When did evolution begin?

[Aman777]

Wow. Nice ad hominen, there. Notice you didn't answer any of my points, but simply went for insult: "admitting that they cannot understand Genesis". It's a little hypocritical, don't you think, that after insulting me, you go for "In Love" in the signature?

No, the longer I look at the stories the more it is obvious that there are 2 stories in Genesis 1-3 and that they come from different traditions within ancient Israel. Starting with the identifier for God, the order of creation, the timing of creation, and the method of creation all indicate 2 different stories. You, of course, can try to refute that. Good luck. Looking at curricula at all the major theological seminaries, I find they agree with the idea there are 2 creation stories.

Does kind of screw up Biblical literalism, but I'm OK with that. The lessons that come out of reading the 2 creation stories the way they are meant to be read (and not abusing them trying to make one) are much more enlightening and religiously powerful than the result of abusing them.

Here are the reasons you cannot make "TWO" creations fit the Bible narrative.

1. Genesis Chapter 1 is the entire HISTORY of the 6 Days/Ages of Creation including events which are FUTURE to 2015. Genesis 1:28-31 is PROPHECY of future events.

2. Genesis Chapter 2:1-3 is the Prophecy of a Future time when God rests from "ALL" of His work of creating the perfect 3rd Heaven. God rests on the 7th Day which has no end because it's Eternity.

3. At Genesis 2:4, we are taken BACK to the events of the THIRD Day when Adam's Earth was made. From there to the end of Revelation EVERY verse refers BACK to the events of one of God's Seven Days/Ages because God has but SIX Days of work and One Festival Day (as UWolf would say) when He rests (CEASES to Create) from ALL of His work of creating.

God told us the entire HISTORY of His Creation in the first 34 verses of Genesis and adds the details of those Days throughout the rest of the Bible. Today remains the 6th Creative Day because God is STILL creating mankind "in His Image" or In Christ as Gen 1:27 shows. God will NOT rest until His creation is finished or brought to perfection. He wouldn't be God IF He rested BEFORE His work was made perfect. Amen?

 

[Loudmouth]

How does something know when to "evolve"?

The same way that water knows to go downhill. It is an unavoidable result of variation and competition for limited resources.

and if they get instructions as to what they should evolve into,

They don't.

Robins are still making their nests as they have for thousands of years. According to evolution, they should be building townhomes by now.

Why?

The coelacanth is exactly the same as it was 140 million years ago, with no change whatsoever.

The modern species of coelacanth is found nowhere in the fossil record. There are nearly 100 known fossil species of coelacanth, and the modern species is not amongst them. Also, those species were all different from one another. It appears that you are under the impression that the coelacanth represents a single species. You couldn't be farther from the truth.

Did evolution pass it by and if it did , why?

Stabilizing selection is certainly a possible outcome.

Also, Splain to me Lucy, why no one can figure out the platypus?

What can't be figured out?

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? Are you ominescent now? You have no idea what my educational background is.

I have a very good idea based on your posts here.

Really, give the evidence that shows the appearance is false.

The appearance is subjective, so it doesn't count as objective evidence. How many times have we gone over this?

It has been presented.

Not once has it been presented. All you keep repeating are subjective opinions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have a very good idea based on your posts here.

Provide a quote where I have presented anything that shows a lack of knowledge on any evolutionary method or scientific facts that I have been presented incorrectly.

The appearance is subjective, so it doesn't count as objective evidence. How many times have we gone over this?

You haven't shown it is subjective. Show how this appearance has been produced by evolutionary processes with evidence.

Not once has it been presented. All you keep repeating are subjective opinions.

That is false. I have shown that using new technology that we have today we observe human like engineering in the features, structures, systems and functions in living forms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Provide a quote where I have presented anything that shows a lack of knowledge on any evolutionary method or scientific facts that I have been presented incorrectly.

It is just an overall impression. As a more specific example, you thought an early model and late model corvette formed a nested hierarchy simply because they looked similar. You failed to understand that you need at least 3 things to form a nested hierarchy, not 2. You simple don't know what a phylogeny is. Every educated biologist I know can accurately describe what a phylogeny is.

You haven't shown it is subjective.

Again, I have shown this in multiple posts. You have yet to produce an objective methodology, a unit of measure, or a statistical analysis of results. You will of course ignore this post and repeat the same thing over again as if no one has addressed it, because that is all you can do.

Show how this appearance has been produced by evolutionary processes with evidence.

We have multiple examples of the appearance of design being produced by natural process. Ducks in clouds come to mind.

You have never been able to show that the appearance of design is anything other than a subjective opinion. It isn't up to me to disprove that it is objective evidence. It is up to you to prove that it is objective evidence. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

That is false. I have shown that using new technology that we have today we observe human like engineering in the features, structures, systems and functions in living forms.

