When did evolution begin?

[brinny]

When did evolution begin?

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" assures us that the particular fossils found in the successive layers of sediments, wherever they are found around the earth, do not appear in the previous or later sediment layers. If this is true none of those particular life forms, unique only to those sediment layers, evolved at all, but were destroyed when that period ended.

So, if evolution did occur to those species it must have occurred during the very brief period between those time frames, for which there is no fossil evidence. And the change would have been quite drastic.

Or, if evolution did occur during the forming of those layers the evolved species within all perished when that period abruptly ended, thus interrupting the whole evolutionary process.

So, if everything perished in the previous layer, what was left to evolve in succeeding layers?

Very good question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hmm... Interesting point. A lovely way to explain that little 'discrepancy' in the Bible which scholars say is due to different authors.

I have long understood that neanderthal man (or dust-man as you describe) is not God's chosen man, but that later man is the one with the mark of God and line of Shem.

Either way, man was not evolved from animals.

Exactly, Genesis 1 concerns the creation of the universe and the way life unfolds with man (neanderthal and those that arose prior). Genesis 2 goes over that creation narrative culminating in the spiritual birth of modern man. It is interesting to note that there is a very distinct time where spirituality and human man appear in the fossil evidence.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

@Loudmouth
None. Because it does not exist.

Only man is made in the image of God.

You are just messing around with me now, huh.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When you look in a mirror, you are looking at an imperfect replicator that competes for limited resources. That's the evidence.

Ok. So you are not referring to the first reproducing cell then...I thought you said you were.

 

[Loudmouth]

None. Because it does not exist.

How do you know that the missing link does not exist if you don't even know what one would look like?

Would it be accurate to say that you would never accept any fossil as being the missing link, no matter what it looked like? Would it be accurate to say that you ignore the evidence from the fossil record?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok. So you are not referring to the first reproducing cell then...

No, I am not. The requirement for evolution is an imperfect replicator that competes for limited resources. THAT'S IT. If there were multiple origins of life or a single one, either natural or supernatural, the same definition applies.

I thought you said you were.

You really need to improve your reading comprehension. I never said anything of the like.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your empty assertions doesn't change who wrote it. If you want to make a book into your god, then go for it.

Eh, you can think what you want. Men wrote it and I have no problem with that. If you do that is your view and held by a minority.

 

[Loudmouth]

Eh, you can think what you want. Men wrote it and I have no problem with that. If you do that is your view and held by a minority.

Argumentum ad populum

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Exactly, Genesis 1 concerns the creation of the universe and the way life unfolds with man (neanderthal and those that arose prior). Genesis 2 goes over that creation narrative culminating in the spiritual birth of modern man. It is interesting to note that there is a very distinct time where spirituality and human man appear in the fossil evidence.

Okay.

Genesis 2 is where Yahweh (Yeshua) is first fully revealed as well. As breathing life into man. I like the symbolism you illustrate as to this being born again unto Jesus Christ.

Holy man was still created on Day 6 though. Don't you think? Or is this why God did not regard the creation of man as 'joyful and good'???

 

[Ben West]

Hmm... Interesting point. A lovely way to explain that little 'discrepancy' in the Bible which scholars say is due to different authors.

I have long understood that neanderthal man (or dust-man as you describe) is not God's chosen man, but that later man is the one with the mark of God and line of Shem.

Either way, man was not evolved from animals.

It's not a discrepancy in the Bible but in the traditional religious story of the creation by ancient men. it's what they believed but it is NOT what the Supreme Intelligence of Creation wrote. God has an interesting way to hide His Truth and assure that ONLY by Faith can one be saved. He reveals His secret to Daniel:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

As mankind's knowledge increases, God's Truth, which only God could have written in Genesis, becomes more understandable. This knowledge will soon PROVE that the False ToE is nothing more than the fantasies of men who have REJECTED God's Truth in Genesis. ll Peter 3:3-7 The fact that God's Truth is finally being understood shows that it is the "time of the end". Amen?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, I am not. The requirement for evolution is an imperfect replicator that competes for limited resources. THAT'S IT. If there were multiple origins of life or a single one, either natural or supernatural, the same definition applies.



You really need to improve your reading comprehension. I never said anything of the like.

The question we are trying to address is where the dividing line is between evolution and abiogenesis. All we are considering are the principles involved.

As for when evolution starts, it starts when you have imperfect replicators competing for limited resources. If those first imperfect replicators came about through supernatural magic, the principle still applies.

What evidence we have are for complex replicating organisms from the get go. It is as simple as that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay.

Genesis 2 is where Yahweh (Yeshua) is first fully revealed as well. As breathing life into man. I like the symbolism you illustrate as to this being born again unto Jesus Christ.

Holy man was still created on Day 6 though. Don't you think? Or is this why God did not regard the creation of man as 'joyful and good'???

Yes, man was created on day six. I just don't think we can determine the length of a day. I know that there are those that believe it is a literal day, but God said that the sun, moon and stars were created to determine a day and night so before they were created there was no demarcation of the day. So I interpret the Genesis Narrative very much as an Old Earth Creationist. I don't think any interpretation to be actually wrong since we don't have a good idea how much time is actually represented in the Narrative. I just happen to think Genesis fits well with the fossil record excluding the absence of evidence for plants coming prior to life in the Cambrian. I believe there were plants prior but there is no evidence that supports that as of yet but the oxygen in the atmosphere very early points to that being a strong possibility.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not a discrepancy in the Bible but in the traditional religious story of the creation by ancient men. it's what they believed but it is NOT what the Supreme Intelligence of Creation wrote. God has an interesting way to hide His Truth and assure that ONLY by Faith can one be saved. He reveals His secret to Daniel:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

As mankind's knowledge increases, God's Truth, which only God could have written in Genesis, becomes more understandable. This knowledge will soon PROVE that the False ToE is nothing more than the fantasies of men who have REJECTED God's Truth in Genesis. ll Peter 3:3-7 The fact that God's Truth is finally being understood shows that it is the "time of the end". Amen?

The fact that the process of evolution has given man a way to explain (to some degree) life without God does not mean that evolution as defined as genetic change in a population does not happen. Materialists just have placed their belief on a natural process (the Created) rather than on the Creator.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Argumentum ad populum

True, but it still is true.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

It's not a discrepancy in the Bible but in the traditional religious story of the creation by ancient men. it's what they believed but it is NOT what the Supreme Intelligence of Creation wrote. God has an interesting way to hide His Truth and assure that ONLY by Faith can one be saved. He reveals His secret to Daniel:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

As mankind's knowledge increases, God's Truth, which only God could have written in Genesis, becomes more understandable. This knowledge will soon PROVE that the False ToE is nothing more than the fantasies of men who have REJECTED God's Truth in Genesis. ll Peter 3:3-7 The fact that God's Truth is finally being understood shows that it is the "time of the end". Amen?

Yes. Amen.

I do not believe in Bible discrepancy, only lack of divine insight.

I have always been drawn to Genesis for some reason. I believe it holds within it all the truths of God incorporated throughout the Bible.

thanks for enlightening me a bit more.

 

[Loudmouth]

True, but it still is true.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence we have are for complex replicating organisms from the get go. It is as simple as that.

Please, let's see that evidence. Show us the genome for the first living organisms on Earth.

 

[Chicken Little]

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" assures us that the particular fossils found in the successive layers of sediments, wherever they are found around the earth, do not appear in the previous or later sediment layers. If this is true none of those particular life forms, unique only to those sediment layers, evolved at all, but were destroyed when that period ended.

So, if evolution did occur to those species it must have occurred during the very brief period between those time frames, for which there is no fossil evidence. And the change would have been quite drastic.

Or, if evolution did occur during the forming of those layers the evolved species within all perished when that period abruptly ended, thus interrupting the whole evolutionary process.

So, if everything perished in the previous layer, what was left to evolve in succeeding layers?

well I think the whole thing started with Darwin and then it just happened and everyone had their evolution glasses on .

you know the other day I was trying to explain clans and how genetic inheritance really works and when we got down to the point where I started showing line of ladies over ages in the same clan and how predictable genetic really is, if you know the laws of it .. and how they looked exactly the same because it is all so predictable. but scientism won't ever ask those questions because they don't want the answers to it. they have to have a magical genes that are all crap shoot of mystery. or evolution can't happen.
someone on that list started a thread about re-incarnation..

and trust me when I say we were not going anywhere true from that point.

so I gave up. truth is only as pure as the last crooked mind it passed through.

so back to your question !
I think evolution started when Darwin gave man the excuse to see what they wanted to see and to not questions anything else. at least those lies did.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's because the geologic record itself abruptly stops and has large gaps. Deposition of sediments is not constant or continuous, so why would the fossil record be constant and continuous?

Doesn't evolution depend on some observable continuum? If unobserved evolution filled those gaps isn't that a scientific "god of the gaps"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Based on what evidence?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx This is evidence that here in the US three out of four people believe God inspired the Bible.

55% of the world's population believe the Bible is the inspired word of God this includes 32% Christian and 23% Muslim which while they believe there have been alterations made since God inspired it and Jews bring in 14 million more that agree it is inspired.