The Problem With Evolution Part 2- Animals

[The Barbarian]

33 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

You FINALLY said something with which we can ALMOST agree.  However, I believe the common ancestor was the wolf; or something incredibly like it.  I chose to lead with this agreement.

Genetics says otherwise...

https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-wolves-give-clues-origins-dogs

It appears that the first ancestor of dogs was not a wolf as we think of them today.   Later, it seems that crossbreeding with the European wolf occurred.

But evolution never makes anything completely new.   It always modifies something already there.

43 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

And thus, you destroy your own argument.  For there to be an original progenitor it would have to contain information for it to become both plant and animal, to reproduce both sexually and asexually, and to become birds, beasts and fish.

No.  That's a common misconception, and it's false.   Every new mutation in a population adds information to the population.    For example, Adam and Eve could have had at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus.   But today most human genes have dozens of alleles.   The information for all the rest evolved.    Would you like me to show you the numbers for a simple case of information increasing by mutation?

45 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The commonality of modern living things goes back to the kinds Noah preserved during the great flood. 

Far before that. It turns out that humans have nearly half of their genes in common with bacteria.   Would you like me to show you that?

 

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

   Evolutionary theory and evidence indicate that we had a common ancestor.    Humans evolved from other primates.

Well, we finally come to the meat of the deal.  Humans did NOT evolve from anything.  Much less other primates.  That's evolutionary thinking.

The first human was created from the "dust of the ground".  You can look it up.  And God put His immaterial soul into the body and voila!  "man became a living being".

Why do you believe what the Bible clearly doesn't say?

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

FreeGrace - if above is what you are asking, I think this link explains the various mechanisms.

Thank you.  That was interesting.  

[RV_Wizard]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It appears that the first ancestor of dogs was not a wolf as we think of them today.

I didn't say modern wolf, I said wolf.  I also said "I believe," because the Bible doesn't specifically say wolf.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

For example, Adam and Eve could have had at most...

Adam who?  Eve who?  Adam and Eve are the names given to the first man and woman created by God.  Adam was formed on day 6.  Eve came later.  You believe they evolved, meaning they both had parents.  Who were these four almost-humans?  Why were they not human?  You can't reference people you don't believe existed from a Bible you don't believe to make a point about evolution that you can't prove.  We don't have their DNA so we can't say anything definitive about their gene pool.  

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It turns out that humans have nearly half of their genes in common with bacteria.   

Commonality doesn't prove descent.  It validates a common Creator.  Would you like me to show you how that works?  Of course, it involves using the Bible as a source, so you'd probably reject it.

[FreeGrace]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I didn't say modern wolf, I said wolf.  I also said "I believe," because the Bible doesn't specifically say wolf.

Adam who?  Eve who?  Adam and Eve are the names given to the first man and woman created by God.  Adam was formed on day 6.  Eve came later.  You believe they evolved, meaning they both had parents.  Who were these four almost-humans?  Why were they not human?  You can't reference people you don't believe existed from a Bible you don't believe to make a point about evolution that you can't prove.  We don't have their DNA so we can't say anything definitive about their gene pool.  

Commonality doesn't prove descent.  It validates a common Creator.  Would you like me to show you how that works?  Of course, it involves using the Bible as a source, so you'd probably reject it.

The Barbarian lost it when he said:

"Evolutionary theory and evidence indicate that we had a common ancestor.    Humans evolved from other primates."

That is in direct contradiction to the Bible.  Unbelievable.

[The Barbarian]

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Adam who?  Eve who? 

Read Genesis 1-3.

The common ancestors of all humans living today.    Because you insist on revising Genesis 1 and 2 to be literal history, you keep colliding with God's word.

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You can't reference people you don't believe existed from a Bible you don't believe to make a point about evolution that you can't prove. 

As you know, Christians who accept the evolutionary processes God created, also accept Adam and Eve as real people.    If you think real people can't be in an allegory, then you have rejected much of the Bible.    And we accept that the Bible is true.   We just don't accept your revision of it.     And as you learned, evolution is observed in living populations all around us.    No point in denial.  

It turns out that humans have nearly half of their genes in common with bacteria.   

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Commonality doesn't prove descent.

DNA commonalities do indicated common descent.  We know that's correct, because we can test it on individuals of known descent.   

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It validates a common Creator. 

No.  It merely shows descent.   

12 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Would you like me to show you how that works?  Of course, it involves using the Bible as a source, so you'd probably reject it.

Where the Bible classifies bats as birds?    No thank you.    As you see by that, the Bible does not classify living things by biology.    It does by function.   So bats and birds are the same kind because they are animals that fly.    Whales were considered fish for the obvious reasons.    But whales are descended from land mammals, and they have lungs, not gills.   Bats descended from non-flying mammals, so they have skin for wings, not feathers.

This is a so-far, impossible problem for creationism.   But it makes perfect sense in terms of God's creation.

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich 60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the
family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and
evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or
even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Dr. Wise is a YE creationist, and believes there are possible ways to explain this problem.    But so far, no one has found a way, as he admits.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The Barbarian lost it when he said:

"Evolutionary theory and evidence indicate that we had a common ancestor.    Humans evolved from other primates."

That is in direct contradiction to the Bible.  Unbelievable.

If you read your Bible, you will find that the Bible no where denies humans evolved from other primates.    Since the text itself says that it's not a literal history, we can't force it to be one without changing God's word.

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

If you read your Bible, you will find that the Bible no where denies humans evolved from other primates.

You just HAVE to be kidding.  The Bible plainly and LITERALLY describes Adam's physical body as coming from "the dust of the ground".  You may think that includesa primates, but that would be nonsensical.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

    Since the text itself says that it's not a literal history, we can't force it to be one without changing God's word.

OK, what verse "says" Genesis 1-3 isn't a literal history?  It easily reads as a summary of a literal restoration of earth and the creation of man.  

Looking forward to that verse that "says it's not a literal history".  

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You just HAVE to be kidding.  The Bible plainly and LITERALLY describes Adam's physical body as coming from "the dust of the ground".

Like all living things.   Research has found evidence consistent with God's word that the Earth brought forth living things.   All life did.    You're taking the creation allegory and literal history.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

OK, what verse "says" Genesis 1-3 isn't a literal history?

Talks of mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.   By definition, you need a sun to have mornings.    So we know it's not a literal account.

 

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

You just HAVE to be kidding.  The Bible plainly and LITERALLY describes Adam's physical body as coming from "the dust of the ground".

Like all living things.

Show me any verse that says that God formed man from "the dust of the ground".  Rather, all the flora and fauna were spoken into existence.  Or show otherwise.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

   Research has found evidence consistent with God's word that the Earth brought forth living things.   All life did.    You're taking the creation allegory and literal history.

I'm reading what the Word says.  It sure reads literally.  There is no reason to take any of it allegorically or metaphorically.  Psa 33:6 and 9 tell us that God SPOKE into existence.  

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Talks of mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.   By definition, you need a sun to have mornings.    So we know it's not a literal account.

No, we just have to have TIME.  There have been many many sunless mornings over the span of time.  God created time when He restored the earth for man's use.