Evolution and common genetics

They are also not closely related.

Your opening comment proposes that birds are "more" closely related to crocs than other animals.

Also, while they do not look the same, there are similarities like their form of reproduction and claws. So, speaking from a "design" perspective, if two creatures share more in common (though that may not be much) than either share with a third creature then "yes" intelligent design would "predict" that they would share more commonalities genetically.

Or we could take the marsupial wolf... that looks like the fox and wolf and with one mammoth problem for evolutionists... marsupials and placental reproducers were supposed to have diverged well before any of these species appeared.

Sooo, the most parsimonious answer is that they diverged recently... but that is a pretty important and complex system to have diverged many times (there are other animals with both marsupial and placental forms). At the same time, believing that convergent evolution could have resulted in all the other similarities is well beyond ridiculous.

OTOH, the real "most parsimonious" answer is that canines were among several kinds that were created with the ability to adapt in either direction.

"Convergent" evolution is another case where evolution can accommodate both "A" and "not A".

Not at all. Like I said, they do have recognizable commonalities. In fact, it would be reasonable to suspect that their genetic similarity would be approximate to the physical similarity... just as if they were designed that way.

You don't believe in common descent. You believe in common ascent... that they share an ancestor that was more simple than either of them and that through mutation and natural selection both genetic information and biological complexity were added in two different directions.

Of course you offer no realistic mechanism for such an acquistion of genetic information nor a means for the development of complex biological systems.

The problem as pointed out in a book I am reading called "Darwin's God" is that you claim the evidence no matter what.

You claim both "similar" and "not similar" as "evidence" for creation.

All you are doing is accommodating the evidence. You are saying: "Evolution is true". "The evidence can be explained by the truth of evolution". "Therefore evolution is true".

You are playing that hand a little further than warranted. They aren't "close". They are "more similar".

God used similar designs on the original kinds that the croc descended from and birds. That is a response that accounts for the facts. I am sure you won't be satisfied with it since it defies a naturalistic process. However it is no more metaphysical than your assumptions that there must be a naturalistic process for everything in nature and also that "a Divine Designer wouldn't have done it that way".

Evolution cannot be falsified. Evolution can always be made to accept "A", "not-A", or "both". Evolution accommodates the data. However, you cannot use the theory to accommodate the data then use the data as support for the theory.

For instance, parsimony rules when evolutionists attempt to construct homologies except for when accepting the most parsimonious result in a sub-part prevents an evolutionary explanation. Then, the analogous becomes the preferred path since it supports evolution.

It's OK that evolution can accommodate both. It is not OK then to turn around and say that both homologies and analogies support evolution.

Why would you assume that God wouldn't have created the world basically as we see it albeit in a more pristine form? One of the repetitive forms of argument presented by your side here is that God wouldn't have made it look this way if evolution weren't true.

So your answer is the same as your own logic... we have made metaphysical assumptions about what God has done. Ours are based on the Bible. Yours are based on the assumption of naturalism and its limitations upon what God can do without being "dishonest".

Except that it is mentioned and reaffirmed elsewhere. God directly created man and made him different from all other creatures.

Oranges and apples. QC doesn't directly contradict direct claims of scripture... while ape to man evolution does.

[ November 11, 2005, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

S/B "evidence for evolution.

I hate that too late to edit deal.

 

Evolution really is about common descent, and this term says nothing about organisms becoming more or less simple. When Scripture reveals that Jesus was a descendent of David, this does not mean that Jesus was more simple than David. When we read that Josiah descended from Amon, this does not mean that Josiah was less than his father in any way.

I think everyone realizes that descent can refer to a hereditary relationship without comment about upward or downward progression in any aspect other than time. That is why common descent is the proper term, not common ascent. It is only by equivocating between the meanings of the word descent that you can make this out to be a problem.

The marsupial wolf (called the thylacine, Tasmanian wolf or Tasmanian tiger, and unfortunately now extinct) is a good example. The real similarities between a thylacine and a wolf should be things that are shared between marsupial and placental mammals in general. Similarities that are not shared by marsupial and placental mammals but are shared by the thylacine and wolf should turn out to be superficial, like the similarity between a bat's wing and a bird's wing, or between a platypus' bill and a bird's bill. This is a prediction that common descent makes. By contrast, the idea of common design with reused parts would predict that external similarities would not just be apparent but would instead be due to the same parts, same material, same genes being used in both animals for parts that have the same function.

