God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

@omega2xx I simply cannot continue trying to explain science and evidence to you. You have so many incorrect assumptions I despair at the task of trying to correct them all. Fight science all you want, but facts are still facts, and speciation still makes new species.

That fine.  I usually quit discussing this subject when the the person can't produce any verifiable scientific evidence.

What I say not assumptions.  You only think they are because you don't understand science.  You have accepted by faith alone, whatever some evolutionists says.  You have been indoctrinated that evolution is based on science from about the 6th grade.

I don't fight science, I fight evolution. 

You still have not explained how salamanders remaining salamanders is evidence of evolution. 

 

 

You also haven't told me how salamanders remaining salamanders is an example of evolution

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

 

Surely you understand that believing what is on a link can be believed or not believed.  If you believe what he said, say why.  If you don't, say why

 

As you see, a verifiable quote from Kurt Wise says there are many, many transitional forms, which he says are very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.    The other is an unverifiable story about what he supposedly said.   And that makes all the difference.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Let start with the fact that evolutin is not based on science.  It can't prove even one thing it preaches.  That is one reason it is still called a theory after 100+ yeqars

First, it was a testable hypothesis, making a number of predictions.    Of Darwin's four basic points, all have been repeatedly verified.   The discovery of genetics shows why it works.  Which of his points do you think have not been verified?   You don't even know what they are, do you?

And when a hypothesis is repeatedly verified by evidence, it's a theory, which is as certain as it gets in science.   Newton's theory of gravitation, for example. 

6 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Every organism is not different  in the important, unchangeable aspects of life.  cats  color may change. but they just remain a cats.  Potatoes remain potatoes no mater how long you need.  Apes never become anything but another ape, and an ape will never produce a chimp no matter how you try to manipulate the fossil record

Every  organism is slightly different form its parents. That is what evolution is; "descent with modification" as Darwin put it, or "change in allele frequency in a population over time as it became after the discovery of genes.   And humans and chimps are apes.   Thought you knew.

6 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I am not familiar with the "improbability argument, but I doubt if Barbarian really understands it.  Why don;t you post  it and I will take a crack at it.

I have a separate masters in systems.    It's quite simple.   The creationist probability argument picks and outcome calculates what the likelihood would be.    You can do that with a shuffled deck of cards, too.   And each time you calculate it, you come up with a probability so small that it's essentially impossible.    Same can be done for you, if we consider the genes of your great-great-great grandparents.   So creationists "prove" that shuffled decks and people are impossible.   They find an arrow in a tree, draw a bulls-eye around it and proclaim the amazing accuracy.

6 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Those 2 universities probability didn't understand the argument either so hey just showed their ignorance.  Perhaps you need to learn what genetics do and can't do.

They have departments of genetics, with people who actually know what they are talking about.   And you don't.   Just that simple.

 We know that happened because Adam and Eve could have together had no more than 4 alleles for each gene locus. 

  Yet most human genes have dozens of alleles.   The rest evolved by mutation.   No other way possible.

6 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Mutations do not create anything.  All they can do is alter the trait the gene would have given without the mutation.

They don't have to create anything.   Evolution merely modifies things already there.  This is why we have so many transitional forms.   If creationism were true, we'd see nice, neat divisions between taxa.   But that's not what we see. 

Barbarian notes that homobox genes for legs, arms, wing, and fins of mammals are the same, just modified.

6 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Not true and certainly not provable.  

Absolutely true and demonstrable:

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genefamily/homeoboxes

This is how we know that bat wings, dog legs, human arms, and whale flippers homologous.

6 hours ago, omega2xx said:

If that was true a whale could get a shark fin and cats could get a blowhole instead of a nose. 

No.   They may look like shark fins, but the genes of whales show them to be homologous with legs.    And cats have the same nostrils as any other mammal, including whales.   They are just repositioned in whales.  Would you like to see the evidence for that?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

20 hours ago, omega2xx said:

The wheat today is the same as the first grain of wheat God put in the Garden of
Eden

No, it isn't, and because humans gathered and eventually cultivated so much of it, we have lots and lots of evidence for the evolution of today's wheat from grass ancestors.   One of the big changes was the mutation that stopped "shattering", allowing wheat to be harvested and then threshed to get the seed free of the plant.  But there's a lot more.  Would you like to learn about that?

