Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, Sparks said:

And it was simply an normal ape, which had it's face so badly destroyed you can make up whatever, you want.

Nope.   The hip and the knee joint showed that it was bipedal, walking very much like modern humans.    Later finds of A. afarensis gave us more information about the face and skull, which was pretty much like that of later Australopithecines, if a bit more apelike.   Would you like me to show you about that?

 

[The Barbarian]

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise says that the many, many fossil horses in the fossil horse sequence are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."   He's right.  

7 hours ago, Sparks said:

He is wrong, and horse evolution was debunked, and museums still have those fake displays up. 

No, he's quite correct.   He actually has a PhD in paleontology, and while he's working on a "creationist paleontology", he's honest enough to admit the evidence.    Because there were so many horses, the fossil record is very good.   If you like, we can start a thread on the evidence.   Would you like to look at the fossil record of horses?   It's quite interesting and it would show you some important things about evolution in general.

7 hours ago, Sparks said:

Sure it is.  I guess you miss that propaganda article about it.  The point is, they claimed they found "depression genes" in the DNA of Neanderthal, and claimed we inherited them. 

You've been misled about that, too.  While there are links between Neanderthal genes in modern humans, and some mental disorders, the author made no such claims:

More surprisingly, though, Capra’s team also found that Neanderthal DNA affects the risk of psychiatric disorders, including mood disorders and depression (which are new and unexpected). And 29 specific Neanderthal variants seem to influence when and where genes are turned on in different parts of the brain.

Sun exposure influences depression risk, so the link between Neanderthal variants and mood disorders may again reflect their role in adapting modern humans to new climates. But that’s just a guess: “It seems Neanderthal DNA has an effect on systems that regulate our moods or behaviors,” says Capra, “but for now, I don’t feel comfortable saying more than that. 

Some headlines will inevitably claim that we can blame Neanderthals for depression, but that’s nonsense. For a start, the effect is subtle, explaining just 1 percent of a person’s depression risk. “We shouldn’t blame Neanderthals for any of these associations, which are complex traits with many things contributing to them,” says Capra. “And of course, depression is a very new concept of a disease. You can’t think of Neanderthals or our ancestors being depressed.””

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/02/neanderthal-dna-affects-depression-risk-today/462345/

The first paper to note the association:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/737

Did not claim any causal relationship.   And Capra clearly made no such claims, even discouraging speculation pending more data.   It's important to read the actual literature if you want to get the straight story.

 

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.   The hip and the knee joint showed that it was bipedal, walking very much like modern humans.    Later finds of A. afarensis gave us more information about the face and skull, which was pretty much like that of later Australopithecines, if a bit more apelike.   Would you like me to show you about that?

This is fiction.  Do you, or do you not see the fake human-like feet and hands in the photo I provided?  Won't you admit they were a lie?  That there was no feet or hands found?

[Sparks]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.   The hip and the knee joint showed that it was bipedal, walking very much like modern humans.    Later finds of A. afarensis gave us more information about the face and skull, which was pretty much like that of later Australopithecines, if a bit more apelike.   Would you like me to show you about that?

Nope.

[The Barbarian]

Nope.   The hip and the knee joint showed that it was bipedal, walking very much like modern humans.    Later finds of A. afarensis gave us more information about the face and skull, which was pretty much like that of later Australopithecines, if a bit more apelike.   Would you like me to show you about that?

 

42 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Nope.

O.K.   Here's why.    Notice the hips of humans and A. afarensis are such that the femur is slanted inward, and the knee joint is angled outward, giving them a knock-kneed posture.   This allows efficient bipedal motion, unlike that of apes, who have an inefficient, rocking bipedal motion.   Notice that they also lack an opposable big toe, evolved to support the weight of the body.    Among the apes, only hominids have these adaptations.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

This is fiction.  Do you, or do you not see the fake human-like feet and hands in the photo I provided?  Won't you admit they were a lie?  That there was no feet or hands found?

You've been misled about that, too...

A new study by anthropologists at the University of Kent has identified that hand use behaviour in the fossils of our early ancestors is consistent with modern humans.

The human lineage can be defined by a transition in hand use. Early human ancestors used their hands to move around in the trees, like living primates do today, whereas modern human hands have evolved to primarily perform precision grips.

However, new research led by Dr Christopher Dunmore, Dr Matthew Skinner and Professor Tracy Kivell from Kent’s School of Anthropology and Conservation has revealed that the hand of an ancient human relative was used for both human-like manipulation as well as climbing.

Their discovery came from analysing and comparing the internal bony structures of fossil knuckle and thumb joints from the hands of several fossil species from South Africa, eastern Africa and Europe. These included: Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens dated between 12 thousand and three million years old.

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/05/fossils-show-that-early-ancestors-had-dual-hand-use/129251

There have been many Australopithecine fossils found, including hands and feet.

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by The Barbarian

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 12/17/2020 at 12:00 PM, The Barbarian said:

(assertion that Darwinian theory has never been verified)

No, that's wrong, too.   There are many, many examples.  

• A well-fitted population in a constant environment should be kept from changing very much because of natural selection.  (Darwin)
• There must have been at one time, transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. (Huxley)
• There must have been at one time, fish with functional legs.  ( Gray)
• Overuse of Penicillin will lead to evolution of resistance in bacteria (Alexander Flemming)
• Mitochondria in eukaryotic cells evolved by endosymbiosis. (Margulas)   Jeon later documented an observed example of evolved endosymbiosis.