Now, one might wonder why there would be apparent similarities at all. This is mainly due to environment. Because the aerodynamic requirements of flight are going to be the same for birds and bats, it makes sense that both these kinds of flying animals developed wings (though anatomically a bat's wing has more in common with a human hand than a bird's wing). There's no mystery there. Similarly, both the thylacine and the wolf fill (or filled) a similar niche, and as such the environment favours certain characteristics. What is interesting is that they developed these characteristics differently, and when examined closely, the thylacine has far more similarities with other marsupials than with a wolf.

From the right angle, the thylacine is amazingly similar to canids, but from other angles the differences are quite apparent. Note how the tail joins its body, the short front legs, the shortness of the lower portion of the hind legs compared to canids, the digits in its paws, and how wide it can open its jaw:




There's also huge differences that can't be captured in a photo:

Further, the dental anatomy between the two animals is remarkably different, as you can see for yourself [on this page].

The first two photos and quote above, plus a lot more information, can be found at [The Thylacine Museum]. The last photo is from [Wikipedia].

As for DNA similarities, it appears the open question was over the thylacine's relation to South American marsupials, not to placental wolves. I saw the abstract for a paper called "DNA phylogeny of the marsupial wolf resolved" by Krajewski C, Buckley L, Westerman M (Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University). However, I'm not sure if that paper would shed light on this issue. Maybe there are more general studies that show the differences between marsupial and placental mammals that include both the thylacine and a wolf. While I doubt they'd reveal anything earthshattering (just that marsupials like the thylacine, kangaroo and Tasmanian devil are indeed more related than the thylacine and wolf) it would be interesting to see.

 

"Implicit in UTE's statement is the premise that 'God wouldn't have done it that way'... a purely metaphysical assumption."

Nope. Not at all.

The evidence is just what one would expect if evolution were true. No "metaphysical assumption" there.

Basically you are making a bold attempt to shed the burden of proof. It will not work because I am calling you on it.

To make the claim that you are making here is to tacitly admit that the evidence IS consistent with evolution. You, my friend, are then the one making a "metaphysical assumption." You are making the assumption that it is possible that God would create a universe in which it appears that the universe was formed through inflation, that the earth has been shaped by billions of years of geology, and that common descent is the way that the diversity of life on earth was created.

If these appearances are not the way things look, then you have no basis for your charge of "metaphysical assumption." If they are accurate, then the burden of proof is upon you to show that such an interpretation is acceptable and it is you making the "metaphysical assumption."

"a) The result is consistent with evolution though he omits analogous factors that mitigate against an evolutionary relationship and leave no relationship a very real possibility"

Again, the burden of proof is upon you to show such "analogous factors" that are inconsistent with evolution. Your assertion is thus far unsupported. Unless of course your example is the marsupial wolf, in which case Mercury has already shown how the analogies between the marsupial wolf and true wolves are superficial only and that the details of morphology support the two as not being so closely related.

"b) since parsimony in this case generally supports an evolutionist conclusion it is to be preferred "

I'll agree that the data does support evolution. Do you have an alternate explanation for the data, how to test it and how to tell the difference between it and common descent?

"b) since parsimony in this case generally supports an evolutionist conclusion it is to be preferred "

Again you try and shed the burden of proof. If you wish to make a case that you would expect a recently created earth fauna to appear to be the product of evolution then it is up to you to demonstrate this.

 

" They are also not closely related.

Your opening comment proposes that birds are 'more' closely related to crocs than other animals.

Also, while they do not look the same, there are similarities like their form of reproduction and claws. So, speaking from a 'design' perspective, if two creatures share more in common (though that may not be much) than either share with a third creature then 'yes' intelligent design would 'predict' that they would share more commonalities genetically."

I am glad you picked up the distinction there. Birds and crocs are not that closely related. They are separated by hundreds of millions of years of evolution. But the point is that they are more closely related to each other than to anything else alive because they share a more recent common ancestor than they share with anything else.

Now, about their reproduction... If you will read the germane part of the thread, you will see that they actually have different reproduction systems but that the reproduction system of dinosaurs is intermediate between the reproduction systems of dinos and birds.

Now about those claws... Lots of animals have claws. Are you asserting that their claws are the same? Then you will need to support that assertion.

Finally, you said that "if two creatures share more in common...than either share with a third creature then 'yes' intelligent design would 'predict' that they would share more commonalities genetically."

This is the key part of my argument. Birds of today and crocs of today are not very similar at all. It is the evidence from creatures spanning hundreds of millions of years of evolution that provides much of the evidence to consider them related. (There are some exceptions, like the four chambered heart.) Crocodiles have much more in common with other reptiles like lizards than they do with birds. So according to your own words, it is fellow reptiles with which we should expect crocodiles to be most closely related to per your statement on a common designer.

It is only by including the data that supports the shared evolutionary ancestry of the two that the genetic data makes sense.

