Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[xianghua]

-_- no, because that would make humans predate all other primates,

according to this source "primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago":

Evolution of primates - Wikipedia

so there is no problem to push human into dinos age.

This is what you need to find; not loss of an identical gene shared through a common ancestor, but acquiring an identical gene they COULDN'T share through a common ancestor

but this is the problem: in any case you can solve this by convergent loss rather than convergent evolution. it make it meaningless. if human and orangutan were shared a gene that we cant find in both gorila and chimp- we can claom for convergent loss. simple as that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

according to this source "primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago":

Evolution of primates - Wikipedia

so there is no problem to push human into dinos age.

Sigh, oldest ape fossil is about 34 million years old, so this would still be my great grandma predating my great great grandma.

but this is the problem: in any case you can solve this by convergent loss rather than convergent evolution.

-_- how many times do I have to explain to you that this isn't true? Your premise: organisms could end up being genetically similar to each other because the same genes could arise independently. How could organisms get identical genes by losing genes if they didn't already have lots of identical sequences to begin with? It would require so many precise mutations to accomplish, and mutation is too random to make that more plausible. Maybe if deletions were the only type of mutation that existed, you'd have a point, but since that isn't the case, you don't.

Face it, you can't find 100+ identical base pairs in a row that could not feasibly be inherited by a shared ancestor, so you are trying to get around that. I want you to admit that you can't find the base pairs I asked for, the ones necessary for you to back up your claim.

it make it meaningless. if human and orangutan were shared a gene that we cant find in both gorila and chimp- we can claom for convergent loss. simple as that.

-_- actually, the more likely result would be a reorganization of the cladogram. What would actually be done is this: the gene arose after gorillas already split from the lineages of orangutans, chimps, and humans, and the chimps lost it through a deletion. Cladograms get changes like that all the time when we sequence more individuals of a species, since the variation within species can hide things like that. But alas, that's still gene loss, not gene gain. You can't get every mammalian trait through gene loss alone. There aren't any selection pressures to make gene sequences identical because different sequences can have the exact same protein product.

Based on your premise, it should be equally likely for a strawberry to randomly end up with an identical gene to humans as it would be for a chimp to do so. And it is a lot easier to notice a pink dot in the middle of yellow on this spectrum than it is to notice a slightly different pink just a few pixels away from a color that matches.

 

[Aman777]

Your question mark is well placed.

In my best Elvis voice, Thank you very much. Adam and Eve lived and died in a universe which was below water. Gen 1:6-7 God created the first firmament and called it Heaven on the 2nd Day Gen 1:8 completely immersed in water. On the 3rd Day, Gen 2:4 Jesus/Lord God took some of the matter in Adam's world and "inflated it" and made our present universe, which will be burned. 2Pet 3:10 Amen?

 

[Skreeper]

In my best Elvis voice, Thank you very much. Adam and Eve lived and died in a universe which was below water. Gen 1:6-7 God created the first firmament and called it Heaven on the 2nd Day Gen 1:8 completely immersed in water. On the 3rd Day, Gen 2:4 Jesus/Lord God took some of the matter in Adam's world and "inflated it" and made our present universe, which will be burned. 2Pet 3:10 Amen?

You could write a nice science fiction novel with your wacky theology and it probably would sell quite well.

 

[Aman777]

You could write a nice science fiction novel with your wacky theology and it probably would sell quite well.

What is really interesting is that the story in Genesis is precisely that:

Aman777 said: ↑
Adam and Eve lived and died in a universe which was below water. Gen 1:6-7 God created the first firmament and called it Heaven on the 2nd Day Gen 1:8 completely immersed in water.

Gen 1:6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

God immersed the solid firmament into water, under water since there was water above and below it. It's the way water works.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

See? God made a Heaven and put it underwater on the 2nd Day. Amen?

On the 3rd Day, Gen 2:4 Jesus/Lord God took some of the matter in Adam's world and "inflated it" and made our present universe,

Gen 2:4 ¶ 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,

Adam's Earth was made the 3rd Day Gen 1:9-10. On that same Day, Lord God/Jesus also made other HeavenS (plural). He made our present Heaven/Universe and at least one other Heaven. God the invisible Spirit made the first Heaven on the 2nd Day and YHWH/Jesus made other Heavens on the 3rd Day.

which will be burned. 2Pet 3:10

See? The story is there and has been for more than 3k years. It's not Science fiction but instead, is God's Truth. Many follow the theology of ancient Hebrews but the Lord tells us that only the people of the last days have the increased knowledge to actually understand Genesis. Daniel 12:4 Amen?

