The Barbarian Posted December 5, 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 5, 2019 3 hours ago, Alive said: On the first point: well ya--that is the point. Things don't evolve from one body plan to another. Chordates, for example, evolved several different body plans. Tunicates look very different than lampreys, but they are genetically quite close. And tunicate larvae look like lamprey larvae. Tunicates belong to the phylum Chordata and the subphylum Urochordata. They are sessile marine chordates that lack a backbone. They are very closely related to craniates (hagfish, lampreys, and jawed vertebrates). They belong to the deepest-branching lineage of chordates, meaning they represent an early stage in chordate evolution. It was suggested by William Garstang that ancestral tunicates accelerated their sexual maturity, becoming more mature while still in their larval stage. This process of how these tunicates and the chordates that evolved from them retained the notochord and other features as adults is known as paedomorphosis. However, Garstang's idea is not longer believed by scientists. They not think that the degenerate adult stage of tunicates is a derived trait that evolved only after the tunicate lineage branched off from other chordates. Studies suggest that the tunicate larva does not develop the posterior regions of its body axis, but rather the anterior region is elongated and contains a heart and digestive system. https://sites.google.com/site/chordatestunicatesandlancelets/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 5, 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 5, 2019 7 hours ago, Eman_3 said: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01 For geneticists and biologists, evolution is just change over time and many generations those changes can produce divergent species. That is blatantly obvious in the study of any genes. If it was blatantly obvious, you could prove it. You can't. People who have erected an artificial barrier between the evolution of other animals compared to man are doing so just to protect their belief we are different than other animals. But even now, if you do not come from African ancestry, the odds are incredibly high that you contain 1 to 2% Neanderthal genes in your DNA. More guess work from scientific lala land. "The bible cannot explain that, but Paleoanthropology can." The Bible is not a science book, so of course it cant explain it, but neither can evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 5, 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 5, 2019 6 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Neither Todd Wood nor Kurt Wise accept common descent, although both admit evolution, in the scientific terminology, happens. They merely admit that there is very good evidence for common descent. Wise openly declares that he puts his faith in his understanding of the Bible above the evidence. I believe that's also Wood's position. There is no evidence for common descent. You don't even know what the first life form was or what it became. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhchristian Posted December 5, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 9 Topic Count: 136 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,488 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 1,325 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 5, 2019 Just now, The Barbarian said: That's not what I said. If you take your particular interpretation of the Bible as an idol, your salvation is at issue. You are not God. Most of the world's Christians don't accept your new doctrines, but that won't harm your salvation, unless you insist that they have to believe your modern doctrines to be saved. Creationists are no less saved than other Christians, unless they claim creationism is an essential dogma of Christianity. The Nicene Creed lays out what we as Christians believe. Leave it at that. You've got it backward buddy, Evolution is the new doctrine, creationism has been around since Adam. There is nothing new about my doctrine, it is Orthodox Christianity, Built upon the foundation of Jewish writings. It is your new doctrine of theistic evolution, that did not come into being until after Darwin; and he is the god you hold higher than God our creator, and evolution the idol you worship. Nicene Creed, You Probably do not know what it says, so here, let me refresh your memory. What is the very first affirmation in the nicene Creed? We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. Sounds an awful lot like creationism, and I definitely do not see the word evolution in there. So Try again heck, you might be able to get both feet in your mouth . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 6, 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 6, 2019 Neither Todd Wood nor Kurt Wise accept common descent, although both admit evolution, in the scientific terminology, happens. They merely admit that there is very good evidence for common descent. Wise openly declares that he puts his faith in his understanding of the Bible above the evidence. I believe that's also Wood's position. 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: There is no evidence for common descent. You don't even know what the first life form was or what it became. Well, let's see what some of your fellow creationist say... Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. Dr. Wise Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. Dr. Todd Charles Wood Q.E.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 6, 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 6, 2019 7 minutes ago, Cletus said: and by monkey business i mean... someone saying they believe in something found nowhere in scripture, Protons aren't found anywhere in scripture. They exist, too. Lots of things are true, that aren't in scripture. 8 minutes ago, Cletus said: How can God have used evolution to make man... Mutation and natural selection. Turns out, God is a lot smarter and greater than creationists think. 9 minutes ago, Cletus said: are we now to believe monkeys are made in Gods likeness and image? Humans are made in God's likeness in our spirits and understanding of good. God has no body, according to Jesus (yes, I know He assumed one for His ministry on Earth). God doesn't have a nose and eyebrows and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 6, 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 6, 2019 4 hours ago, omega2xx said: There is no evidence for common descent. No, that's wrong, for sure. Even your fellow creationists know better. The many series of transitional fossils, Genetic data, anatomical data, and many other sources of evidence show this to be true. Even the major creationist organizations admit to a limited amount of common descent, including new species, genera,families, and sometimes orders. Would you like to see that, again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 6, 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 6, 2019 And the first organism on earth was a unicellular prokaryote. Would you like to learn how we know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 6, 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 6, 2019 That's not what I said. If you take your particular interpretation of the Bible as an idol, your salvation is at issue. You are not God. Most of the world's Christians don't accept your new doctrines, but that won't harm your salvation, unless you insist that they have to believe your modern doctrines to be saved. Creationists are no less saved than other Christians, unless they claim creationism is an essential dogma of Christianity. The Nicene Creed lays out what we as Christians believe. Leave it at that. 4 hours ago, dhchristian said: You've got it backward buddy, Evolution is the new doctrine, creationism has been around since Adam. No, that's wrong. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory that explains it. YE creationism is a very recent invention,by Seventh-Day Adventists, in the 20th century. (Barbarian notes that YE creationism is not found in the Nicene Creed) 4 hours ago, dhchristian said: Nicene Creed, You Probably do not know what it says, Let me refresh your memory, then: I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.[1] The Filioque is a point of contention between the eastern and western churches, but otherwise, it's uncontroversial among believers. Notice nothing at all about literal 6 day creation, or about special creation of organisms. 4 hours ago, dhchristian said: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. Sounds an awful lot like creationism, and I definitely do not see the word evolution in there. Except no literal six day creation, no special creation of organism, and so on. It doesn't rule out a six day creation, nor does it support your new doctrine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhchristian Posted December 6, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 9 Topic Count: 136 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,488 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 1,325 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2019 1 hour ago, The Barbarian said: Except no literal six day creation, no special creation of organism, and so on. It doesn't rule out a six day creation, nor does it support your new doctrine. Duh!, It was written in the 4the century AD, there was no need to mention those things because creationism was the accepted doctrine back then, and evolution was not even a thought in mama Darwin's mind. Point made, Point won By Myself, Barbarian walks away with his tail between his legs whimpering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts