God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

26 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The heritable changes are easily explained  by mutations, but since they remained lizards, there is no evolution.

No, this is observable evolution in action. You are using the term "evolution" in a different way from how scientists use the term. Again, evolution is heritable change over time. Speciation is a common result from evolution, but it is not a requirement. Scientists have observed examples of evolution that have not yet led to speciation, and several examples of evolution that has led to speciation. The particular example I used was a clear example of evolution that has not yet led to speciation.

35 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I didn't include a link because you didn't bother reading other links I sent you. If you want a link with greater description, I would be happy to provide it.

I would like you to cut and paste the evidence your link offered.

No problem. The quote box I put it in kinda messed with the formatting, but here is a short report. The original is at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2008/04/lizard-evolution-island-darwin/. If you want the original PNAS article, I can provide that, too.

 

Quote

 

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.

In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.

In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea.

Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.

Lizard Swarm

While the experiment was more than 30 years in the making, it was not by design, according to Duncan Irschick, a study author and biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

After scientists transplanted the reptiles, the Croatian War of Independence erupted, ending in the mid-1990s. The researchers couldn't get back to island because of the war, Irschick said.

In 2004, however, tourism began to open back up, allowing researchers access to the island laboratory. 

"We didn't know if we would find a lizard there. We had no idea if the original introductions were successful," Irschick said. What they found, however, was shocking.

"The island was swarming with lizards," he said.

 

The findings were published in March in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Fast-Track Evolution

The new habitat once had its own healthy population of lizards, which were less aggressive than the new implants, Irschick said. The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations, although how it happened is unknown, he said. The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment in ways that expedited their evolution physically, Irschick explained.

Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.

Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."

Along with the ability to digest plants came the ability to bite harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider.

The rapid physical evolution also sparked changes in the lizard's social and behavioral structure, he said. For one, the plentiful food sources allowed for easier reproduction and a denser population.

The lizard also dropped some of its territorial defenses, the authors concluded. Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said.

"That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is," he said.

 

While researchers do know the invader's impact on its reptile brethren, they do not know how the species impacts local vegetation or insects, a subject of future study, Irschick said.

Dramatic Changes

The study demonstrates that a lot of change happens in island environments, said Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's McGill University.

What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.

There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

 

 

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Alive said:

Watch this.

This video is over an hour. Do you have particular points that you want to follow up on?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

I'm just Genesis as it is, without the revisions of creationism.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You are accepting it with the revisions os evolution,

Nope. Genesis says nothing about evolution or creationism.   Creationists have to revise "after their kind" to fit it into their new doctrines.  Creationism accepts some of His word and rejects the rest.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Then you must accept "after their kind" without evolution's revisions.

As you learned, evolutionary theory needs no revision.   God says he created different kinds, but does not say how He did it.  The evidence, as your fellow creationists admit, is that they evolved.    Again, there are  creationists who have their own ideas of scripture, but who do not presume to project lack of faith on Christians who do not agree with them.    They are not undermining God's word, and are not seeking to sow conflict among us.   

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

There are also evolutionists who have their own  idea of Scripture but who do not presume to project lack of faith on Christians who do not agree with them.  

Yes.   For example, I don't see any reason to believe you lack faith in God.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

It is those who reject such simple phrases as "after their kind" who are sowing conflict among us.

It is the creationists,  who insist that it is "anti-God" to say that "after their kind"  means anything different than the creationist interpretation, who are sowing conflict among us.

[omega2xx]

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This video is over an hour. Do you have particular points that you want to follow up on?

No.  I am not going to waste an hour looking at the video.

 

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

No, this is observable evolution in action. You are using the term "evolution" in a different way from how scientists use the term. Again, evolution is heritable change over time.

Evolutionists use the term to fit their need.  Evolution requires a change of species.  Lizards remaining lizards does not qualify.

Speciation is a common result from evolution, but it is not a requirement. Scientists have observed examples of evolution that have not yet led to speciation, and several examples of evolution that has led to speciation. The particular example I used was a clear example of evolution that has not yet led to speciation.

In speciation the species also does not change, so the definition of  speciatiaon is another necessary invention of evolutionists.  The inability to mate does not change the species.  It could happen from a mutation or more likely it happens from to much interbreeding.

No problem. The quote box I put it in kinda messed with the formatting, but here is a short report. The original is at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2008/04/lizard-evolution-island-darwin/. If you want the original PNAS article, I can provide that, too.

Thanks for making my point.  There is not one bit  of verifiable evidence in that link.  All it does is says what the did, but not the genetics that caused it to happen, and the last paragraph makes it perfectly clear.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

"might be evolution" means it has not been proved.  Not only that, even the genetic changes  will not change the species  You want to have evolution in an example of "after their kind."

 

Edited December 19, 2019 by omega2xx

[omega2xx]

On 12/17/2019 at 7:59 AM, one.opinion said:

I prefer to use a variety of translations. I know the scholars that do the translation work are qualified and diligent, but I still like to get input from multiple versions. I like New King James, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman, and possibly even a few others (Bible Gateway is remarkably useful!). I often read passages in The Voice (I had some friends involved with this project), just to get a modern English viewpoint, although I rely on the more traditional translations.

Using multiple translations is a good study practice and the ones you mention are all very good.   Even the Good News Bible, which is not a translation, is very good in some places.

Love, peace, joy

[omega2xx]

On 12/17/2019 at 8:04 AM, The Barbarian said:

Sure.

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone

Mary H. Schweitzer, Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey

PNAS June 10, 1997 94 (12) 6291-6296

Abstract

Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.

Not hemoglobin.  Heme.    A fragment of the hemoglobin molecule.   It's been known for some time that some biological molecules can survive for many millions of years under the right circumstances.   Schweitzer mentions this in the report:

Hemoglobin crystallizes fairly easily, and in crystalline form the stability of the protein may be enhanced. The stability of the core porphyrin ring also may contribute to the longevity of this biomolecule... 20 years ago, partial amino acid sequences were identified from the shells of mollusks ≈80 million years old (33). Gurley et al. (34) followed with a report of amino acids in the bony tissues of the Late Jurassic (≈150 million years ago) sauropod dinosaur, Seismosaurus, and more recently the small and highly acidic bone protein, osteocalcin, has been recognized immunologically in extracts of dinosaurian bone

AS usual, the report just told what happened, I don't see any support for evolution. Where was the change of species?

[The Barbarian]

11 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

AS usual, the report just told what happened,

And what happened was that another prediction of evolutionary theory was confirmed as dinosaur heme was shown to be more closely like bird heme than like the heme of other reptiles.

13 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Where was the change of species?

This confirms a change in classes.   As you learned earlier, new species have been directly observed.   Even most creationist organizations now admit new species, genera, and families.

 

 

[omega2xx]

On 12/17/2019 at 8:08 AM, The Barbarian said:

If you doubt the scriptures, you are listening to Satan, not God.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Even if it seems wrong to you, it is the word of God.  Believe Him.

I am a fundamentalist and we accept every word in God's words as being inspired by him, and without error. What James is saying is that saving faith has good works.  If a Christian does not have good works, they don't have saving faith.  Abraham certainly didn't keep the law perfectly.  In fact the law had not been given yet. What did he do to become righteous--he believed in the Lord(Gen 15:6).

Our works  perfect our faith(Jas 2:22),

It is interesting  the 2 examples James gives  of good works, Abram offering his son and Rahab protecting the spies, are given as examples  of faith in Hebrews(Heb 11:17 & 31)

It is not what it says, it  is what it  means, and your understanding would make a contradiction in God's inerrant word.

Love, peace, joy

[one.opinion]

52 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

This video is over an hour. Do you have particular points that you want to follow up on?

No.  I am not going to waste an hour looking at the video.

I was asking @Alive. It is a video of Stephen Meyer discussing perceived faults with the theory of evolution. You may be more interested than you think.

52 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

No, this is observable evolution in action. You are using the term "evolution" in a different way from how scientists use the term. Again, evolution is heritable change over time.

Evolutionists use the term to fit their need.  Evolution requires a change of species.  Lizards remaining lizards does not qualify.

It is evolution by the standard definition of evolution. If you don't use the same definition as the scientific community, then you can make all sorts of claims that are correct in your mind. No, evolution does not require a change in species because it is only heritable change over time. If you want to change your claim to "speciation has never been observed", then we can look at evidence for that, too.

The following text is from this site - https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

 

Quote

 

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.

This process, known as Hybrid Speciation, has been documented a number of times in different plants. But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species.

 

Yes, evolution is an observed phenomenon. And yes, even speciation is an observed phenomenon. The claim that "evolution has never been observed" is just plain incorrect.

52 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The inability to mate does not change the species.  It could happen from a mutation or more likely it happens from to much interbreeding.

When two portion of a population are no longer able to mate, that is one way for new species to develop. Yes, speciation can occur from a single mutation (if you include the gamete mistake as a single mutation). Interbreeding is not related.

52 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Thanks for making my point.  There is not one bit  of verifiable evidence in that link.

The evidence is clearly verifiable. Verify - "To establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of". The evidence is absolutely verifiable. Anyone with the means to do so can go and check for themselves.

52 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

All it does is says what the did, but not the genetics that caused it to happen

While it is true that the specific molecular changes that took place are unknown, the verifiable evidence is clear. The lizard population on the "new" island has undergone changes in a few decades that demonstrate heritable change over time (the definition of evolution).

 

52 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."

"might be evolution" means it has not been proved.  Not only that, even the genetic changes  will not change the species  You want to have evolution in an example of "after their kind."

The evidence is clear. Hendry is simply making the point that further work is needed to address those questions of exactly how the process of phenotypic change took place.

By a standard definition, these lizards have demonstrated evolution. Only by redefining evolution can you say "evolution has not been observed".

Edited December 19, 2019 by one.opinion

[The Barbarian]

If you doubt the scriptures, you are listening to Satan, not God.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Even if it seems wrong to you, it is the word of God.  Believe Him.

 

1 minute ago, omega2xx said:

I am a fundamentalist and we accept every word in God's words as being inspired by him, and without error. What James is saying is that saving faith has good works.  

No, your revision won't work.   James is very clear on this.  "Do you see that by works, a man is justified; and not by faith only."

Until you're ready to accept God's word on his terms, you're not accepting His word at all.

"Not by faith only."    Learn to accept it His way.

4 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

What did he do to become righteous

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?

Set your pride aside and believe Him.

 

5 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

It is not what it says, it  is what it  means

Sure.   God doesn't mean what He says?   You really think so?   God is truth.   Accept it on His terms.