 

[xianghua]

Sigh, oldest ape fossil is about 34 million years old, so this would still be my great grandma predating my great great grandma.

so we can push back all apes. no problem. or we can maybe argue that great apes evolved from human.

-_- actually, the more likely result would be a reorganization of the cladogram. What would actually be done is this: the gene arose after gorillas already split from the lineages of orangutans, chimps, and humans, and the chimps lost it through a deletion.

see? you can always claim for gene loss rather than convergent evolution. by this way there is no chance to find a real convergent case.

 

[VirOptimus]

so we can push back all apes. no problem. or we can maybe argue that great apes evolved from human.





see? you can always claim for gene loss rather than convergent evolution. by this way there is no chance to find a real convergent case.

You dont get it, the reason there are no out of place fossils is because the ToE is correct.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so we can push back all apes. no problem. or we can maybe argue that great apes evolved from human.

Neither of those things would fit with evolution. I actually have a degree in biology, I know what makes and could break evolution. Your baseless claim that nothing could possibly disprove evolution is getting old. No "pushing back" can fix order defying evidence. For evolution to be true, primates MUST predate apes just as much as my great great grandmother MUST predate her own daughter. Pushing back ape evolution CANNOT fix evidence that suggests that they predate primates. EVER. The genetic evidence CANNOT be reconciled with fossil evidence that suggests human predate all other apes. Something has to give in this situation, no matter what.

Alas, you have no such evidence. You are just wasting your time complaining about an imaginary, hypothetical situation that you cannot claim will ever happen. There aren't any human fossils older than those of all other apes. So how about actually looking for evidence for once rather than trying to be self defeating and asserting that even if you did it would be pointless? It just makes you sound lazy when you do.

see? you can always claim for gene loss rather than convergent evolution. by this way there is no chance to find a real convergent case.

-_- No. I even outlined why that doesn't work, since it cannot explain the prevalence of shared genes by a mechanism by which genes which were already shared thanks to shared ancestry are lost. Deletions which result in entire genes being lost while leaving the surrounding sequences unaltered are not common, hence the prevalence of broken genes in eukaryotic genomes. Plus, in order for gene loss to result in two separate lineages becoming more genetically similar, they'd have to have very different genes stuck in between genes from a shared ancestor that are completely deleted, thus leaving behind no trace of that distinct gene and making them seem more closely related. Yet, this didn't produce the shared genes to begin with and it CANNOT produce them. In order for your assertion that mammals could have feasibly evolved independently many times, you MUST provide evidence that identical genes can originate in unrelated lineages, because gene loss alone CANNOT produce mammals.

 

[xianghua]

Alas, you have no such evidence.

i already gave you such a fossil in the snake case. again: if we can push a species why we cant push several species? (apes or primates)

-_- No. I even outlined why that doesn't work, since it cannot explain the prevalence of shared genes by a mechanism by which genes which were already shared thanks to shared ancestry are lost. Deletions which result in entire genes being lost while leaving the surrounding sequences unaltered are not common, hence the prevalence of broken genes in eukaryotic genomes. Plus, in order for gene loss to result in two separate lineages becoming more genetically similar, they'd have to have very different genes stuck in between genes from a shared ancestor that are completely deleted, thus leaving behind no trace of that distinct gene and making them seem more closely related. Yet, this didn't produce the shared genes to begin with and it CANNOT produce them. In order for your assertion that mammals could have feasibly evolved independently many times, you MUST provide evidence that identical genes can originate in unrelated lineages, because gene loss alone CANNOT produce mammals.

say that we will find a gene that its shared between human and a a cat but not in great apes. we can solve this problem by convergent loss in apes. right?

 

[st831]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.

a great movie to watch is GENESIS Paradise Lost. Genesis: Paradise Lost I was amazed after watching it

 

[pitabread]

i already gave you such a fossil in the snake case. again: if we can push a species why we cant push several species? (apes or primates)

She already explained this back in post #1257.

Once again, however, you are making an argument based on your favorite fallacy: False Equivalence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i already gave you such a fossil in the snake case. again: if we can push a species why we cant push several species? (apes or primates)

The number 4 represents snake position in the fossil record
1 2 3 4 5 6 earlier impression
1 2 3 4 5 6 impression thanks to new fossils
Note how 4 is still between 3 and 5 and that the order of the numbers hasn't changed at all, just the distances between them. This is what I would call "acceptable pushing back".

This is what it would be like for humans to predate other apes, with humans being represented by the number 6 since we are a fairly recent species
1 2 3 4 5 6 current impression
1 2 6 3 4 5 hypothetical situation you describe
Notice how the order of the numbers has completely changed and is out of numerical order? This is "unacceptable pushing back".

