Why are there still apes?

[Hans Blaster]

Genesis states it clearly that God is the Creator of all created things.

So only the "created" things, eh?

What if none of the things are created? (I'm going to limit this to living things, because I don't want to get in how most created things were created by humans.)

 

[Hank77]

Love gorillas.

 

[James A]

Mammals don't have feathers. Feathers aren't hair. Only sauropods have feathers.

Sorry if I am missing something, did this comment add value to the original argument?

 

[James A]

So only the "created" things, eh?

What if none of the things are created? (I'm going to limit this to living things, because I don't want to get in how most created things were created by humans.)

There are Mathematical and Philosophical objections to have actual "infinity" exists in our world.

 

[coffee4u]

Uh, no it was evidence even when I did not want it to be. It was evidence even when I was a creationist.

How, for instance, do you explain all the transitional fossils from reptile to mammals?

You seem to think I need some explanation, I don't. As I already said, even if every life form was 1% away from each other, that is not proof of transition. It's a story those who believe evolution came up with to try and make sense of the facts. Without God this would be a fairly believable story, although with dozens of holes. I know God created, not because of evidence but because he told me so and I trust him.


You keep saying 'when you were a creationist' I would be interested to know why you thought yourself to be a creationist because what it really means is believing Gods word is true and trusting in God. It has nothing to do with any so-called evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sorry if I am missing something, did this comment add value to the original argument?

Apparently.

The premise of this thread arises from a misunderstanding of classification. Humans are apes, therefore apes still exist and would do so if the only apes were humans.

I'm just trying to bring it back to classification. Only mammals have hair.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are Mathematical and Philosophical objections to have actual "infinity" exists in our world.

Oh boy, your really off track now. I'm not talking about infinities just trying to eliminate man created things from the list and stick just to the "God created" ones.

You'd previously said "Genesis states it clearly that God is the Creator of all created things." So in response I would ask, if we have non-created things, specifically living things, then we don't need a god to create them, right?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know God created, not because of evidence but because he told me so and I trust him.

This is good for you, but I'll need some actual evidence as you God has never said anything to me.

 

[Shemjaza]

We have evidence of simple bacteria and possibly worms before the Cambrian explosion so, at this point, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The sudden appearance of complex life during the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained in the terms of Evolution.

Given that "and possibly worms" gives you the kind of "body type" that most animals had even after the Cambrian explosion I don't think this gives you any kind of certainty.

Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species were so rapid and is very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors so, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.

No one is denying that the Cambrian explosion was a rapid expansion or that life before hand is mysterious... but there is significant explanation without having to resort to extra forces and entities not in evidence.

Is the theory of Evolution falsifiable? putting it in a different way, what would it take to convince Biologists that it was not some "environmental factors" that diversified life in the way we know.

A lot given that mutations have been observed and many different causes found in nature have been measured and tested.

A well defined, cumulative product posits intelligent design so, if it were some natural agents that caused the diversification of life then, the natural factors were caused by an intelligent agent we call, God.

This is just declaring your point correct again. Do you have any evidence for this?

As long as you don't help me find out what was missing, it is "our math".

Because all you did was state three large numbers:
8.7 million estimated extant species
99.9 % of all species are extinct
thousands of millions of species have existed

Then you declared that 500 million years was insufficient time.

There are no calculations, no explanations about possibilities or how you determined them.

An argument from incredulity wrapped in some big numbers is still just an argument from incredulity. It isn't maths and it isn't reasonable.

We wouldn't be talking about Cambrian Explosion so much if there were evidence of its evolutionary ancestors and the time period was convincingly long enough. By the way, if those "uniqueness" resulted in some complex results then, it was an intelligent mind that was behind it.

Why? Why must a unique event be the result of an intelligent mind?

Two other possibilities exist that it is simply incredibly unlikely or that once it had occurred the environment had changed such that a similar event was impossible.

The analogy purported to demonstrate that a well defined, cumulative product posits intelligent design.

And I pointed out why it is a poor analogy. Life grows and changes houses don't.

I , along with many Christians, don't deny the mutation. The matter of contention is "what" caused the mutation - an intelligent mind or some environmental factors?