[omega2xx]

27 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No, it isn't, and because humans gathered and eventually cultivated so much of it, we have lots and lots of evidence for the evolution of today's wheat from grass ancestors.   One of the big changes was the mutation that stopped "shattering", allowing wheat to be harvested and then threshed to get the seed free of the plant.  But there's a lot more.  Would you like to learn about that?

 

[omega2xx]

3 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

 

No, it isn't, and because humans gathered and eventually cultivated so much of it, we have lots and lots of evidence for the evolution of today's wheat from grass ancestors. 

Talk is cheap, present your evidence.

 One of the big changes was the mutation that stopped "shattering", allowing wheat to be harvested and then threshed to get the seed free of the plant. 

Get real, the Jew were harvesting, threshing. winnowing wheat long before any mutations occurred.   But there's a lot more.  Would you like to learn about that? For the Bible believing  Christians, threshing is an allegory of the rapture and remember Jesus came with His winnowing fork in His hand(Mt 3:12).

But there's a lot more.  Would you like to learn about that?

 

No thanks.  You can't provide any real scientific evidence there has been a mutation in the wheat we have today and I quit believing in fairy tales a long time ago.  What has happened is that man using real science has created some hybrids in many plants. Silver Queen corn, one of the best tasting corn you ever put  in your mouth, is the result of man creating a hybrid variety of corn.  Yum, yum

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Get real, the Jew were harvesting, threshing. winnowing wheat long before any mutations occurred.

Against my better judgement, I'm going to respond to this...

Using your own words, can you define what a mutation is? You proclaim to know genetics, but this statement strongly suggests you do not.

Next, do you really think it is possible that no mutations occurred prior to the formation of the Jewish people?

10 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You can't provide any real scientific evidence there has been a mutation in the wheat we have today

There is scientific proof that mutations happen constantly in all cells. There is scientific proof that some of these mutations occur in germ line cells. There is scientific proof that mutations are passed from parent to progeny. There is scientific proof for all of this, but you have to be willing to learn. At this point, I see no evidence that you are willing to do so.

on mutations - https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation

on wheat evolution - https://www.cerealsdb.uk.net/cerealgenomics/WheatBP/Documents/DOC_Evolution.php

[The Barbarian]

25 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

No thanks.  You can't provide any real scientific evidence there has been a mutation in the wheat we have today

Let's start with the obvious one:

Wheat is an essential part of diets around the globe: in fact, twenty percent of the world’s total calorie consumption is from wheat alone. Thus, scientists are eager to find out how to produce it faster and more efficiently, and to do that, they’re looking back into the past.

Wheat was domesticated ten thousand years ago in the present-day Middle East, when humans rapidly modified the crop’s key traits. Nowadays, we continue to produce domestic wheat. It differs from wild wheat in that it has non-shattering spikes, an adaptation that allows the plant to better retain its seeds and to be harvested more easily.

Researchers at Tel Aviv University, led by Assaf Distelfeld, have been studying the genetics responsible for non-shattering spikes. Their work analyses the genome of wild emmer wheat to better link the grain’s physical traits to the genes responsible for them. They found two main genes responsible for shattering spikes in wild wheat—two genes that are not functional in domesticated wheat.

“The fact that we find the same mutations in every domesticated wheat genotype is amazing because it exemplifies how strong genetic bottleneck or selection can be,” Distelfeld said. Human preference for the non-shattering spike phenotype was a selective force that drove the domestication of wheat plant. But modifications to wheat may not be over, especially with these new genetic discoveries.

http://www.yalescientific.org/2018/01/how-was-wheat-domesticated/

29 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Get real, the Jew were harvesting, threshing. winnowing wheat long before any mutations occurred.   But there's a lot more.  Would you like to learn about that? For the Bible believing  Christians, threshing is an allegory of the rapture and remember Jesus came with His winnowing fork in His hand(Mt 3:12).

The mutation in question occurred prior to the Sumerians establishing their cities.   Since Abraham was of Ur, he could not have existed before the city.   And before Abraham, there were no Jews.  So there you are.