"OTOH, the real "most parsimonious" answer is that canines were among several kinds that were created with the ability to adapt in either direction."

Nope. There are too many differences in the details of the morphology. Parsimony suggests the best answer is convergent evolution of those very general traits of which you are talking.

" Not at all. Like I said, they do have recognizable commonalities. In fact, it would be reasonable to suspect that their genetic similarity would be approximate to the physical similarity... just as if they were designed that way."

Then why are crocs closer genetically to birds which are so different from them instead of to other reptiles to which they are so similar?

" You are playing that hand a little further than warranted. They aren't 'close'. They are 'more similar'."

No, actually they are less similar than other extant animals that can be discussed. It is that they are genetically closer to one another than to anything else.

" God used similar designs on the original kinds that the croc descended from and birds. That is a response that accounts for the facts. I am sure you won't be satisfied with it since it defies a naturalistic process."

I won't reject it for the reason you say. I'll reject it for the reason that there is nothing to suggest that this ad hoc story has any truth.

Could you supply any factual evidence? I would be curious how you would even construct a more detailed fleshing out of this story without resorting to the original "kind" being the archosaurs and that birds, dinosaurs, crocodiles, alligators and pteraldactyls are all just the result of "microevolution" from the original kind.

"Evolution cannot be falsified."

Yes it can. For example, the genetic items under review on this thread provide amply oportunity to present data that would falsify evolution.

The data just does not exist.

"For instance, parsimony rules when evolutionists attempt to construct homologies except for when accepting the most parsimonious result in a sub-part prevents an evolutionary explanation. Then, the analogous becomes the preferred path since it supports evolution."

Another unsubstantiated allegation. We need details.

"It's OK that evolution can accommodate both. It is not OK then to turn around and say that both homologies and analogies support evolution."

If this is what you think, then I do not think that you understand how science, or more broadly empirical knowledge, works. If I figure something out through empirical means, then when you ask me to demonstrate what I have found to be true, I will show you the empirical data that I used to draw my conclusion. What else can be done?

" Why would you assume that God wouldn't have created the world basically as we see it albeit in a more pristine form? One of the repetitive forms of argument presented by your side here is that God wouldn't have made it look this way if evolution weren't true."

I will not allow you to shed the burden of proof.

If you wish to admit that the data is consistent with evolution and to then attempt to construct a set of logic that says that God would create life from scratch to look like it was produced by evolution then go right ahead. Be my guest. Just remember that you are the one making the "metaphyscial assumption."

"Oranges and apples. QC doesn't directly contradict direct claims of scripture... while ape to man evolution does."

Only your interpretation of it.

 

All of this discussion on genetics simply points to a common creator. A designer who came up with a perfect (before sin) life recipe and copied it many times over with only the variations required to make the different animals.

I still have not figured out why God would go out of His way to say that creatures came from creatures of their own kind and keep repeating this statement throughout the creation story. In fact, I don't understand why God would even bother with a fictious creation story.

Jesus made it very clear when He told a parable, but I have yet to see anything that points to Genesis as such, let alone a completely erroneous version of the actual creation.

Someday, scientists (and many have) will have to place variables which allow for supernatural functions.

I cannot understand how an evolutionist can say that Genesis is allegory and turn right around and say that Jesus was God in the flesh and died on the cross for our sins. There is little evidence for this occurance from the same scientific point of view used to view evolution. Why should be even bother to believe any of this supernatural business if we cannot accept it in the beginning?

Again, all of the posts here on genetics simply show intelligent design by the same designer. It fits perfectly with the Bible.

 

Phillip, are you making another fly-by, or will you interact with responses to your post?

Except, of course, for all the evidence that's been presented that far more variations exist than are required to make the different animals. The recipe has indeed been copied many times, but it is not copied exactly (if it were, this world would be a rather boring place).

How does a common designer making species in their present form explain the silent mutations in genes shared between different animals? According to your scenario, shared genes that do the same thing should be exactly the same in all animals that have them. There is no need for those genes to have small variations, especially tiny variations that don't even affect which proteins they build. Yet, they do have these variations. Without even getting in to how these variations match the pattern predicted by common descent, how do you deal with the fact that these variations exist, while the prediction your scenario makes is that they shouldn't exist?

Evolution says that creatures come from creatures of their own kind. If you think evolution is about a dog giving birth to a cat or anything like that, you don't know what evolution is. If you can understand how the breeding of dogs never violates the mantra "after its kind" even if new breeds result, then you should also understand why evolution does not violate this. When two poodles mate they will only give birth to poodles, but this doesn't rule out a time before there were poodles. When two mammals mate they will only give birth to mammals, but this doesn't rule out a time before there were mammals.

