omega2xx Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 8 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: Evidence is demonstrable fact. So the series of transitionals cited by creationists like Scott Wood and Kurt Wise are evidence. They are facts, which can be examined. These creationists honestly admit the facts; they just put more confidence in their particular interpretation of scripture. When it comes to proving God, faith is sufficient. Everything else needs evidence. As I said, you don't understand either very well. And since God uses evolution to produce new kinds of organisms, that is entirely consistent with His word in Genesis. As you learned, YE creationists allow for a limited amount of common descent, permitting new species, genera, and families, occasionally new orders. Would you like me to show you that, again? YAWN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,051 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 20 minutes ago, omega2xx said: God says you also don't understand the Bible. void, empty and darkness do not represent chaos. You also don't understand that saying the universe started in chaos, supports creation, not evolution. Yes, God describes the chaos in the universe, which then developed according to His will. This supports both science and creation. Evolution had to wait until life appeared. 22 minutes ago, omega2xx said: You still d not understand that saying something is not evidence. You can't give me even one example of where evolution has been observe. Even creationists admit speciation. Remember what "evolution" means. It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. And that happens constantly. Research Focus| Volume 19, ISSUE 3, P111-114, March 01, 2004 Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages? Chris D. Jiggins Jon R. Bridle Abstract The importance of speciation without the complete geographical separation of diverging populations (sympatric speciation) has become increasingly accepted. One of the textbook examples of recent speciation in sympatry is the apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella, in which genetically differentiated host races feed on either hawthorn or apple. Three recent articles by Feder and collaborators show that the history of these host races is more complicated than was previously realized. Genes that differentiate races of flies that feed on either apple or hawthorn are located in chromosomal rearrangements. This variation forms a latitudinal cline that must have been established long before apples were available as hosts. Furthermore, there is also new evidence for the very recent evolution of a derived preference for volatile chemicals that are typical of apple fruits among apple-feeding flies. These results show that adaptation to apple populations has involved both the sorting of ancestral adaptive variation and the selection of novel mutations. (denial of the fact of evolution) Barbarian observes: That's a testable belief. Which of the four premises of Darwinian theory do you think are false? I'm pretty sure you won't respond, but people will notice if you don't. (Declines to say) Yes, what everyone expected. For reasons we all understand. (denies Darwin was a scientist) Barbarian chuckles: And since Darwin was elected to the Royal Society, the most important scientific society in Britain, it's foolish to deny his scientific credentials. 29 minutes ago, omega2xx said: If he doesn't have them, and he doesn't, is is foolish to put your faith in him. Membership in the Royal Society is the highest honor for a scientist in Great Britain. As you now realize, he was recognized by his fellow scientists as much for his taxonomy in cirripeds and his geology work as for his discoveries in evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 minute ago, omega2xx said: Humans also share DNA with bananas, does that make us a banana? How similar is the human genome to the banana genome? How similar is the human genome to the chimpanzee genome? If you can find those numbers, it will illustrate my point perfectly. 3 minutes ago, omega2xx said: DNA does not join, it separates. That is why it can be used in trials to identify or not identify the guilty party. Forensic DNA analysis for crime scenes, paternity cases, body identification, etc is based on similarities, not differences. 7 minutes ago, omega2xx said: That is true for image, but not for likeness. man shares very little "likeness" with what is actually an ape. Also animal do not have a spirit, or at least the Bible does not say God breathed into them the breath of life and then man became a living soul. There that animals have either a spirit or a soul. is no Biblical indication that animals have either a spirit or a soul. That alone is enough to convince me that man and apes are not the same. No, humans are clearly not the same. You are reading my words, but not understanding my point. Biologically, humans are extremely similar to chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, etc, but what separates us is NOT physical. The "image of God" is not based on biology, but on factors that cannot be directly observed and quantified. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,051 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: "My point is this - "ape" is an artificial classification and biologically, humans share a tremendous amount, including DNA with them." More to the point, chimps and humans are genetically more closely related to each other than either is to other apes. And we know this indicates common descent, because we can check it with organisms of known descent. 