That is entirely subjective.

 

[Aman777]

Genesis 1 can be (and should be) interpreted as repudiation of the Babylonian gods. The question remains why you decide Genesis 1 talks about "real" creation but Genesis 2 only about "Spiritual creation". Genesis 2 describes the physical creation of animals and 2 humans. It also talks about the creation of the earth, sun, stars, and planets (heavens). "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," Of course, it says God made everything that Genesis 1 spreads out over 3 days in a single day. But "heavens and earth" are physical objects, are they not?

Genesis 2:19: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; "

So what is the "Spiritual" about that?

Only the Image of the Spiritual can form creatures and give them life. Jesus (LORD God) is the physical Image of the invisible Spirit we call God. Col. 1:15 Amen

 

[Aman777]

(1) Genesis 1:20-27 (interpreted literally) talks about separate creations. Read literally, what else would you call

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their (Trinity) kind, and every winged fowl after his (Jesus) kind: and God saw that it was good. ...

>>>>END OF THE 5th Day.<<<<<<<<

(2) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his (Jesus) kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his (Jesus) kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his (Jesus) kind, and cattle after their (Trinity) kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his (Jesus) kind:

(3) and God saw that it was good." ?

(4) Where is there any hint of ancestor-descendant relationship? Remember, the ancestors of whales created on Day 5 are the land animals created on Day 6. So whales have to be independent creations of any land animals. If you do not agree, please provide your reasoning.

1. The Creations ALL were created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 They are ALL "Their/Trinity) kinds. Science calls them "natural".

2. At the beginning of the present 6th Day, Jesus made the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air and brought them to Adam who named them, long BEFORE Eve was made. Gen 2:19 Jesus made the cattle after THEIR kind which the Trinity created on the 5th Day and the LORD made the fowl after HIS kind.

3. God has NOT YET said It is very good at the end of the present 6th Day of Creation since it's in the FUTURE and will NOT happen until the prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 is fulfilled when Jesus returns to this Earth.

4. ALL living beings EXCEPT Humans, made on the 3rd Day, were created and brought forth from the water at God's command on the 5th Day. Science has discovered that without liquid water, the cells in living creatures cannot live. God's Truth is the Truth in every way. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

I think it did change, if not in the flood, then shortly after. Therfore one cannot identify the location of Eden by present rivers, or what remains of them.

The reason no one can identify Eden is because it was on Adam's Earth which was "clean dissolved" in the Flood. Isa 24:19 The four rivers all began as one river which came from the Garden of Eden which was the highest point on Adam's Earth. IF our Earth were like Adam's the one river would run from Mt Everest and then become 4 rivers. This could NEVER supply the water to our SPHERE but did it well on Adam's FLAT Earth which was only 22.5 feet (15 cubits) high on it's highest mountain. Gen 7:20

Those who believe our world was "divided" physically at Peleg's time cannot support their view with actual facts. The world was "divided" between the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Humans (descendants of Adam) at that time. Gen 10:25 This was accomplished from Babel. Gen 11:9 God Bless you

 

[jimbohank]

If you have evidence demonstrating that evolution is false, then now is the time to present it.

Define "evolution". There seems to be a misconception of the term. For example man coming from monkey. Is that what you consider "evolution"?

 

[justlookinla]

Okay. I'm not sure about the problem you are having.

Hypothesis:
Pine Tree and Elephant share a common ancestor. Random mutation and natural selection is responsible for the divergence.

Actually only random mutation is responsible for the creation of new life forms.

Evidence:
They are consistent in structure and genetics with diverting from a common ancestor.
They are affected by random mutations.
There are no structures in their body that prevent random mutations being responsible for the difference between the two organisms.
There is fossil evidence that their ancestors were more similar then the organisms are now.

There... This what you are after?

Nope, not even close. You've offered not one bit of evidence, supported by the scientific method, of HOW a pine tree and elephant was created from a single life form of long ago.

Evidence for a common ancestor shows it happened.
Random mutations is the proposed mechanism.

"Proposed" = guess, supposition...with no supporting evidence based on the scientific method.

The presence of random mutations and natural selection, and lack of evidence for any other significant factors, leaves the scientific conclusion from the evidence that they evolved apart.

And again you divert from the issue of how they were created.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is just an overall impression. As a more specific example, you thought an early model and late model corvette formed a nested hierarchy simply because they looked similar. You failed to understand that you need at least 3 things to form a nested hierarchy, not 2. You simple don't know what a phylogeny is. Every educated biologist I know can accurately describe what a phylogeny is.

No I provided a presentation that a biologist provided to explain nested hierarchy. T. Berra, Evolution and the myth of creationism,1990, pg 117-119

I find it humorous that you claim this shows I am not educated in the biological sciences when a famous one provided this information.

Again, I have shown this in multiple posts. You have yet to produce an objective methodology, a unit of measure, or a statistical analysis of results. You will of course ignore this post and repeat the same thing over again as if no one has addressed it, because that is all you can do.

You have provided nothing...nada...no evidence whatsoever for the claim that the appearance is false. That is subjectively seen (all biologists admit to observing it) and I have given you the means of scientific discovery that made this observation possible.

We have multiple examples of the appearance of design being produced by natural process. Ducks in clouds come to mind.

Category error. Provide one quote from a biologist that claims the design seen in living things is pareidolia. You won't find one because that is not what is being claimed.

You have never been able to show that the appearance of design is anything other than a subjective opinion. It isn't up to me to disprove that it is objective evidence. It is up to you to prove that it is objective evidence. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

Pot kettle black.

That is entirely subjective.

Prove it.

 

[justlookinla]

The same way that water knows to go downhill. It is an unavoidable result of variation and competition for limited resources.

How does competition for limited resources cause the creation of a new life form....one that didn't exist before?

 

[justlookinla]

Define "evolution". There seems to be a misconception of the term. For example man coming from monkey. Is that what you consider "evolution"?

That's the thing. "Evolution" has several variations....several meanings.

 

[Loudmouth]

Define "evolution". There seems to be a misconception of the term. For example man coming from monkey. Is that what you consider "evolution"?

If you are going to nit pick over terms, then please use primate instead of monkey. Primate is a monophyletic term while monkey is paraphyletic. In the study of evolution, we try to use monophyletic terms.

The process of mechanisms such as random mutations, natural selection, and speciation producing the primate species we see today, including humans, from a shared primate ancestor is evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

That's the thing. "Evolution" has several variations....several meanings.

Evolution isn't a monolithic term.

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Meanings2000.pdf​

 

[justlookinla]

If you are going to nit pick over terms, then please use primate instead of monkey. Primate is a monophyletic term while monkey is paraphyletic. In the study of evolution, we try to use monophyletic terms.

The process of mechanisms such as random mutations, natural selection, and speciation producing the primate species we see today, including humans, from a shared primate ancestor is evolution.

That's atheistic Darwinist creationism.....one of the forms of evolution.

 

[dad]

The reason no one can identify Eden is because it was on Adam's Earth which was "clean dissolved" in the Flood.

Try to phrase your flimsy unsound speculations in another way, so that they do not come off sounding like something that happened in fact.

Isa 24:19 The four rivers all began as one river which came from the Garden of Eden which was the highest point on Adam's Earth.

Oh? What if a spring fed a river or rivers? That could allow it to even go uphill a ways, no?
But simply having 4 rivers from one does not help you.

IF our Earth were like Adam's the one river would run from Mt Everest and then become 4 rivers. This could NEVER supply the water to our SPHERE but did it well on Adam's FLAT Earth which was only 22.5 feet (15 cubits) high on it's highest mountain. Gen 7:20

Sphere smere. Remember it was in a garden. The waters from that river presumably did not water Australia, Antarctica, and elsewhere?

Those who believe our world was "divided" physically at Peleg's time cannot support their view with actual facts.

Except that if we graph the lifespan changes it is from that exact time that it really starts. The few folks born before that time, if they started to live a Peleg type lifespan after Peleg was here, would not have lived longer than most folks! Not after the days of Peleg. Example Noah lived say 300 years after the flood. Noe Peleg lived something like if I recall, 235 years. If the change came in the latter part of Peleg's days, that means Noah would have lived only 65 years after that! Shem would have lived something like about, 265 years after that! In other words the life spans converge as being similar at that time. That is evidence!

Then we can look at animals and how they got where they did after the flood. Nothing but a fast continental separation does it far as I can see!

The world was "divided" between the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Humans (descendants of Adam) at that time.

Now that's just crazy. Totally made up nonsense.

 

[jimbohank]

That's the thing. "Evolution" has several variations....several meanings.

OK, so did we evolve from primates?

 

[jimbohank]

If you are going to nit pick over terms, then please use primate instead of monkey. Primate is a monophyletic term while monkey is paraphyletic. In the study of evolution, we try to use monophyletic terms.

The process of mechanisms such as random mutations, natural selection, and speciation producing the primate species we see today, including humans, from a shared primate ancestor is evolution.

Who was the shared primate ancestor? Teach me.

 

[justlookinla]

OK, so did we evolve from primates?

What do you mean by "evolve"?