1+1+1=1" like you are thinking

they are saying more like "the Brain, Hands & Mouth of God are all of the same Divine heavenly species" and that all of them are older & more archaic than the earth

any vagueness of vocabulary reflects, to my mind, a humble respectful keeping of one's distance as if hardly daring to speak about the Divine, much less flat out assign relative rank or hierarchy in any detail

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

I'm not sure the invitation is being extended to creationists but I've fielded these arguments for years. The two most common arguments are homology (things alike), specifically transitional hominid fossils and comparative genomics. There are only two explanations for the origin of man, creation and naturalistic processes, between the two of them they exhaust the possibilities.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things." D. Futuyama, Science on Trial. 1983)
​

My argument is simply this, if things alike argue for common ancestry then differences argue against it. The single most important being, the human brain:

APE VS. HOMININ SKULLS

The scenario is invariably there are five million years of continuous evolution that explains the gradual transformation which is contrary to what we know from the fossil record. The hominid doesn't start until about 2 mya and for a million years just prior to their appearance on the scene this is the only transitional available:

The Genus Paranthropus, P. aethiopicus

The is also over a hundred million base pairs of divergence including about 70% of the protein coding genes that diverge by at least 1 codon per lineage but that's the gist of it. The human brain would have emerged virtually over night when the only other transitional in the evolutionary background being a transitional between the common ancestor of chimps and gorillas.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[46AND2]

I'm not sure the invitation is being extended to creationists but I've fielded these arguments for years. The two most common arguments are homology (things alike), specifically transitional hominid fossils and comparative genomics. There are only two explanations for the origin of man, creation and naturalistic processes, between the two of them they exhaust the possibilities.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things." D. Futuyama, Science on Trial. 1983)
​

My argument is simply this, if things alike argue for common ancestry then differences argue against it. The single most important being, the human brain:

APE VS. HOMININ SKULLS

The scenario is invariably there are five million years of continuous evolution that explains the gradual transformation which is contrary to what we know from the fossil record. The hominid doesn't start until about 2 mya and for a million years just prior to their appearance on the scene this is the only transitional available:

The Genus Paranthropus, P. aethiopicus

The is also over a hundred million base pairs of divergence including about 70% of the protein coding genes that diverge by at least 1 codon per lineage but that's the gist of it. The human brain would have emerged virtually over night when the only other transitional in the evolutionary background being a transitional between the common ancestor of chimps and gorillas.

Grace and peace,
Mark

And you've been told for years that it isn't a homology argument, it's a phylogeny argument. An argument that includes, and sometimes (especially in the case of genetics) even PREFERS, differences, rather than similarities. Thereby making your "if similarities are evidence for evolution, then differences are against it" completely wrong.

 

[Erik Nelson]

evolution on earth has (just about) no effect on heaven, and (absolutely) no impact on the existence (or otherwise) of God in heaven

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It also doesn't really solve the problem, though. Still three entities which are each fully the one and only god (origins of each are irrelevant). And you utilize an oxymoron in your definition when you talk about the "origin" of something infinite.

Of course God, being beyond time, has no time of origination. But we can talk about why there is a God . . . or why there is not. Only in that abstract sense can we talk about an "origin" for God.

Maybe instead of speaking of God as three in one we should speak of God as seven in one.

Rev 5:6 And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. NASU

Maybe we see now as through a crudly worked glass, darkly.

 

[tas8831]

Sorry, you have misunderstood what you quoted. An allele introduced by hybridization - already existed in a parent. Therefore it is not "created" by mating, as you assert, but merely inherited. The rest of your claims of error are equally dubious.

​

No, it is created. It is your misunderstanding, it's what your evolutionary biologists are trying to explain to you. It is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two.

Missed this originally. On what planet does ANY of that gibberish make sense?

Thus the creationist lays bare his level of genetics understanding for all to laugh at.

Just to reiterate:

"It [an allele] is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Missed this originally. On what planet does ANY of that gibberish make sense?

Thus the creationist lays bare his level of genetics understanding for all to laugh at.

Just to reiterate:

"It [an allele] is not a mutation which simply copies what already exists in a single genome. It is taking two entirely different chromosomes and creating a unique gene from the two."

No, sadly you are the one mistaken.

Just as the combination of two entirely different chromosomes from two different parents combine into a unique gene from the two.

This is what the Grants found, and they found it to be two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new genetic information than mutations, because the mutation only affected a single loci, while the combining of genes during conception affected serveral loci at once.

It is quite apparent none of you have actually read the Grants paper, nor the several hundred related papers since produced from the Grants discovery.