Now, on the species level specifically, it is extremely difficult to differentiate without very well preserved and decently complete fossils. Thus, it is not unheard of for two different species less than a million years apart to not be able to determine which one came first just on the basis of the small number of fossils we have. Anything above genus, though, and it becomes pretty clear, especially with ones that have living representatives such as snakes.

After all, it is one thing to discover evidence that Homo neanderthalensis predates Homo sapiens when neither are considered to be ancestors of each other and their origins are only 50 thousand years apart (our species is the older one) based on the evidence we currently have, and an entirely different thing to discover evidence of Homo sapiens predating all other bipedal apes we find in the fossil record despite our species being so much farther in terms of adaptations for being bipedal than many of them. I'd be humans predating all of their ancestors unique unto them and then some for humans to predate all other great apes. Snakes, on the other hand, are not predating ANY of the lizard ancestors they have by being pushed back a bit. If it didn't change the order, humans could be pushed back quite a bit, but we are such a recent species that the margin for push back isn't even 1 million years.

How many times do I need to spell it out for you to understand? Order is what matters, the snake fossil doesn't defy order. To be blunt, considering that snake fossils far younger than that one have legs, you'd probably have interpreted that ancient snake species as a lizard with a snakelike head.

say that we will find a gene that its shared between human and a a cat but not in great apes. we can solve this problem by convergent loss in apes. right?

No. The only thing that could hope to reconcile an identical gene between human and, say, housecat lineages that isn't present in any other great ape would be if housecats and humans were genetically more similar to each other than humans were to any of the great apes. Obviously, this is not the case, thus making this significant evidence against evolution.

Heck, 3 different lineages lost the ALX3 gene with an extremely long time scale, while you seem to think it is reasonable for such a complete deletion to happen independently 7 times with a much shorter timescale. This is simply not true.

Find such a gene and you will have decently supported your premise. But it seems to me that you'd rather be defeatist than look for any evidence to support ID, even though for ID to be a relevant position it must have evidence to back it up. Heck, if sufficient evidence was gathered, ID could become the prevailing position just through the merit of having the most evidence supporting it WITHOUT having to discover any evidence that outright disproves evolution. In fact, since all theories must be well evidenced to earn that label, this would be the EASIEST way for ID to gain a foothold within the scientific community. Yet you get uselessly distracted trying to claim that the theory of evolution cannot be disproven.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's my understanding that no ape of any kind today has "whites" to their eyes like humans do... instead all are dark colored. Just curious as to how evolutionists explain that?

 

[Jimmy D]

It's my understanding that no ape of any kind today has "whites" to their eyes like humans do... instead all are dark colored. Just curious as to how evolutionists explain that?

"What you talkin bout?"

 

[Jimmy D]

It's my understanding that no ape of any kind today has "whites" to their eyes like humans do... instead all are dark colored. Just curious as to how evolutionists explain that?

Sorry about that ^, but seems that your statement about "no apes having whites in their eyes" isn't quite accurate.

A more serious answer can be found in here...

Gorillas with white sclera: A naturally occurring variation in a morphological trait linked to social cognitive functions. - PubMed - NCBI

or here......

https://soar.wichita.edu/bitstream/handle/10057/2357/LAJ 2008-p18-34.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

 

[inquiring mind]

Sorry about that ^, but seems that your statement about "no apes having whites in their eyes" isn't quite accurate.

A more serious answer can be found in here...

Gorillas with white sclera: A naturally occurring variation in a morphological trait linked to social cognitive functions. - PubMed - NCBI

or here......

https://soar.wichita.edu/bitstream/handle/10057/2357/LAJ 2008-p18-34.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Generally speaking, couldn't it be argued that the white here is only an abnormal condition for the ape, kind of like a picture of a human eye with a burst blood vessel would be.

 

[Jimmy D]

Generally speaking, couldn't it be argued that the white here is only an abnormal condition for the ape, kind of like a picture of a human eye with a burst blood vessel would be.

I'm no expert mate. I just thought that those articles may have been of interest.

But I don't think what you are saying here is correct, from what little I've read it is a naturally ocurring variation...

Gomez and his PhD student Jessica Mayhew decided to investigate further. Looking at footage from zoos and at pictures online, they quickly realised that Nadia might be more than just an evolutionary freak.

They looked at a sample of 85 gorillas from two species. Out of the 60 western lowland gorillas they considered, only 30% had completely dark scleras. The remaining 70% had some degree of white in their eyes. Of these, a small sample of 7% had all white, human-like sclera, just like Nadia and Bana, below.
There is something weird about this gorilla's eyes

 

[xianghua]

The number 4 represents snake position in the fossil record
1 2 3 4 5 6 earlier impression
1 2 3 4 5 6 impression thanks to new fossils
Note how 4 is still between 3 and 5 and that the order of the numbers hasn't changed at all, just the distances between them. This is what I would call "acceptable pushing back".