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: Humans also share DNA with bananas, does that make us a banana? We share less DNA with bacteria than we do with bananas, and we share more DNA with animals than we do with bananas. Which supports evolution, but is an impenetrable mystery for creationists. In fact, if we compare all organisms by their DNA , we end up with the same family tree of life on Earth first noticed by Linnaeus, who made it based only on anatomical data. Again, mysterious to creationists, but perfectly consistent with evolution and common descent of all life on Earth. 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: That is true for image, but not for likeness. man shares very little "likeness" with what is actually an ape. Huxley defeated Owens (using his own anatomical data) showing that apes and humans, including their brains share their anatomical features in common. So there is that. Humans have juvenile ape traits like small face and jaws, large crania, and a lower foramen magnum (spine is positioned below the skull, not behind it). The diagram shows infant apes and humans (top row) with adult apes and humans (bottom row) Notice the change in coordinates from juvenile to adult is much less in humans; we retain a lot of juvenile characteristics, a large cranium being most important. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 2 hours ago, one.opinion said: How similar is the human genome to the banana genome? How similar is the human genome to the chimpanzee genome? If you can find those numbers, it will illustrate my point perfectly." Not true. For DNA identification to be valid, its DNA must be a perfect match. Other wise, the species are different. "Forensic DNA analysis for crime scenes, paternity cases, body identification, etc is based on similarities, not differences." They are based on both and unless the DNA of the child and the man are matches, the man is not held responsible. "No, humans are clearly not the same. You are reading my words, but not understanding my point. Biologically, humans are extremely similar to chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, etc, but what separates us is NOT physical." Biologically humans are not extremely similar to any animal. Humans are clearly the exact same species, and this is different than any similarities to animals, And the DNA of each will show they are different species. DNA for humans will show the species is homo sapiens and the DNA of apes will show they are not homo sapiens. "The "image of God" is not based on biology, but on factors that cannot be directly observed and quantified." They can't be observed but they can be quantified in a general way. God has a mind, man has a mind. God has a soul, man has a soul. God has a Spirit, man h as a spirit. Those are part of the image He created in man. The same can be said of love, compassion, etc. Man having a soul and a spirit is what separates humans from animals. That is why man is not an ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 55 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: More to the point, chimps and humans are genetically more closely related to each other than either is to other apes. And we know this indicates common descent, because we can check it with organisms of known descent. We share less DNA with bacteria than we do with bananas, and we share more DNA with animals than we do with bananas. Which supports evolution, but is an impenetrable mystery for creationists. In fact, if we compare all organisms by their DNA , we end up with the same family tree of life on Earth first noticed by Linnaeus, who made it based only on anatomical data. Again, mysterious to creationists, but perfectly consistent with evolution and common descent of all life on Earth. Huxley defeated Owens (using his own anatomical data) showing that apes and humans, including their brains share their anatomical features in common. So there is that. Humans have juvenile ape traits like small face and jaws, large crania, and a lower foramen magnum (spine is positioned below the skull, not behind it). The diagram shows infant apes and humans (top row) with adult apes and humans (bottom row) Notice the change in coordinates from juvenile to adult is much less in humans; we retain a lot of juvenile characteristics, a large cranium being most important. How is a salamander remaining a salamander evidence of evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 minute ago, omega2xx said: Not true. For DNA identification to be valid, its DNA must be a perfect match. Other wise, the species are different. Please don't try to lecture me on Genetics, I do know what I'm talking about. By your logic, every human on the planet (except for monozygotic twins) would be a different species because they have different DNA. 3 minutes ago, omega2xx said: They are based on both and unless the DNA of the child and the man are matches, the man is not held responsible. Positive identification requires similarities. 5 minutes ago, omega2xx said: DNA for humans will show the species is homo sapiens and the DNA of apes will show they are not homo sapiens. This is true, but please put a tiny bit of work into the conversation and actually look at the similarity numbers. You will be surprised. 6 minutes ago, omega2xx said: They can't be observed but they can be quantified in a general way. Your statement is contradictory. It is impossible to quantify something that can't be observed. 7 minutes ago, omega2xx said: God has a mind, man has a mind. God has a soul, man has a soul. God has a Spirit, man h as a spirit. Those are part of the image He created in man. The same can be said of love, compassion, etc. Man having a soul and a spirit is what separates humans from animals. That is why man is not an ape. Yes, humans are different from animals, but not because of their biology. The difference is in all the intangible things you are mentioning (and more). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Please don't try to lecture me on Genetics, I do know what I'm talking about. " Please don't tell me what to do. If you don't like what I do, you have a solution---ignore me. You haven't shown you know about genetics. or mutations. To change a species one parent must acquire a gene it did not originally have. There is no known way this is possible. If evolution's guess as to what the first life form was, a single celled something, it could not have had the gene for most of the traits we now see in current life forms. "By your logic, every human on the planet (except for monozygotic twins) would be a different species because they have different DNA." That is not my view. My view is that DNA will separated humans from all other life forms. It can tell if a child is a mans son. It can tell if the subject is human, animal, or plant. "Positive identification requires similarities." But similarities exist in different species. "This is true, but please put a tiny bit of work into the conversation and actually look at the similarity numbers. You will be surprised." What makes you think I haven't looked at them in the past? It takes more than similarities to classify subjects as the same species. "Your statement is contradictory. It is impossible to quantify something that can't be observed." I said "in a general way." WE can certainly conclude man has the attributes of God I have mentioned. WE can also conclude that animals do not have these attributes. "Yes, humans are different from animals, but not because of their biology. The difference is in all the intangible things you are mentioning (and more)." Yes because of their biology, specifically their DNA. Even if you want to limit it to the intangible things, it still is evidence that humans are not animals. Your biggest hurdle in saying man is an ape is trying to show why we can talk, read and write and they can't. If natural selection is a valid idea, it has failed in your scenario for chimps. Why didn't man keep the prehensile tail chimps have. That seems like a useful trait to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 3, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,051 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 3, 2019 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: How is a salamander remaining a salamander evidence of evolution? That's been explained to you several times. Write it down,this time. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So within a species of salamander, that would be "microevolution." It it results in a new species of salamander, it's "macroevolution." As you learned, even honest creationists admit that new species evolve. Meantime, your earlier misconception: 2 hours ago, The Barbarian said: That is true for image, but not for likeness. man shares very little "likeness" with what is actually an ape. was easily refuted by the evidence: More to the point, chimps and humans are genetically more closely related to each other than either is to other apes. And we know this indicates common descent, because we can check it with organisms of known descent. We share less DNA with bacteria than we do with bananas, and we share more DNA with animals than we do with bananas. Which supports evolution, but is an impenetrable mystery for creationists. In fact, if we compare all organisms by their DNA , we end up with the same family tree of life on Earth first noticed by Linnaeus, who made it based only on anatomical data. Again, mysterious to creationists, but perfectly consistent with evolution and common descent of all life on Earth. Huxley defeated Owens (using his own anatomical data) showing that apes and humans, including their brains share their anatomical features in common. So there is that. Humans have juvenile ape traits like small face and jaws, large crania, and a lower foramen magnum (spine is positioned below the skull, not behind it). The diagram shows infant apes and humans (top row) with adult apes and humans (bottom row) Notice the change in coordinates from juvenile to adult is much less in humans; we retain a lot of juvenile characteristics, a large cranium being most important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 3, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,051 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 3, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: You haven't shown you know about genetics. or mutations. To change a species one parent must acquire a gene it did not originally have. He clearly understands genetics. And you are wrong. The dozens of new mutations you have were not present in either of your parents. 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: There is no known way this is possible. It's called "mutation." Mutations may simply alter an existing gene or a copy of a gene. Or they can produce an entirely new gene. This seems to happen mostly by mutation of non-coding DNA into a functional gene. Would you like to learn more about that? 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: My view is that DNA will separated humans from all other life forms. No. For example, chimps and humans are more similar in DNA than either is to any other ape. The different number of chromosomes is due to a fusion of two ape chromosomes into one human chromosome. Would you like to see how we know that? Edited December 3, 2019 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts