The Human Body Could not have Evolved

[Enoch2021]

Evolution does make some predictions and have some explanatory power in specific ways. I think that tends to get lost in the rhetoric back and forth also. Biologists consider it a fundamental framework to their field, so this isn't just about some obnoxious atheist/anti-theist types going around yelling at Christians making it a big deal.

 

 

That being said, I believe God is Creator and also believe in common ancestry, those things don't have to be opposed at the start.

 

 

============================================================================================================

 

Evolution does make some predictions and have some explanatory power in specific ways

 

 

Really?  Go ahead and email Professor Ward ( wardcv@missouri.edu) @ the University of Missoura and float your little postulate, Can you post the discussion here for review?? 

 

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only". {Emphasis Mine}

Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

 

 

After you're done, Go ahead and email Dr Craig Venter PhD Genetics and float the TREE nonsense...

 

"There is no tree of life....it's an artifact from early scientific studies that aren't holding up" {Emphasis Mine}

Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics); Arizona State Origins Project; 12 February 2011

 

Here that sound...that's "Common Descent" circling the drain @ Light Speed. ("as if" he actually needed to say it)

You can u-tube it; in fact, I highly recommend it .  Go to the 9:00 mark: The Audience Gasped..... Dawkins and Krauss, on the panel, turned shades of Puke Green!!      lol

 

and also believe in common ancestry, those things don't have to be opposed at the start.

 

 

We must be reading different Bibles.

 

Did you also review the Formal Logical Fallacy ---Affirming The Consequent, I posted? 

 

 

regards

[Bonky]

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only". {Emphasis Mine}

I believe you are mistaken here. You don't need to predict what will happen in the future necessarily. Scientists predicted a telomeric fusion event happened between us and other great apes. This event was later found, our chromosome #2 shows where this fusion took place. If they didn't find this fusion event, evolution would have been in trouble. Edited April 2, 2015 by Bonky

[Guest shiloh357]

...

[Enoch2021]

 

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only". {Emphasis Mine}

I believe you are mistaken here. You don't need to predict what will happen in the future necessarily. Scientists predicted a telomeric fusion event happened between us and other great apes. This event was later found, our chromosome #2 shows where this fusion took place. If they didn't find this fusion event, evolution would have been in trouble.

 

 

 

 

Honest to goodness, I was on another thread....kinda pedestrian thread and got this:

 

"human chromosome 2 is an end-to-end fusion of simian chromosomes 2a and 2b."

 

My response...

I haven't seen this one in a coons age. This has been refuted so long ago it took me 20 minutes to find it. You know, on actual 'science" threads...this isn't even brought up anymore.

 

"The putative fusion site is ‘highly degenerate’ and a vague shadow of what should be present given the model proposed."

Fan, Y. et al., Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes, Genome Res. 12:1651–1662, 2002

 

Can you explain WHY @ the "Alleged" Fusion Cite there's a GLARING paucity of Telomeric Repeats....?

 

 

 

So Bonky "for starters", I want The Scientists Names/ "The Actual Prediction"---VERBATIM with CITATION/ and a Date/Time stamp.

 

And I think you got the "Cart before the Horse" here. But let's review your response before I head down that road.

 

 

And btw, it wasn't GREAT APES, this was "CHIMPANZEE" Genome...they're kinda different.  

 

regards

[JustinM]

Thanks, Enoch, for refuting such an incredulous statement from Bonky.  We definitely do not need evolutionists dragging up old debunked theories and mucking up the conversation with nonsense.

 

Seekers out there that could have been wrongly swayed by Bonky's statement.

[Bonky]

 

Honest to goodness, I was on another thread....kinda pedestrian thread and got this:

 

"human chromosome 2 is an end-to-end fusion of simian chromosomes 2a and 2b."

 

My response...

I haven't seen this one in a coons age. This has been refuted so long ago it took me 20 minutes to find it. You know, on actual 'science" threads...this isn't even brought up anymore.

 

"The putative fusion site is ‘highly degenerate’ and a vague shadow of what should be present given the model proposed."

Fan, Y. et al., Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes, Genome Res. 12:1651–1662, 2002

 

Can you explain WHY @ the "Alleged" Fusion Cite there's a GLARING paucity of Telomeric Repeats....?

 

 

So Bonky "for starters", I want The Scientists Names/ "The Actual Prediction"---VERBATIM with CITATION/ and a Date/Time stamp.

 

And I think you got the "Cart before the Horse" here. But let's review your response before I head down that road.

 

 

And btw, it wasn't GREAT APES, this was "CHIMPANZEE" Genome...they're kinda different.  

 

regards

Chimpanzee's are "great apes". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apes

I'll see if I can find what you're looking for. I initially heard this from a lecture given by Ken Miller.

