The Problem With Evolution Part 2- Animals

[Starise]

Much of this is taken from the book- The Evolution Of A Creationist

The Incubator Bird- This bird has some unique characteristics. The bird comes from Austrailia and resembles a chicken or small turkey. Some native Australians call it the brush turkey.

Incubator birds are unlike all other birds. If they evolved, what did they evolve from? Or what are they evolving into? A Scientific American article offers precious little by way of an evolutionary explanation for the origins of this strange bird. All birds use body heat to incubate their eggs except the incubator bird. 

Instead they pile up great heaps of debris which serve as incubators: the warmth of the fermenting compost does the work. Through solar heat and fermentation the eggs are kept warm.What explanation can evolution offer for the ability of the hen to evaluate the suitability of a nest that may be dug three feet into the ground and may be ten or more feet above ground and up to fifty feet across? For the chicks to survive the nest has to be at 91F. Exactly 91F. These birds have a way to measure temperature very accurately in their beak. In order to make sure the temp doesn't get too high or too low, the male bird either adds or removes material from the nest. The eggs are kept at 99.5% humidity.

Credentialed men and women have the audacity to say the bird is the product of the impersonal plus time, plus chance. But truly, how could the incubator bird even exist? Only if the God of the bible lives and is involved with His creatures.

-To be continued

 

[Starise]

Often in species adaptations are called evolving, and while the word evolve technically means change, it's more than a little misleading to attempt to marry same species adaptations over time to the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin. 

Darwin's theory suggests one kind changes into a completely different kind over time, and since the word 'evolution' is used and even applied to both ideas, it suggests that given enough time species can change into an unrecognizable animal if compared to the original.Yet we don't see this, either in the fossil record or presently.

We could start with Man, even though God's highest creation on this planet. We surely see many changes in men in different areas of the world. This is largely due to the scattering at Babel. At that time languages were changed to intentionally divide men, and so men in opposite remote regions of the world gained certain characteristics that would contrast them to another man on the other side of the planet. Never will you see a man as anything but a man. No matter how much time has passed.

Here are some examples in the animal world-

Elephants- Scientists trying to push the evolution narrative will say the Elephant is "evolving". If we look at the large hairy mammoth, now extinct, this was an animal fully in the elephant category. There is also the possibility that modern elephants are not necessarily derived from the mammoth, but a part of the same family, and as such, came up along with them on a different part of the planet. The mammoth wasn't so fortunate to survive.

Mice- One claim I haven't verified  is that mice in Algeria are growing immune to poison. Specifically Warfarin. If true, as before, they are still mice in every way.Why Algeria? Do you realize the implications? One day maybe we canb drink diet pepsi with no ill effects. Why isn't man developing a resistance to sugar?? Instead sugar is killing us.

[The Barbarian]

On 9/1/2023 at 10:00 AM, Starise said:

The Incubator Bird- This bird has some unique characteristics. The bird comes from Austrailia and resembles a chicken or small turkey. Some native Australians call it the brush turkey.

Credentialed men and women have the audacity to say the bird is the product of the impersonal plus time, plus chance.

No.   Mutation and natural selection. God created life to evolve and adapt to new environments.   

Creationists often argue that there's no way that God could create a universe in which such wonderful things can appear according to His will.   

But they do.

Journal of Biogeography

Volume41, Issue11

November 2014

Pages 2045-2056

Incubator birds: biogeographical origins and evolution of underground nesting in megapodes (Galliformes: Megapodiidae)

On 9/2/2023 at 5:32 PM, Starise said:

Here are some examples in the animal world-

Mice:

G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics

Volume 11, Issue 1, January 2021

Independent evolution toward larger body size in the distinctive Faroe Island mice

The mice are believed to have been accidentally introduced to the island as early as the 6th century, and have evolved to fit the harsher climates by becoming larger.    Originally classified as Mus musculus, they are now considered to be a subspecies of Mus domesticus, with some additions from other species of mouse.

 

Elephants:

Here are some early members of the group:

At least one member of the smaller species still exists.   The Rock Hyrax

 

Is genetically the closest living relative to elephants.

Evolution is proceeding now in elephant populations in Africa as poaching selection is removing elephants with tusks, resulting in more and more tuskless elephants.    Geneticists have identified at least one of the alleles that is increasing in the population as the result of this selection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Starise]

Please stop the lableing tied to inaccuracy, and so early on in this discussion. as noted below VVVVV

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Creationists often argue that there's no way that God could create a universe in which such wonderful things can appear according to His will.   

????? I don't even know where to start. What? We who know God made everything, also know He makes everything according to His will. No creationist I ever knew said anything even close to this.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Mutation and natural selection. God created life to evolve and adapt to new environments.   