No.   "Mitochondrial Eve" came to be long after the original Eve.

 

Obviously, no one will literally know the [epistemology] of full knowledge until we have our resurrected bodies and understand what God specifically knows concerning the {Beginning to the End}.

 

Is it safe to therefore presume, if the {origins} of the "Big Bang" never took place, and even though we perceive the Universe to continually be expanding (this being God's Design), and that our calculations of 13.8 Billion years is incorrect by 13 Billion years, meaning the Earth is not 4.5 Billion years old, that Evolution would be more in lines with a best guess scenario?

 

Science has built a lot into the infrastructure of {time}.   Time from a Beginning point to where the Universe currently exists.   Time to form Galaxies down to constellations, sun(s), planets, moons governed by the "Physic Laws."   Time for planets to develop.  And due to the planet Earth being located from the Sun, time for Earth to develop into a state where lifeforms could format existence and through environmental changes allow life to change into a series of stages creating Species.

 

But if the Earth [is not] 4.5 Billion years old.   If the Earth is not even a Billion years old but merely 250,000 years old, it would be impossible to conclude "Cambrian Explosion."   In fact, at 250,000 years old, we would be just volcanic matter and water.   But, we have GOD to include within this equation.   And with God involved, technically, only 1 nano second would be needed for the {Thoughts} of God to become "reality."

 

What I am then asking here, Theories pertaining to life on Planet Earth and their origins are based upon [time].   And before we get to life on our planet, we need for our planet to exist and then ultimately for the Universe to exist.   Evolution is based upon a collection of events and those events require time.   We who exist on our planet might be able to create/conclude a great deal of probabilities from the [information] we discover {first hand}.   But none of us have any sense of relationship beyond our planet.   At this point, we are assessing time with assumption.   If we are wrong about {time}, aren't we wrong about "Evolution" that requires literally 3 Billion years of time?

Edited December 19, 2020 by kingdombrat

[Guest kingdombrat]

LOL!

Basically Barbarian.

If there was proof the Universe was only 1 million years old making Earth roughly 25,000 years old, how would Evolution work when Science has created a basic timeline of 3 Billion years?

 

Does Evolution only work if Science has the correct age of Earth?

 

If God made Earth literally 25,000 years ago, does that make the process of Evolution [impossible]?

 

Isn't {time} the most valuable component within the entire Theory?

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Obviously, no one will literally know the [epistemology] of full knowledge until we have our resurrected bodies and understand what God specifically knows concerning the {Beginning to the End}.

If then.   To understand all of God's creation would be to understand God.   Which for a finite being, would be impossible.   Maybe we won't be finite, and in some way united with God to know what He knows.

7 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Is it safe to therefore presume, if the {origins} of the "Big Bang" never took place, and even though we perceive the Universe to continually be expanding (this being God's Design), and that our calculations of 13.8 Billion years is incorrect by 13 Billion years, meaning the Earth is not 4.5 Billion years old, that Evolution would be more in lines with a best guess scenario?

There's much more than that involved.   After all, when Kelvin, using the heat flux of the sun, estimated the Earth to be no more than a few million years old, Darwin correctly disagreed, pointing out that the evidence for living things on Earth showed that to be impossibly short.    Later, when radioactivity was discovered, and the source of the missing heat was discovered, Kelving grudgingly admitted that Darwin was right.

There's too many things in biology, geology, astronomy, and physics to explain away, of one wants a young Earth.

7 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

But if the Earth [is not] 4.5 Billion years old.   If the Earth is not even a Billion years old but merely 250,000 years old, it would be impossible to conclude "Cambrian Explosion."

In fact, the Cambrian explosion, as we see in in the rocks, would not have happened.   Another reason to realize the age of the Earth.

7 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

But, we have GOD to include within this equation.   And with God involved, technically, only 1 nano second would be needed for the {Thoughts} of God to become "reality."

Yes, if one is allowed to call in a non-scriptural miracle to deal with inconvenient evidence, then any story is equally plausible.    "Last Tuesdayism" (sometimes called the "Omphalos Hypothesis) is not a logically viable theology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Criticisms

7 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Evolution is based upon a collection of events and those events require time. 

Darwin was unaware of the many sources of evidence for deep time, but he correctly argued that the biological data indicated a very ancient Earth.    Subsequent investigations have validated his prediction.  

Are you familiar with Aardsma's "Virtual History" beliefs?    It's a rational and honest attempt to deal with the evidence and still maintain a YE outlook.   Worth investigating, if you haven't seen it.

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/correspondence/virtual_history.php

7 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

If we are wrong about {time}, aren't we wrong about "Evolution" that requires literally 3 Billion years of time?

And wrong about geology, and ice ages, and genetics, and astronomy, and physics, among other things.    Why not just accept it as it is, and avoid all those logical difficulties?

 

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Isn't {time} the most valuable component within the entire Theory?

That would be natural selection.   And no, time isn't absolutely necessary.    Many YE creationists, to avoid the logical problems of too many species on the Ark, have suggested some kind of magical hyperevolution that rapidly cranked out new species, genera, and families of animals in just a thousand years or so.

Once you can add nonscriptural miracles whenever you have a difficulty, nothing is impossible.