Just out of curiosity, before you would believe a prediction you would want the source clearly outlined with what is predicted with a date and time stamp right?

Edited April 3, 2015 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Honest to goodness, I was on another thread....kinda pedestrian thread and got this:

 

"human chromosome 2 is an end-to-end fusion of simian chromosomes 2a and 2b."

 

My response...

I haven't seen this one in a coons age. This has been refuted so long ago it took me 20 minutes to find it. You know, on actual 'science" threads...this isn't even brought up anymore.

 

"The putative fusion site is ‘highly degenerate’ and a vague shadow of what should be present given the model proposed."

Fan, Y. et al., Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes, Genome Res. 12:1651–1662, 2002

 

Can you explain WHY @ the "Alleged" Fusion Cite there's a GLARING paucity of Telomeric Repeats....?

 

 

So Bonky "for starters", I want The Scientists Names/ "The Actual Prediction"---VERBATIM with CITATION/ and a Date/Time stamp.

 

And I think you got the "Cart before the Horse" here. But let's review your response before I head down that road.

 

 

And btw, it wasn't GREAT APES, this was "CHIMPANZEE" Genome...they're kinda different.  

 

regards

 

Chimpanzee's are "great apes". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apes

I'll see if I can find what you're looking for. I initially heard this from a lecture given by Ken Miller.

Just out of curiosity, before you would believe a prediction you would want the source clearly outlined with what is predicted with a date and time stamp right?

 

 

 

=================================================================================================

 

 

Chimpanzee's are "great apes". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apes

 

 

I stand corrected.

 

 

I'll see if I can find what you're looking for. I initially heard this from a lecture given by Ken Miller

 

 

Hope it's better than his Irreducible Complexity rebuttals.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, before you would believe a prediction you would want the source clearly outlined with what is predicted with a date and time stamp right?

 

 

Yes

 

 

regards

[Tristen]

 

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only". {Emphasis Mine}

I believe you are mistaken here. You don't need to predict what will happen in the future necessarily. Scientists predicted a telomeric fusion event happened between us and other great apes. This event was later found, our chromosome #2 shows where this fusion took place. If they didn't find this fusion event, evolution would have been in trouble.

 

 

 

This is what happens when you miss the evolutionist talking-points meetings. We no longer say "evolutionary theory predicted anything". We say "Evolutionary theory predicts ..." - i.e. use present tense. That way we can imply the predictive power of evolutionary theory without having to justify it through a time-line. The reasoning is specious, but fortunately most of the audience has been pre-programmed to go along with whatever we tell them.

[BoddhiBody]

It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches.

But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like?

it depends what you mean when you say ''more human-like''. Apes, on the entire scale of different organisms, are the most human like our of them all. They share over 90% of their genetic codes with humans, and some are closer than others. If you mean ''why don't modern apes evolve more like humans'', it's the same reason we still have fish that haven't evolved amphibian traits. Some fish, in certain habitats, never got the mutations that led to them being amphibians, while others did. The idea of natural selection actually affirms itself in this regard. More human-like apes were killed out by smarter human beings whose mutations were selected over other homo species.

 

Not every organism of various fish species will have mutated along the bearings that lead to amphibian traits, and nor is it necessary for all the organisms within a species to do so for evolution to be valid. Some of them will have done so, and they will have procreated and furthered their mutations. Some of those will have mutated further. That's why we have species of fish that are genetically closer to amhibians than other species of fish. That's why we have certain apes that are genetically closer to humans than others. Not every organism of a certain species evolves down the same evolutionary direction. Two apes. One is born with a genetic mutation that gives them a large neocortex and another is not. The one with the neocortex passes its genes on down a certain lineage, and so that lineage has a larger neocortex than other apes. Those are two evolutionary different creatures, yet both exist simultaneously.

 

You need to be aware that organisms in one species are not ever genetically identical unless they are twins or reproduce asexually. in fact, every human on Earth (except for twins, triplets etc) share slightly different DNA. Some humans are, genetically, closer to apes than others, and some apes are, genetically, closer to humans than others.

 

That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'?

There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that.

 

 

The scientific definition of ''theory'' and the common-use definition of ''theory'' aren't the same. In science, a theory is a conceptual framework that supports empirical facts. When it ceases to support fact, it is thus falsified. Evolution is not falsified, in fact it is probably the most extensively supported theory in all science. The evidence of species evolving into other species is self-affirming. We know the deeper strata contain fewer distinct life-forms than the shallower ones, thus more species existed on Earth as time went on. Can you tell me of another scientific mechanism whereby an extremely large diversification can occur as time progresses, if not evolution?

 

Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn.