Yes God did create life to adapt to new environments. No argument there, and I'm a believer in creation. Go figure. Natural selection? As in survival of the fittest? The best adaptations would be those that are best integrated profitably into their respective environments. Survival of the fittest does not confirm species to new species. If a lion is made for attacking prey, we could say the Gazelle adapted to run extremely fast and to detect predators by scent. Those abilities were already there, but could have been sharpened over time.

Creatures survive because God made them to survive, and not through any design of their own, other than adaptations, or as some may call it, micro evolution. Survivability is self supporting across many environments from the beginning. This isn't something that happened over millions of years.

No way the incubator bird "evolved" just not possible. The strict temperatures needed to support eggs and the knowledge to make those nests have a zero percent chance of evolving from normal birds. That has been my point.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The mice are believed to have been accidentally introduced to the island as early as the 6th century, and have evolved to fit the harsher climates by becoming larger.    Originally classified as Mus musculus, they are now considered to be a subspecies of Mus domesticus, with some additions from other species of mouse.

 Words like " believed to be", "accidentally" and "considered to be" are all just grey words and phrases someone would say if they didn't know for sure, which means this isn't necessarily factual. I'm not saying these animals didn't change to adapt, but language like this places all of it in doubt.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Is genetically the closest living relative to elephants.

Evolution is proceeding now in elephant populations in Africa as poaching selection is removing elephants with tusks, resulting in more and more tuskless elephants.    Geneticists have identified at least one of the alleles that is increasing in the population as the result of this selection.

Ok so you've made a statement based on an article that claims gentics made a tie to this animal and elephants. I'm not buying it until I see more proof of it. The two animals may share some genes, or DNA, but so do many other different species across the globe. This doesn't necessarily make them solid cousins, or prove a Rock Hyrax came from an elephant. 

 

[The Barbarian]

43 minutes ago, Starise said:

????? I don't even know where to start. What? We who know God made everything, also know He makes everything according to His will. No creationist I ever knew said anything even close to this.

The creationist response is special creation separately.    They don't like a God powerful enough to make the universe so as to produce living things as He said He did in Genesis.

43 minutes ago, Starise said:

Yes God did create life to adapt to new environments. No argument there, and I'm a believer in creation. Go figure. Natural selection? As in survival of the fittest? The best adaptations would be those that are best integrated profitably into their respective environments. Survival of the fittest does not confirm species to new species.

Directly observed to happen.   As you know, many creationists have just conceded this fact.

43 minutes ago, Starise said:

If a lion is made for attacking prey, we could say the Gazelle adapted to run extremely fast and to detect predators by scent. Those abilities were already there, but could have been sharpened over time.

That's point.  Evolution never creates anything from nothing.  It's always a modification of something already there.   Lungs evolved in fish by forming sacs in the digestive tract.   Many still have them.   A few have fully-developed lungs.  But notice fish gulp air to absorb the oxygen in their digestive tracts even without sacs.   Sacs just make it more efficient.   God is a lot smarter than some people would like.

43 minutes ago, Starise said:

Creatures survive because God made them to survive, and not through any design of their own, other than adaptations, or as some may call it, micro evolution.

That's the beauty of it.  No design.    God created.    And engineers are starting to catch on.   They have found that evolution works more efficiently than design for solving very complex problems.   They mimic evolution with "genetic algorithms" and they work very well.   Would you like to learn about that?    God is amazing.

43 minutes ago, Starise said:

No way the incubator bird "evolved" just not possible. The strict temperatures needed to support eggs and the knowledge to make those nests have a zero percent chance of evolving from normal birds. That has been my point.

Denial from incredulity won't work.   The evidence, as you learned, shows that the behavior did evolve.   There are all sorts of existing steps still found in living species of this group.  

43 minutes ago, Starise said:

Words like " believed to be", "accidentally" and "considered to be" are all just grey words and phrases someone would say if they didn't know for sure,

The details of how it happened are yet unclear.   But the fact of the Faroe Island Mouse population remains.    And they are genetically different than other mice.  

43 minutes ago, Starise said:

Ok so you've made a statement based on an article that claims gentics made a tie to this animal and elephants. I'm not buying it until I see more proof of it.

 

Not just genetics:

A guest at Mpala and visitors on Explore.org’s live camera streams will be forgiven for describing hyraxes as over-sized rodents. The fascinating creatures look like adorable fluffy, well-fed rats.  Looking at them, one might guess that they are somewhere between big rats and small-eared rabbits. However, research reveals that hyraxes are not rodents but in fact, are the closest living relative to elephants. The hyrax has similar teeth, toes, and skull structures to that of an elephant’s.

https://blog.explore.org/kissing-cousins-the-hyrax-and-the-elephant/

But DNA analysis shows...

