God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Or a key lime pie... Now you have me doing it!

I think I get what you are saying, but correct me if I’m wrong. New species can be formed, but speciation events don’t directly result in significantly different organisms. Does that match what you are saying?

Much larger timescales are needed to produce organisms that are very different - like humans and chimps. This is where fossil records and genetic evidence play a major role. Although we cannot observe the immediate step from ancestor to a different-looking progeny, we can see the gradual change in the fossil record. The genetic evidence shows the “family similarity” between us and the chimps. I’d be happy to expand in that, if you’d like to learn more.

I think I get what you are saying, but correct me if I’m wrong. New species can be formed, but speciation events don’t directly result in significantly different organisms. Does that match what you are saying?

 

No.  I am saying it is impossible genetically to have a new species.  To produce a new species the parents must give its offspring a trait for which it has no gene.  What is usually offered  as how it can happen is mutations and time.    Time, no matter how long, will not change proven basic genetically truths and a mutated cat is still a cat.  Just one with different traits than its parents.

 

Much larger timescales are needed to produce organisms that are very different - like humans and chimps. This is where fossil records and genetic evidence play a major role. Although we cannot observe the immediate step from ancestor to a different-looking progeny, we can see the gradual change in the fossil record. The genetic evidence shows the “family similarity” between us and the chimps. I’d be happy to expand in that, if you’d like to learn more.

 

There is no fossils linking man to apes.  There  is no genetic evidence linking man to apes.  If you have some, now would  a good time to present it.  Your major problem is that you have no intermediate fossils and if evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would b e intermediates.  If you want me to learn more how it is possible, instead of the  just the usual evolution talking points that say it happened explain HOW it is possible.  Especially how sea life produced animal life  and how land life produced plant life.  IMO that requires more faith than "God did  it all."

 

Peace and joy

Edited November 2, 2019 by omega2xx

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Remember evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. 

That is microevolution, not macroevolution. Most creationists, myself included agree with Microevolution. Genetic research actually points to a common ancestry when done without bias, that common ancestor being Adam and Eve. Curiously, this also points to roughly six thousand years ago.

https://www.charismanews.com/world/50749-genetics-expert-confirms-the-reality-of-adam-and-eve 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

No.  I am saying it is impossible genetically to have a new species. 

Although biology requires some flexibility with exactly how to define a species, the most commonly used (and easiest to use) definition is a population unable to successfully reproduce with another. In this sense, I have shown that not only is it genetically possible, but there are actual examples that have been observed.

I've enjoyed the conversation, but if you won't accept this simple point, I'm pretty sure it would be a waste of my time to try to move on to others.

[omega2xx]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Although biology requires some flexibility with exactly how to define a species, the most commonly used (and easiest to use) definition is a population unable to successfully reproduce with another. In this sense, I have shown that not only is it genetically possible, but there are actual examples that have been observed.

I've enjoyed the conversation, but if you won't accept this simple point, I'm pretty sure it would be a waste of my time to try to move on to others.

Although biology requires some flexibility with exactly how to define a species, the most commonly used (and easiest to use) definition is a population unable to successfully reproduce with another. In this sense, I have shown that not only is it genetically possible, but there are actual examples that have been observed.

 

Actually needing some flexibility to define a   species is only necessary for evolution,  not for real science.    The most commonly used definition and the  one we see thousands of times every day it is a population that can reproduce, which is impossible with different species.   I agree with your final statement, but I would like one example of different species mating and producing a different species and the science that allows it to happen.

If you choose not to answer again,  understand and I have also enjoyed our discussion.

 

Peace and joy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

59 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

That is microevolution, not macroevolution. Most creationists, myself included agree with Microevolution. Genetic research actually points to a common ancestry when done without bias, that common ancestor being Adam and Eve. Curiously, this also points to roughly six thousand years ago.

https://www.charismanews.com/world/50749-genetics-expert-confirms-the-reality-of-adam-and-eve 

Adam and Eve certainly can't be the common ancestor for plants and animals.  "After their kind" for plants and animals surely refutes such an idea as does even basic genetics.

 

Evolution use to teach the common ancestor was some simple cell blob that came out of some primordial ooze.  I don't know what it teaches these days.  It is amazing to me that intelligent people believe the thousands of highly different life forms originated from one source and they don't even know what the original life form was.  They also can't explain how that ooze originated.  I know that is now called biogenesis, but it was not originally.

 

Peace and joy

[dhchristian]

3 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Adam and Eve certainly can't be the common ancestor for plants and animals.  "After their kind" for plants and animals surely refutes such an idea as does even basic genetics.

 

Evolution use to teach the common ancestor was some simple cell blob that came out of some primordial ooze.  I don't know what it teaches these days.  It is amazing to me that intelligent people believe the thousands of highly different life forms originated from one source and they don't even know what the original life form was.  They also can't explain how that ooze originated.  I know that is now called biogenesis, but it was not originally.

There is what I call definition madness in the camp. as soon as something comes up with a refutation, they alter their theory, so for example punctuated Equilibrium was a way to explain away the lack fossil records between "kinds". That is to say the change occurred rapidly in revolutions as opposed to evolving slowly over time. And that these species largely remain in Stasis... etc. 

What Darwin taught, and what is called evolution today are two totally different theories. Once the theory is proved false they just come up with a new term to explain the discrepancy. So long as it sounds scientific they will believe it, anything but the Truth of the Word of God.

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

There is what I call definition madness in the camp. as soon as something comes up with a refutation, they alter their theory, so for example punctuated Equilibrium was a way to explain away the lack fossil records between "kinds". That is to say the change occurred rapidly in revolutions as opposed to evolving slowly over time. And that these species largely remain in Stasis... etc. 

What Darwin taught, and what is called evolution today are two totally different theories. Once the theory is proved false they just come up with a new term to explain the discrepancy. So long as it sounds scientific they will believe it, anything but the Truth of the Word of God.

Agreed.  What is amusing is that Darwin was not a scientist, but the evolutionist have put their faith in him any way because they don't want to  believe in God. 

 

Peace and joy

[dhchristian]

Just now, omega2xx said:

Agreed.  What is amusing is that Darwin was not a scientist, but the evolutionist have put their faith in him any way because they don't want to  believe in God. 

Not to mention the full title of His Book, which the left likes to ignore:

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

[omega2xx]

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Not to mention the full title of His Book, which the left likes to ignore:

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Right.  They have no idea what the origin o9f the species is,.  Natural selection is another thing for which there is no evidence and there are no favored races, except man.

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Not to mention the full title of His Book, which the left likes to ignore:

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

This was a discussion about science for quite a few pages. What does “the left” have to do with anything?