It's not just irreligious people that support evolution. More Christians (The Roman Catholic Church, Presbyterians, Methodists etc) support the scientific version of evolution than those who support Young Earth Creationism. The only distinction between most Chrsitians and an irreligious evolutionist is that the Christians credit God with ''sparking it off''.

 

You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all!

If life's genetic similarities indicate common descent then there's no logical reason there was not a common descendent for all life on Earth. You consider it to be a God, evolutionists consider it to be an organism. Edited April 4, 2015 by OneLight

[Enoch2021]

 

It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches.
But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like?

it depends what you mean when you say ''more human-like''. Apes, on the entire scale of different organisms, are the most human like our of them all. They share over 90% of their genetic codes with humans, and some are closer than others. If you mean ''why don't modern apes evolve more like humans'', it's the same reason we still have fish that haven't evolved amphibian traits. Some fish, in certain habitats, never got the mutations that led to them being amphibians, while others did. The idea of natural selection actually affirms itself in this regard. More human-like apes were killed out by smarter human beings whose mutations were selected over other homo species.

 

Not every organism of various fish species will have mutated along the bearings that lead to amphibian traits, and nor is it necessary for all the organisms within a species to do so for evolution to be valid. Some of them will have done so, and they will have procreated and furthered their mutations. Some of those will have mutated further. That's why we have species of fish that are genetically closer to amhibians than other species of fish. That's why we have certain apes that are genetically closer to humans than others. Not every organism of a certain species evolves down the same evolutionary direction. Two apes. One is born with a genetic mutation that gives them a large neocortex and another is not. The one with the neocortex passes its genes on down a certain lineage, and so that lineage has a larger neocortex than other apes. Those are two evolutionary different creatures, yet both exist simultaneously.

 

You need to be aware that organisms in one species are not ever genetically identical unless they are twins or reproduce asexually. in fact, every human on Earth (except for twins, triplets etc) share slightly different DNA. Some humans are, genetically, closer to apes than others, and some apes are, genetically, closer to humans than others.

 

That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'?

There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that.

 

 

 

The scientific definition of ''theory'' and the common-use definition of ''theory'' aren't the same. In science, a theory is a conceptual framework that supports empirical facts. When it ceases to support fact, it is thus falsified. Evolution is not falsified, in fact it is probably the most extensively supported theory in all science. The evidence of species evolving into other species is self-affirming. We know the deeper strata contain fewer distinct life-forms than the shallower ones, thus more species existed on Earth as time went on. Can you tell me of another scientific mechanism whereby an extremely large diversification can occur as time progresses, if not evolution?

 

Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn.

 

It's not just irreligious people that support evolution. More Christians (The Roman Catholic Church, Presbyterians, Methodists etc) support the scientific version of evolution than those who support Young Earth Creationism. The only distinction between most Chrsitians and an irreligious evolutionist is that the Christians credit God with ''sparking it off''.

 

You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all!

 

If life's genetic similarities indicate common descent then there's no logical reason there was not a common descendent for all life on Earth. You consider it to be a God, evolutionists consider it to be an organism.

 

 

 

 

=================================================================================================

 

Evolution is not falsified, in fact it is probably the most extensively supported theory in all science

 

 

evolution isn't even "science' let alone a Scientific Hypothesis or Scientific Theory, As Evidenced By:

 

"The SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant A THEORY is, ITS PREDICTIONS MUST AGREE WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical PREDICTIONS is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. THEORIES THAT CANNOT BE TESTED, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), DO NOT QUALIFY AS SCIENTIFIC THEORIES." {Emphasis Mine}

http://www.britannic...ific-hypothesis

 

It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

 

How in the WORLD can they have a Valid TESTABLE Scientific Hypothesis of an UnObserved Past Non-Repeating Event without a Time Machine, Pray Tell? What's their Independent Variable(s) without a Time Machine.....Their Imagination?

 

"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}

http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

 

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}

http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/

 

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine}

http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

 

So we can say: Science is in the business of ascertaining CAUSATION of OBSERVED PHENOMENA through Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.

 

So in light of these simple truths, can you please explain HOW in The World these are even VALID HYPOTHESES and not "Just So" Stories....

 

evolution, big bangs, multiverses, dark matter/dark energy, billions of years, ad nauseam ????

 

 

More Christians (The Roman Catholic Church, Presbyterians, Methodists etc) support the scientific version of evolution than those who support Young Earth Creationism.

 

 

There is No "Scientific Version" of evolution...anymore than there is a "Scientific Version" of Humpty Dumpty.

 

In this neck of the woods we rely on Substance/Evidence....not "Agreement";  And especially, Not on...

 

Appeals to Popularity (Fallacy)--- a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

 

Consensus doesn't = TRUTH !

 

regards