Mutation is absolutely caused by environmental factors... we see it, we measure it and and we can reproduce it.

What you are proposing is another source of mutations in precise locations... while leaving no measurable trace to differentiate it from environmental mutations.

I can't disprove divine intervention on a massive scale to direct mutation toward the goal of life as we see it... but it is very weird.

It seems odd to have something powerful enough to manipulate chemistry at a universal level... but to be stuck with some as slow and messy as directed evolution rather then just making everything the way you want it like the YECs believe.

You believe it was some "natural, unintelligent" agents which changed mud (inorganic matter) into organic matter (amino acids), transformed it into protein molecule, infused it with DNA to form the first living cell? The process is so complex that researched believe the life on Earth came from outer space.

I think you'll find that scientists who propose panspermia (who aren't weird UFO nuts) don't deny abiogenesis... just that it could occur then be spread between planets.

Abiogenesis is not a developed theory in science, just a set of hypothesis about how the first life formed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Who said every species splits into two ? Strawman.

That is what happens when there is one species and another evolves from the first species. It splits in two. Now there are twice as many species.

The point wasn't that evolution proceeds on a regular path of one species split every million years per species. Rather, the point was that the math easily shows that many millions of species could evolve from a few parent species in 500 million years.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Diamonds and snowflakes are pretty uniform unlike the living beings which have flash, bones, hairs, skin etc.

...and DNA that controls the making of those features.

And we know that DNA changes with time.

 

[Jimmy D]

and in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin discussed the then inexplicable lack of earlier fossils as one of the main difficulties for his theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.

Wikipedia, Cambrian Explosion

That's not what you wrote though...

"Darwin raised this concern about Cambrian Explosion that it was not enough time for phyla (body type) of all modern organism to appear and, more importantly, without evolutionary ancestors."

I'm not sure where you got that from. As I say though, it's neither here nor there, we've moved on from Victorian times.

But we have modern day biologist trying to explain the Cambrian Explosion.

Trying to explain what? Obviously it's an area of interest and study. I take issue with your claims that it is some sort of insurmountable problem for the Theory of Evolution, it's not, that's just creationist propaganda.

I would appreciate if you could be more specific and point out what is missing in the math.

You made a vague claim with no evidence to back it up. "There have been a lot of species in a relatively short period, they can't have been a product of natural processes" (to paraphrase).

It's strange that you think 500 million years is "relatively short" but there's not really anything of substance to refute, just an assertion based on your opinion.

Maybe if you offered some data that would back up your point it would be worthy of consideration... mutation rates, population sizes, fossil sequences, environmental conditions for example. That's what actual scientists need to do, Creationists not so much.

I am convinced that Creator exists and our Universe and the life is His creation.

I've got no problem with that, although obviously I don't share your viewpoint.

Through this discussion, I am trying to find out what it takes to convince an Evolutionists that it weren't some "unintelligent" natural agents which caused the mutation.

That's easy, evidence.

It seems to me that it would be a poor creator / designer that has to tinker with each mutation, each development in the diversification of life. Why not just create the finished products and have done with it? What's with all the extinct organisms, are they failures? It doesn't add up, logically.

It's very clear, that life has evolved, that populations have gone extinct etc. If I believed in a creator I would have to think that they set the process in motion with the big bang and let everything unfurl from there, what an elegant solution that would be.

Just my opinion though.

Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species during the Cambrian Explosion were so rapid ands very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.

I'm not going to comment on that without any idea of context or who said it, how about a link.

I copy/pasted Wikipedia above and I do own a copy of "origin of species"

Looks like we are on agreement. There is an intelligent design behind the house ( you said, humans) because it was well defined and cumulative. Similarly, there was a design and designer, an intelligent one, behind the origin and diversification of life.

Well, I know humans build houses, I've seen them. Life is a different kettle of fish though, they reproduce, imperfectly, with no outside assistance. The analogy fails.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is certainly debatable what are metaphors and what are not in Genesis, however for this discussion, Genesis states it clearly that God is the Creator of all created things.

If "rib" is a metaphor, why can't "God" be a metaphor?