And we know this works because we can test it on organisms of known descent.    Hyrax teeth are tusklike, and the skulls of hyraxes and elephants are remarkably alike for animals of such dissimilar size.

43 minutes ago, Starise said:

The two animals may share some genes, or DNA, but so do many other different species across the globe.

Sure.   It's just that elephants, manatees and hyraxes are more closely related to each other than they are to anything else.   That's how you find relationships with DNA.   None of them came from the other; they all have a common ancestor more recently than they have  with any other organism.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Scott Free]

49 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The details of how it happened are yet unclear.

Both creationist and evolutionist get it wrong. Concerning creationist, the scripture is spiritually appraised and written so all times can have an understanding. Who are we so say what a day to God is or the details of the methods He employs in the process of creation. Maybe the mud of the earth means something different to God similar to how the nations are considered dust.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Scott Free

[Starise]

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The creationist response is special creation separately.    They don't like a God powerful enough to make the universe so as to produce living things as He said He did in Genesis.

So I indicate  an error,  as it could pertain to me as someone who believes God created all things, and you repeat it?

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Directly observed to happen. 

You seen an ape turn into one of us?

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's point.  Evolution never creates anything from nothing.  It's always a modification of something already there.   Lungs evolved in fish by forming sacs in the digestive tract.   Many still have them.   A few have fully-developed lungs.  But notice fish gulp air to absorb the oxygen in their digestive tracts even without sacs.   Sacs just make it more efficient.   God is a lot smarter than some people would like.

Some of this sounds very fishy to me.

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's the beauty of it.  No design.    God created.    And engineers are starting to catch on.   They have found that evolution works more efficiently than design for solving very complex problems.   They mimic evolution with "genetic algorithms" and they work very well.   Would you like to learn about that?    God is amazing.

Well certainly God is amazing. Applying computer science to genetics in trying to emulate the patterns could produce something positive I suppose. God created design. Again none of this confirms kind to new kind, but looks like an interesting thing to look into.

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Denial from incredulity won't work.   The evidence, as you learned, shows that the behavior did evolve.   There are all sorts of existing steps still found in living species of this group.  

No. The evidence shows the exact opposite. What do you mean by "existing steps"?

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The details of how it happened are yet unclear.   But the fact of the Faroe Island Mouse population remains.    And they are genetically different than other mice.  

The mice I mentioned were resistant to wayfarin. Not familiar with this study. We often have the same kind slightly different existing in different areas of the globe. Still mice.

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

A guest at Mpala and visitors on Explore.org’s live camera streams will be forgiven for describing hyraxes as over-sized rodents. The fascinating creatures look like adorable fluffy, well-fed rats.  Looking at them, one might guess that they are somewhere between big rats and small-eared rabbits. However, research reveals that hyraxes are not rodents but in fact, are the closest living relative to elephants. The hyrax has similar teeth, toes, and skull structures to that of an elephant’s.

https://blog.explore.org/kissing-cousins-the-hyrax-and-the-elephant/

But DNA analysis shows...

And we know this works because we can test it on organisms of known descent.    Hyrax teeth are tusklike, and the skulls of hyraxes and elephants are remarkably alike for animals of such dissimilar size.

If the hyrax is of the same kind, so be it, but I find this highly doubtful. Where are the inbetween hyrax/elephants? There would be transitions.

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Sure.   It's just that elephants, manatees and hyraxes are more closely related to each other than they are to anything else.   That's how you find relationships with DNA.   None of them came from the other; they all have a common ancestor more recently than they have  with any other organism.

 

If they have a common ancestor, they came from it, but we don't have historical proof for any of that. Since God used a lot of similar stuff to make things, this is where I think we see those genetic similarities.

 

[FJK]

Just curious, a question to evolutionists that call themselves Christian:

At what point did that subhuman or prehuman little monkey thing that evolved into humans evolve a soul -or spirit if you prefer- as well?

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, FJK said:

Just curious, a question to evolutionists that call themselves Christian:

At what point did that subhuman or prehuman little monkey thing that evolved into humans evolve a soul -or spirit if you prefer- as well?

I don't think we can ever have an answer to that. We can't devise a scientific test for a soul, being a metaphysical or supernatural aspect. The use of spirit (nephesh) being breathed into humans in Genesis, is also applied to living animals.

[Starise]

19 hours ago, Scott Free said:

Both creationist and evolutionist get it wrong. Concerning creationist, the scripture is spiritually appraised and written so all times can have an understanding. Who are we so say what a day to God is or the details of the methods He employs in the process of creation. Maybe the mud of the earth means something different to God similar to how the nations are considered dust.

Yom, a day. Look it up.