Jump to content
IGNORED

God used Evolution to 'create' man


A Christian 1985

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

55 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The word in Hebrew is "min."

Right, so does the Bible tell us what a "min" is? The answer is an obvious no.

56 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

God created the basic forms of life called min which can be classified according to modern  biologists and zoologist  as sometimes species , sometimes genus, sometimes family or order.

This directly contradicts your earlier statement:

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

What a kind is is obvious.  It is a species.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,021
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   962
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

21 hours ago, omega2xx said:

The support is in the Hebrew language.  The word in Hebrew is "min."The etymology can't be established with 100% certainty, its use in various verses is stronger pointing to species than any other meaning. " God created the basic forms of life called min which can be classified according to modern  biologists and zoologist  as sometimes species , sometimes genus, sometimes family or order.  This gives no support   to the classical evolutionist  view which requires development across kingdom, phyla and classes.*

That's because the classification is a functional one.   It's why bats are classified by the Bible as birds.   They are animals that fly.   Scientific classification is by descent.

21 hours ago, omega2xx said:

The only attempt to justify that is "speciation."  In speciation the species does not change

By definition, it does.  As you learned, even YE creationists admit that speciation produces new species.

21 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Talk is cheap and you nor Barbarian has never explained how the parents with no gene for a  trait  that will cause the species to evolve got such a gene.  I have said that is impossible and you have not explained how it is possible.

You were told several times.    A mutation in an egg or sperm cell will do this.   Even creationists admit it.  You have dozens of mutations that neither of your parents have.   It's caused when a mutation happens during formation of eggs or sperm.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/17/2020 at 3:25 PM, one.opinion said:

Right, so does the Bible tell us what a "min" is? The answer is an obvious no.

Then how can you say it doesn't mean species?   Min can mean "species."  When a word has more than one meaning, we  must use a little common sense.  We do this by considering what can  be proved by observation and it being repeated.  Thousands of times  every day since life began, and evolution has no answer for that, we have seen cats producing cats and reproducing cats.  Same with every other KIND.

This directly contradicts your earlier statement:

Only if your limited understanding of the word is used.

Love. peace, joy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/18/2020 at 11:00 AM, The Barbarian said:

That's because the classification is a functional one.   It's why bats are classified by the Bible as birds.   They are animals that fly.   Scientific classification is by descent.

The are not classified as birds, they are classified WITH species that have wings.  In any event, if mans says bats are not birds and God say they are, who is right.

By definition, it does.  As you learned, even YE creationists admit that speciation produces new species.

A few do, most do not, and to say a salamander remaining a salamander supports evolution, is absurd, and obviously wrong.    To say  a species that becomes sterile, is a new species is also absurd.  The evolutionist needed to have some support for their pseudo science, so they invented one.

You were told several times.    A mutation in an egg or sperm cell will do this. 

And you have been told many times that saying something is not evidence, verifying that you don't really understand what constitutes evidence, and you also don't understand what mutation can't do.  A mutation of a gene does not produce a new gene.  For example a mutation of the gene that determine skin pigment, does not produce a new gene.   It only alters the trit the kid would have gotten if the mutation would not have occurred. Also, the mutated gene may not be passed on to the next generation.

  Even creationists admit it.  You have dozens of mutations that neither of your parents have. 

How about a link I can verify both of those doubtful statements.

  It's caused when a mutation happens during formation of eggs or sperm.

Mutations do not, can not produce a new gene and you have never explained how they do, because they don't.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Then how can you say it doesn't mean species?

It could mean species, but it could mean many other things, as well. As @The Barbarian has told you, "min" is not a scientific term and it is not meant to be.

There is no scientifically useful definition for the word min, and there sure isn't any sort of definition or explanation in the Bible. Thus, attempting to define what it is requires the fallible interpretations of man. This is ironic, because this is one of the biggest complaints from individuals that deny evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

32 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

By definition, it does.  As you learned, even YE creationists admit that speciation produces new species.

A few do, most do not

To use your favorite phrase, talk is cheap. Produce evidence that a YE creationist denies speciation.

 

33 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

To say  a species that becomes sterile, is a new species is also absurd.

No one ever made that claim. You have misunderstood it repeatedly no matter how often we carefully explained it to you (for months now). In a speciation event, NOTHING BECOMES STERILE. Members of an evolved population are unable to reproduce with members of the previous population - they can still reproduce with one another. 

36 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

A mutation of a gene does not produce a new gene.

Mutations of a gene produce new alleles. Accumulation of new alleles can allow the formation of new species. Duplication and divergence of existing genes is the primary mechanism for evolution. Generation of new genes also occurs as noncoding regions of DNA can mutate into coding regions. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835/

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Even creationists admit it.  You have dozens of mutations that neither of your parents have. 

How about a link I can verify both of those doubtful statements.

ICR admits speciation herehttps://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/

Quote

Reproductive isolation can occur in a number of ways and result in speciation from one kind of animal through events that isolate one variation (species) from another.