Which is sad really as the ones claiming to understand the science actually understand the least and are still in the dark ages of knowledge.... seems the only laughable knowledge is the ones that can’t keep up with the advancements in knowledge.... look in the mirror when you laugh and it will be properly directed. All you talk is your own PR gibberish because you can’t or won’t accept the truth that your precious mutations are second string bit players at best.

 

[tas8831]

No, sadly you are the one mistaken.

LOL!
OK...

Just as the combination of two entirely different chromosomes from two different parents combine into a unique gene from the two.

As you do not seem to grasp the difference between "chromosome" and "gene", I see no reason to give the rest of your gibberish the time of day. It is possible, though not very common, to produce a hybrid gene from homologous recombination, but these genes are basically merged alleles. But this is not what is described in the Grant paper, and it is not something you would understand.

Let us all know when you get around to taking that community college genetics course, OK?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL!
OK...


As you do not seem to grasp the difference between "chromosome" and "gene", I see no reason to give the rest of your gibberish the time of day. It is possible, though not very common, to produce a hybrid gene from homologous recombination, but these genes are basically merged alleles. But this is not what is described in the Grant paper, and it is not something you would understand.

Let us all know when you get around to taking that community college genetics course, OK?

Says the guy that thinks an single allele is a gene.....

Allele

"Usually alleles are sequences that code for a gene, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-gene sequence.

An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess."

You continue to ignore the science...

You will continue to ignore that it is the "Morphological consequences of hybridization were studied in a group of three interbreeding species of Darwin's finches", not mutation......

Will continue to ignore "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."

New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization...... not by mutation.... in fact it outdid that introduced by mutation by two to three orders of magnitude.....

You continue to ignore that "Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci."

continue to ignore scientific definitions in your zeal to promote your Fairie Dust..

Introgression - Wikipedia

"Introgression, also known as introgressive hybridization, in genetics is the movement of a gene (gene flow) from one species into the gene pool of another by the repeated backcrossing of an interspecific hybrid with one of its parent species...."

"...Introgression or introgressive hybridization is the incorporation (usually via hybridization and backcrossing) of alleles from one entity (species) into the gene pool of a second, divergent entity (species)."


Over and over you ignore the reality for your fantasy, and then you want people to actually believe anything you have to say when you can't even see it in front of your nose written in black and white...... take your pseudoscience elsewhere, it won't fly here and is in opposition to the Grants own words and the very scientific definitions..... you can't be trusted at all in anything you say because you can't even accept the science......

 

[tas8831]

Says the guy that thinks an single allele is a gene.....

Allele

"Usually alleles are sequences that code for a gene, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-gene sequence.

An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess."

You continue to ignore the science...

Have to wonder why you left that second sentence on there since it totally demolishes your rather idiotic new take on alleles (they are not genes).

This is a great example of how stupid it is to do "research" , creationist-style, by googling a keyword, then only reading returns for 'juicy quotes' that can be snatched out of context to try to prop up one's already-written ignorance.


From this wizard's own link above:

ALLELE

"An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess."

That should have been enough. But there is more, just 2 sentences later:

"An example is the gene for blossom color in many species of flower — a single gene controls the color of the petals, but there may be several different versions (or alleles) of the gene."

I have written as much before, and it is time to revisit -
Is it possible that justatruthseeker is a really a massively successful, long-term Poe, just posing as a creationist to try to make them look stupid?

 

[tas8831]

My argument is simply this, if things alike argue for common ancestry then differences argue against it. The single most important being, the human brain:

APE VS. HOMININ SKULLS

The scenario is invariably there are five million years of continuous evolution that explains the gradual transformation which is contrary to what we know from the fossil record. The hominid doesn't start until about 2 mya and for a million years just prior to their appearance on the scene this is the only transitional available:

The Genus Paranthropus, P. aethiopicus

The is also over a hundred million base pairs of divergence including about 70% of the protein coding genes that diverge by at least 1 codon per lineage but that's the gist of it. The human brain would have emerged virtually over night when the only other transitional in the evolutionary background being a transitional between the common ancestor of chimps and gorillas.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I think I have asked before - do you understand much about development? Embryo to fetus to child to adult?

You provide a comparison of adult skulls above, but check out this juvenile gorilla skull:

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Have to wonder why you left that second sentence on there since it totally demolishes your rather idiotic new take on alleles (they are not genes).

This is a great example of how stupid it is to do "research" , creationist-style, by googling a keyword, then only reading returns for 'juicy quotes' that can be snatched out of context to try to prop up one's already-written ignorance.


