The Problem With Evolution Part 2- Animals

[The Barbarian]

36 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Incidentally, you should check out DNA barcoding which suggests virtually everything showed up at the same time, no more than 100,000 years ago.  That puts a huge dent into the Trillions of Years theory.

Actually, it shows that most species living today evolved in the last 100,000 years or so.   About 90% of them.   Not "virtually everything."  

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

But only most of them.   Some are much more ancient.    Horseshoe crabs, for example.   Elephant sharks.  Both with very ancient genomes.    Coelacanths aren't quite like that, since modern species evolved relatively recently.   We just didn't know about the two modern species for a long time.

"Trillions of years" is another of those creationist misconceptions.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

Darwin evolution is something I don’t subscribe to. I don't believe humans evolved from apes.

Technically, we are apes.    Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to any other ape.

Darwinian evolution is something directly observed.    Most people are referring to common descent of life on Earth, which is not evolution, but a consequence of evolution.

 

[Sparks]

13 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, it shows that most species living today evolved in the last 100,000 years or so.   About 90% of them.   Not "virtually everything."  

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

But only most of them.   Some are much more ancient.    Horseshoe crabs, for example.   Elephant sharks.  Both with very ancient genomes.    Coelacanths aren't quite like that, since modern species evolved relatively recently.   We just didn't know about the two modern species for a long time.

"Trillions of years" is another of those creationist misconceptions.

Well, no.  Man didn't morph from primordial soup is the point, he just showed up, you know ... whole ... BOOM ... already alive and walking around.  As if God did what he said He did.  I would say the other 10% did, too.

Do you notice how you casually fill in the blanks about Coelacanths, as if you were there to see it, and it is simply fact?   That's how this dumb theory got started, as a rumor like that which, when told enough, people believe.

As I have said, 'Trillions of Years" is something that might as well be since it is all bad science, backed by lies.

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Technically, we are apes.    Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to any other ape.

Darwinian evolution is something directly observed.    Most people are referring to common descent of life on Earth, which is not evolution, but a consequence of evolution.

 

Yes human beings are categorized zoologically as members of the broader ape superfamily, but they are usually placed within their own subcategories because of the larger brain size, more advanced cognitive abilities etc.

Humans and chimpanzees share 98% identical DNA, also fruit flys and Humans share 60% identical DNA along with a host of other similarities in other animals. But I don't think Humans directly evolve from apes and fruit flys but common ancestors in many categories not just primates it seems. Where was the fruit fly to have 60% identical DNA to humans.

Edited December 28, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, Sparks said:

Well, no.  Man didn't morph from primordial soup is the point, he just showed up, you know ... whole ... BOOM ... already alive and walking around. 

Man showed up then God breathed into his nostrils ... BOOM ... Adam was already alive walking around before the breath was given, thus resided living soul.

Like today breath and life when a human dies life within the body lives on for quite awhile, that life is clueless that the breath is gone. In the same way man was clueless of having a soul, until the breath was given. 

I think metamorphosis had a bigger role in creation rather than being mostly confined to the insect world as it is today. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by BeyondET

[RV_Wizard]

9 hours ago, BeyondET said:

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

That's a distinction without a difference unless you propose omitting all the verses which distinguish the various accomplishments over six days.

And by the way... A baby whale is known as a calf. The mature female whale is called a cow, while the adult male is sometimes called a bull. -- source

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

I think metamorphosis had a bigger role in creation rather than being mostly confined to the insect world as it is today. 

That opinion cannot be sustained with the Scriptures.  God could have used any method of creation He desired.  However, He could not lie about it.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Yes human beings are categorized zoologically as members of the broader ape superfamily, but they are usually placed within their own subcategories because of the larger brain size, more advanced cognitive abilities etc.

And humans, chimps and bonobos are placed in their own subcategory on genetic and anatomical grounds.    And great apes are in their own subcategory, and all apes in another, and so on.

5 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Humans and chimpanzees share 98% identical DNA, also fruit flys and Humans share 60% identical DNA along with a host of other similarities in other animals. But I don't think Humans directly evolve from apes and fruit flys but common ancestors in many categories not just primates it seems. Where was the fruit fly to have 60% identical DNA to humans.

All eukaryotes share more DNA in common than the differences.  So that's not surprising.    We all function pretty much the same ways, biochemically.

The interesting thing is if we build phylogenies based on DNA, they are very close to the same tree of life that Linnaeus found over 200 years ago, based on anatomy.

 

[Sparks]

4 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Man showed up then God breathed into his nostrils ... BOOM ... Adam was already alive walking around before the breath was given, thus resided living soul.

Like today breath and life when a human dies life within the body lives on for quite awhile, that life is clueless that the breath is gone. In the same way man was clueless of having a soul, until the breath was given. 

I think metamorphosis had a bigger role in creation rather than being mostly confined to the insect world as it is today. 

I think DNA Barcoding is evidence of God breathing life into Adam, but Adam didn't show up first though evolution.

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

Well, no.  Man didn't morph from primordial soup is the point, he just showed up, you know ... whole ... BOOM ... already alive and walking around. 

Since the Bible is pretty vague on that point, and the evidence clearly shows otherwise, not much point in denying things.    Man became a living soul not because he evolved from other species, but because God intervened and gave him a living soul.

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

As if God did what he said He did. 

Creationists are willing to admit that He did it.   They just disapprove of the way He did it.

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

Do you notice how you casually fill in the blanks about Coelacanths

They are just recently evolved.   Neither exist in the fossil record.    It would be interesting to see if one of them has been bar-coded.    Bet you a cookie that if it has, it will fit the "within 100,000 years" that nine of ten modern species show.

Edit:  just checked...

Not a living fossil: How the Coelacanth recently evolved dozens of new genes

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-fossil-coelacanth-evolved-dozens-genes.html

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

That's how this dumb theory got started, as a rumor like that which, when told enough, people believe.

Actually, it got started by the observation that artificial selection can change populations.   Then Darwin noticed that natural selection does that for wild populations.    And then fossils started showing up and confirming earlier predictions, and then genetic re-confirmed all of them, and so on.

10 hours ago, Sparks said:

As I have said, 'Trillions of Years" is something that might as well be since it is all bad science, backed by lies.

As I showed you, knowledgeable YE creationists disagree with you.  

Edited December 28, 2023 by The Barbarian