 

[omega2xx]

36 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Against my better judgement, I'm going to respond to this...

Using your own words, can you define what a mutation is? You proclaim to know genetics, but this statement strongly suggests you do not.

First, I do not claim to be an expert in genetics, but I do know some basic truths of the subject.  Second, you have ask the wrong question.  Even a cave man can look up and cut and paste the definition  of "mutation."  The correct question is "what do mutations do?"  Basically Mutations alter a trait that the offspring would have gotten without the mutation.  For example the mutation of the gene for skin color might make the offspring an albino.  However the offspring would not become a different species, It would remain homo sapian if the offspring was a human.  Some animals also  become albinos for the same reason, but they also remain the very same species their  parents were.

 

Quote

Next, do you really think it is possible that no mutations occurred prior to the formation of the Jewish people?

I have no idea but, I would guess mutations have occurred ever since life had genes.

Quote

There is scientific proof that mutations happen constantly in all cells. There is scientific proof that some of these mutations occur in germ line cells. There is scientific proof that mutations are passed from parent to progeny. There is scientific proof for all of this, but you have to be willing to learn. At this point, I see no evidence that you are willing to do so.

All you say is probably true, but there is no scientific evidence that a  mutation can result in a change of species.   Mutations can only alter a trait, it can't result in a change of species.   That is what you need to learn, and I see no evidence you are willing to do so.  You are willing to accept by faith alone whatever some evolution scientist says.  You need to look at what the other side beleives.  ICR is a good source to see what creaionist say on any science subject.

 

Quote

on mutations - https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation

on wheat evolution - https://www.cerealsdb.uk.net/cerealgenomics/WheatBP/Documents/DOC_Evolution.php

Your link on mutations did not say mutations can result in a new species.  It mainly talked about a change in traits.  Your link on wheat Had s chart starting with what they consider the first wheat species and gave several of some varieties they believe resulted  in a mutation, but everyone was label "wheat."  That shows only some traits were altered  that is what mutations do, but since they were all labeled "wheat,"the species was not changed.  Therefore no evolution.

Edited November 6, 2019 by omega2xx

[omega2xx]

29 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Let's start with the obvious one:

Wheat is an essential part of diets around the globe: in fact, twenty percent of the world’s total calorie consumption is from wheat alone. Thus, scientists are eager to find out how to produce it faster and more efficiently, and to do that, they’re looking back into the past.

Wheat was domesticated ten thousand years ago in the present-day Middle East, when humans rapidly modified the crop’s key traits. Nowadays, we continue to produce domestic wheat. It differs from wild wheat in that it has non-shattering spikes, an adaptation that allows the plant to better retain its seeds and to be harvested more easily.

Researchers at Tel Aviv University, led by Assaf Distelfeld, have been studying the genetics responsible for non-shattering spikes. Their work analyses the genome of wild emmer wheat to better link the grain’s physical traits to the genes responsible for them. They found two main genes responsible for shattering spikes in wild wheat—two genes that are not functional in domesticated wheat.

“The fact that we find the same mutations in every domesticated wheat genotype is amazing because it exemplifies how strong genetic bottleneck or selection can be,” Distelfeld said. Human preference for the non-shattering spike phenotype was a selective force that drove the domestication of wheat plant. But modifications to wheat may not be over, especially with these new genetic discoveries.

http://www.yalescientific.org/2018/01/how-was-wheat-domesticated/

The mutation in question occurred prior to the Sumerians establishing their cities.   Since Abraham was of Ur, he could not have existed before the city.   And before Abraham, there were no Jews.  So there you are.

 

You have no idea when wheat was domesticated, and you certainly can't ascribe it to the Sumaritans.

What seems to be over your head is that for evolution to be true, a mutation must change the species.  All of what you posted only mentions different varieties of wheat.  There is no evidence some variety of grass, resulted in wheat.  That is a necessary, but not proved OPINION to try and support evolution.

[one.opinion]

34 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

What seems to be over your head is that for evolution to be true, a mutation must change the species.

What does this have to do with wheat? Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Please stick with one argument until you see your errors or conclude that you are going to ignore evidence. Then move on to another argument. One at a time, please.