Evidence for dozens of mutations per generation herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

Quote

The human mutation rate is higher in the male germ line (sperm) than the female (egg cells), but estimates of the exact rate have varied by an order of magnitude or more. This means that a human genome accumulates around 64 new mutations per generation because each full generation involves a number of cell divisions to generate gametes.

The original article that Wiki referenced can be found here: https://www.genetics.org/content/148/4/1667.full

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It could mean species, but it could mean many other things, as well. As @The Barbarian has told you, "min" is not a scientific term and it is not meant to be.

If it refers to the classification of life forms, and  it does, it certainly is as scientific  term.  Basically it refers to the basic life forms God created, and since it can refer to "species, "that makes it fit "after their kind" the best.

There is no scientifically useful definition for the word min, and there sure isn't any sort of definition or explanation in the Bible.

There is a definition in the Hebrew language and it includes "species." "after their kind" is the explanation, and as I have said, the most logical understanding  is what we can see and repeat, which is each species always produces the same species.

Thus, attempting to define what it is requires the fallible interpretations of man.

You are assuming the definition of fallible men is wrong.  Another thing you can't prove.  Also it is fallible men that give you your misunderstanding of the term.

This is ironic, because this is one of the biggest complaints from individuals that deny evolution.

My biggest complaint is you can't offer an explanation for the things you say.  I know you think you provided proof of natural selection, but unless you give a scientific  explanation as to HOW it happened, you are just blowing smoke.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

To use your favorite phrase, talk is cheap. Produce evidence that a YE creationist denies speciation.

I have never denied that.  By its man made definition made by fallible men, it does happen.  What I say is that salamanders remaining salamanders does not support evolution, and becoming sterile does not make a new specie.

No one ever made that claim. You have misunderstood it repeatedly no matter how often we carefully explained it to you (for months now). In a speciation event, NOTHING BECOMES STERILE. Members of an evolved population are unable to reproduce with members of the previous population - they can still reproduce with one another. 

That is even less support for evolution.  They still produce salamanders. When different varieties of dogs mate, they still produce dogs.

Mutations of a gene produce new alleles.

Mutation of a gene does not produce new alleles.  They only affect a gene that makes it give  a different trait that the kid would have gotten without the mutation,.

Accumulation of new alleles can allow the formation of new species.

This is what you always do, thinking it is evidence.  It is not.  You need to give an scientific explanation as to what causes these new alleles to cause a new species.  Actually you need to show  how mutations produce new alleles.  All you ever did is say it does. 
 

Duplication and divergence of existing genes is the primary mechanism for evolution. Generation of new genes also occurs as noncoding regions of DNA can mutate into coding regions. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835/

Nothing can create a new gene including mutations and you can explain how they can.

ICR admits speciation herehttps://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/

Speciation does not produce a new species, except for the man-made definition made by fallible men,

Evidence for dozens of mutations per generation herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

Of course there may be dozens of mutations per generation, but mutations only alter traits,  They do not produce a new species.  A mutated dog is still a dog.

The original article that Wiki referenced can be found here: https://www.genetics.org/content/148/4/1667.full

That article  did not mention mutations resulting  in a new species.

Love, peace, joy

 

Edited by omega2xx
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

If it refers to the classification of life forms, and  it does, it certainly is as scientific  term.

Since it could be a species, or a genus, or a family, or an order, it really is not scientifically functional. And there is no Biblical interpretation we can rely on that tells us what a min actually is.

 

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

There is a definition in the Hebrew language and it includes "species."

No, there isn't. The concept of species is something Linnaeus introduced thousands of years after the recording of the Genesis account.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

I know you think you provided proof of natural selection

I did. As usual, you ignored it.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

unless you give a scientific  explanation as to HOW it happened

Sometimes, natural events occur that we really can't explain. However, natural selection of the rock pocket mice is one of these events that can be explained. At some point in the past, a mutation occurred that allowed darker fur. This darker fur allowed the mice to hide better on dark rocks, which exist in relatively small pockets spread across the American Southwest and into Mexico. These darker fur mice became the predominant mice in populations on dark rocks, while most of the lighter colored mice stayed on the lighter-colored rocks, where they were able to hide better. This is an obvious explanation of how this happened. Researchers have been able to identify the specific mutations involved in generating the darker fur. This example of natural selection is an open-and-shut case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,021
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   962
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/17/2020 at 12:35 PM, omega2xx said:

Talk is cheap and you nor Barbarian has never explained how the parents with no gene for a  trait  that will cause the species to evolve got such a gene.  I have said that is impossible and you have not explained how it is possible.

Mutation.    For example, a specific single mutation to the CETP gene will give an individual lower cholesterol and a much reduced change of heart disease.   Both of my parents, and most of my aunts and uncles had high cholesterol levels.   Mine are very low; it's very likely that I have a mutated allele of that gene that lets me eat pretty much what I want, with no observable change in cholesterol levels.

There's some evidence that this mutation is also associated with delayed aging.   So far, so good.  

One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration.

https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

These alleles produce new traits, and they appear because of mutations in the original genes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...