 

[doubtingmerle]

There are Mathematical and Philosophical objections to have actual "infinity" exists in our world.

Did you walk somewhere this morning? Before you got there you had to get halfway. Assuming you could do that, you then had to walk half of the remaining distance. Assuming you could do that, you then had to walk half the remaining distance. No matter how many times you walk half the remaining distance, you still had further to go. Yet somehow you managed to get where you were going. And that could only be done by an actual infinity in our world.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We have evidence of simple bacteria and possibly worms before the Cambrian explosion so, at this point, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The sudden appearance of complex life during the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained in the terms of Evolution.

Ah, so before the Cambrian all we had were bacteria and worm body types, and then suddenly we had the lizard body type and the monkey body type and the elephant body type?

Uh, no, that is not what happened in the Cambrian.

What happened is that "worms" developed into a variety of "worms". Many of those had descendants that survived to form the major groups of life we know today.

Among these "worms" was something similar to the tiny pikaia shown in the image below. He wasn't a whole lot different from the other worms, but he was our ancestor. What made him special? Other worms had appendages facing down, with nerves coordinating the motions. But this guy and his relatives flipped upside down, with the nerves now running down his back. Those nerves then organized to form an information superhighway that allowed the front and the back of this creature to be coordinated. That nerve bundle became the notochord or spinal chord.

His descendants include fish, dogs, and us. But that did not occur until many years after the Cambrian. The Cambrian didn't get substantially beyond the picture above.

So why exactly is it so impressive that guys like this flipped on their back and unified those nerve cells in 50 million years or so?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species during the Cambrian Explosion were so rapid ands very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.

Wait, this guy wasn't just a biologist, he was a Biologist? Sounds important. And he was "international"? Wow! Impressive. Who was this guy? Can you show me where he said this?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All those things you mentioned are of uniform structure compared to living beings which have flesh, bones, hairs, skin etc., Their eyes produce tears to cleans it from dust and eye lid work as the shield, it was the wax which protests the ears. softetest part - brain - is enclosed in the hardest part - skull. It has complex nerve system and mechanisms like blood cloting etc. to ensure its survival. if you cant find the signature of the Master Creator here, I am sorry.

As a Human Biology graduate, I'm well aware of the structure of humans - and how its obvious flaws point away from intelligent design and towards continuous variation and selection by survival and reproductive success that applies to all other creatures; i.e. evolution. I'm also aware of just how closely we resemble other animals both structurally and in the smallest details.

Consensus among researchers is that the life is too complex to have occurred on Earth.

Citation?

It's certainly not the consensus among biology researchers - particularly the numerous biologists & biochemists researching various abiogenesis hypotheses.

The first form of life must have arrived from outer space. Well, by the time the life arrived on Earth, it was provided with water, oxygen etc. do u=you not see an i(I)ntelligent plan here?

No, there's no 'must' about it (and, as it happens, oxygen was highly toxic to the first life on Earth).

Panspermia is a valid hypothesis, but considered extremely unlikely given interstellar distances and the hostile conditions in space. In any event, it only kicks the can down the galaxy to another planet where life arose.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We have evidence of simple bacteria and possibly worms before the Cambrian explosion so, at this point, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The sudden appearance of complex life during the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained in the terms of Evolution.

You forgot the Ediacarans that preceded the Cambrian. Your claims would be more convincing if you showed some knowledge of the subject.

 

[James A]

You forgot the Ediacarans that preceded the Cambrian. Your claims would be more convincing if you showed some knowledge of the subject.

This biota largely disappeared with the rapid increase in biodiversity known as the Cambrian explosion. Most of the currently existing body plans of animals first appeared in the fossil record of the Cambrian rather than the Ediacaran.- Wikipedia

 

[James A]

Oh boy, your really off track now. I'm not talking about infinities just trying to eliminate man created things from the list and stick just to the "God created" ones.

You'd previously said "Genesis states it clearly that God is the Creator of all created things." So in response I would ask, if we have non-created things, specifically living things, then we don't need a god to create them, right?

"uncreated" means infinite in space and/or time. Do you have a different definition of "uncreated"?