From this wizard's own link above:

ALLELE

"An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess."

That should have been enough. But there is more, just 2 sentences later:

"An example is the gene for blossom color in many species of flower — a single gene controls the color of the petals, but there may be several different versions (or alleles) of the gene."

I have written as much before, and it is time to revisit -
Is it possible that justatruthseeker is a really a massively successful, long-term Poe, just posing as a creationist to try to make them look stupid?

Exactly, hence your idiotic belief that it is only mutations which cause change, even when the Grants showed you that repeated backcrossing combined alleles and created more genetic variation by a factor of two to three magnitudes than mutations did.

Reread your quote (there may be several different versions (alleles) of the gene)...

Not just one or two that are passed down, but several that combine into new versions after repeated backcrossing which leads to greater genetic variations as interbreeding affects more than one loci as the genes from others are combined into one.....

Surrender your false beliefs in your god mutation Tas. it is going nowhere but into the trash bin of history as another failed attempt by evolutionists to prove evolution....

As soon as you give up your false hopes in mutation and accept reality, the sooner you can start to understand the world around you.....

 

[tas8831]

So precious that even as you try to avoid having to admit your clear ignorance on basic genetics, you bring up yet another example of it:

Exactly, hence your idiotic belief that it is only mutations which cause change, even when the Grants showed you that repeated backcrossing combined alleles and created more genetic variation by a factor of two to three magnitudes than mutations did.

The 'idiotic belief' that your precious Grants ALSO HAVE?


I suppose I would have to go back into my post archive to find the several times that I have demonstrated that those alleles you refer to are produced BY MUTATIONS in the first place, as even your oft-quoted Grant paper indicates.

You are beyond laughable, and "inquiring mind" [sic] also demonstrates her abject ignorance of anything other than being trollish and annoying by rating your nonsensical gibberish as 'winner.'

Help with a genetics claim...

"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)."


Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II


"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)."


Scientific vs Wrong


"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)."

Beyond hope.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You mean, you want to find something like this?

The foundation of observed evidence to state evolution occurred is missing.
Evolution is based on conjecture not evidence.

It rather seems more accurate to say that your idea of evolution is based on misinformation coming from creationist propaganda.

Doesn't it bother you to be arguing strawmen?
I mean, surely you know by now that that is what you do, after so many people pointed it out already to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It's also completely compatible with the evolutionary process as-is, without any unfalsifiable supernatural intervention.

Why assume unfalsifiable supernatural intervention, when there is no reason to and if the evolutionary process by itself is sufficient to account for all species?



Furthermore: can you come up with ANYTHING AT ALL that would NOT be compatible with an unfalsifiable supernatural agent? Because I sure can't.

Even the idea of everything being created as is just 3 seconds ago, with our memories implanted of having lived our entire lives in a universe that looks 13.7 billion years old, isn't incompatible with such unfalsifiable nonsense.

When something is "compatible" with literally anything your imagination could produce, then it is completely meaningless and worthless as an explanatory model of reality..

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So precious that even as you try to avoid having to admit your clear ignorance on basic genetics, you bring up yet another example of it:

The 'idiotic belief' that your precious Grants ALSO HAVE?


I suppose I would have to go back into my post archive to find the several times that I have demonstrated that those alleles you refer to are produced BY MUTATIONS in the first place, as even your oft-quoted Grant paper indicates.

You are beyond laughable, and "inquiring mind" [sic] also demonstrates her abject ignorance of anything other than being trollish and annoying by rating your nonsensical gibberish as 'winner.'

Help with a genetics claim...

"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)."


Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II


"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)."


Scientific vs Wrong


"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)."

Beyond hope.

Except you can’t even understand the difference between an allele introduced by mutation and one introduced by hybridization, so no one needs to listen to your fantasies.

You still can’t grasp the the allele introduced from hybridization (repeated backcrossing) is not a mutated allele, but one introduced from continued interchange of genes from mating.

Your fanaticism has kept you blinded to reality.

You need to reread those papers carefully. They are speaking of alleles introduced by hybridization (not mutation) which is two to three orders greater at producing new genetic variation than the alleles introduced by mutation.

You are lost in you mutation fantasy world Tas, and I see there is no hope of getting you to see reality. Every quote you posted simply shows how wrong you are, and yet you can’t see it, so deep in fantasy land have you delved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your fanaticism has kept you blinded to reality.

Says the religious fanatic who has a theological obligation to argue against any and all science that disagrees with his fanatical religious beliefs...