This is what it would be like for humans to predate other apes, with humans being represented by the number 6 since we are a fairly recent species
1 2 3 4 5 6 current impression
1 2 6 3 4 5 hypothetical situation you describe
Notice how the order of the numbers has completely changed and is out of numerical order? This is "unacceptable pushing back".

great. so what about this case:123465? do you think its possible according to evolution or not?

Now, on the species level specifically, it is extremely difficult to differentiate without very well preserved and decently complete fossils. Thus, it is not unheard of for two different species less than a million years apart to not be able to determine which one came first just on the basis of the small number of fossils we have. Anything above genus, though, and it becomes pretty clear, especially with ones that have living representatives such as snakes.

After all, it is one thing to discover evidence that Homo neanderthalensis predates Homo sapiens when neither are considered to be ancestors of each other and their origins are only 50 thousand years apart (our species is the older one) based on the evidence we currently have, and an entirely different thing to discover evidence of Homo sapiens predating all other bipedal apes we find in the fossil record despite our species being so much farther in terms of adaptations for being bipedal than many of them. I'd be humans predating all of their ancestors unique unto them and then some for humans to predate all other great apes. Snakes, on the other hand, are not predating ANY of the lizard ancestors they have by being pushed back a bit. If it didn't change the order, humans could be pushed back quite a bit, but we are such a recent species that the margin for push back isn't even 1 million years.

How many times do I need to spell it out for you to understand? Order is what matters, the snake fossil doesn't defy order. To be blunt, considering that snake fossils far younger than that one have legs, you'd probably have interpreted that ancient snake species as a lizard with a snakelike head.


No. The only thing that could hope to reconcile an identical gene between human and, say, housecat lineages that isn't present in any other great ape would be if housecats and humans were genetically more similar to each other than humans were to any of the great apes. Obviously, this is not the case, thus making this significant evidence against evolution.

Heck, 3 different lineages lost the ALX3 gene with an extremely long time scale, while you seem to think it is reasonable for such a complete deletion to happen independently 7 times with a much shorter timescale. This is simply not true.

Find such a gene and you will have decently supported your premise. But it seems to me that you'd rather be defeatist than look for any evidence to support ID, even though for ID to be a relevant position it must have evidence to back it up. Heck, if sufficient evidence was gathered, ID could become the prevailing position just through the merit of having the most evidence supporting it WITHOUT having to discover any evidence that outright disproves evolution. In fact, since all theories must be well evidenced to earn that label, this would be the EASIEST way for ID to gain a foothold within the scientific community. Yet you get uselessly distracted trying to claim that the theory of evolution cannot be disproven.

here is a simple explanation without disproving evolution:

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Humans were not made like every other living creature but became flesh AFTER Adam sinned. Humans are beings of light, Eze 1:28 in the likeness of Jesus, Who IS the Light of the first Day. Gen 1:3 At the Rapture, we will regain our true image like Jesus. 1Jo 3:2 Our blood was contaminated by the sons of God (prehistoric people) Gen 6:4 who had been on planet Earth for Millions of years before the Ark arrived, 11k years ago, in the mountains of Ararat. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Today's scientists have confused prehistoric people (sons of God) with Humans (descendants of Adam). What is interesting is that Adam nor Eve NEVER took a step on planet Earth. That's God's Truth Scripturally, scientifically and historically. Amen?

I can never follow your train of thought. Everything you say seems to be a very elaborate and "creative" re-reading and reinterpretation of the text to mean some really unusually inferred things that a majority of the people who even follow the bible struggle to see.

There is absolutely no evidence of this nonsense. I'm not even going to ask you for any evidence, because I already know where that little rabbit hole goes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Generally speaking, couldn't it be argued that the white here is only an abnormal condition for the ape, kind of like a picture of a human eye with a burst blood vessel would be.

Nah, it's not a temporary variation, they are straight up born with it and have it for life, and in some gorilla populations, over 70% of the individuals have at least partially white sclera. Plus, it turns out that this trait appears in chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans as well. There is something weird about this gorilla's eyes

This is simply a matter of differences in gene distribution between the different ape species.

-_- additionally, of course humans have some traits not shared by other apes. That's part of why we aren't considered the same species as chimpanzees. Traits unique unto specific species within a superfamily are not evidence against evolution or problematic for evolution to explain. The traits have to start somewhere, so it wouldn't matter if white sclera started with humans, some human exclusive ancestor, or an ancestor shared between many of the great apes. It'd be an issue if, say, housecats and humans had the same gene that caused white sclera and yet none of the other great apes did, but that's obviously not the case.