Is the story of the good Samaritan a parable? If so, how did Jesus make this very clear? If not, why do most people believe it is?

Points to Genesis as a parable? I don't think I've heard that view presented here before. There has been quite a bit presented to show how Genesis may contain symbolic or non-literal accounts of true events. If you think that would make Genesis "erroneous", I wonder how you deal with other accounts in the Bible that everyone agrees are symbolic and non-literal. Is Isaiah 51:9-10 an "erroneous" description of the exodus? Is Revelation 12:1-6 also "erroneous"?

The same way you can say that many psalms are poetry and turn right around and say that Jesus was God in the flesh and died on the cross for our sins. You do realize that there's different kinds of literature in the Bible, right?

Who is this "we" who can't accept that the beginning was supernatural? Every person on this board who accepts evolution believes that the beginning was supernatural. God made a universe from nothing! Further, most Christians who accept evolution believe that God's handiwork is shown in what nature does as well as through God's supernatural acts. Every star, creature, rock, rain cloud, and lightning strike is a creation of God's, and natural processes allow us to partly discern how God made these things. God is, after all, the author and sustainer of nature, and he accomplishes his purposes through all he has made!

Why not try and support this assertion instead of repeating it?

 

That should read "many psalms contain poetic imagery". Of course, they're all poetry of some sort.

 

The problem with Evolution(macro/biological) is that it is considered to be either a scientific fact or theory, when it is neither. How anyone, Christian or not, could place it into the scientific realm is beyond me! It doesn't follow the scientific method. Before a theory can become a fact it must be observed, tested and consistent. It is impossible to test or observe because it supposively takes millions of years to take place. If it can't be proven than anyone that believes it has to do it by faith. Just like I believe in the creation. It is by faith. I can't prove it, I can't test it. It is faith-based, not proof-based. Science ought to be proof-based. Evolution is a religion based on faith. The faith is that there is no Creator, yet the theory has become a god. There is nothing scientific about this theory. It is an untruth that has been cloaked in science to fool the minds of mankind. I do not believe it should be taught in schools, because I believe in the separation in church and state. See how sneaky Satan is. There is a religion being taught in our public schools under the title of Science. It is the religion of "Atheism".


As for Christians who believe that God used macro-evolution to get us to where we are, why?

He spoke this world into existence. Genesis is clear. The idea of a "common designer" is not an assertion except to those who are looking for proof rather than exercising faith. Of course anyone who believes that a simple-celled ball of goo could actually evolve into a complex-celled, warm-blooded mammal through mutations, has more faith than I do. I'll stick with creation(only) and what is revealed through God's Word.

 

JWI

I did not know that you were unable to read. It must be your evolved telepathy that has allowed you to communicate, but wait: That does not explain your ability to type . . . We shall find a cure to fix your evolved problem!

You can study till Jesus comes back, and you will still be told that Jesus could not have evolved, yet . . . AND that you cannot read, much less study.

So, if it takes billions of years for man to evolve from rats, how long did it take for Jesus to evolve? Did He evolve from rats, or from LGM's?

 

You can study till Jesus comes back, and you will still be told that Jesus could not have evolved, yet . . . AND that you cannot read, much less study.

So, if it takes billions of years for man to evolve from rats, how long did it take for Jesus to evolve? Did He evolve from rats, or from LGM's? </font>[/QUOTE]Since you do not even attempt to show that you think that he might have presented the article accurately, in your opinion, then this non-response indicates to me that you recognize that he misrepresented its claims but that you are trying to relieve pressure from him with this red herring.

It will not work. He misrepresented what was being said and an examination of the article in question, as I did in my post, will show this to be true. This has no intimation that he is unable to read but that he can read and chose to tell us that the article says something other than what it says.

Your post itself is also somewhat strange as I do not think that you will find a post where anyone here has claimed that Jesus was anything other than God Himself born as a human through the immaculate conception of Mary. Another distraction, perhaps.

 

"The problem with Evolution(macro/biological) is that it is considered to be either a scientific fact or theory, when it is neither. How anyone, Christian or not, could place it into the scientific realm is beyond me! It doesn't follow the scientific method. Before a theory can become a fact it must be observed, tested and consistent. It is impossible to test or observe because it supposively takes millions of years to take place."

On the contrary, my friend.

What is a scientific theory other than a proposed explanation for a set of observations that explains said observations well and which is generally accepted. By this criteria, evolution is a wonderful theory, explains observations from many fields better than any other ideas, has near universal acceptance among experts and which has survived well over a century of testing and new discoveries.

Now you can try and claim that evolution is not based on observation, but it simply is not true. For example, read back through this thread and you will see numerous examples of evidence for evolution from the field of genetics. The genetic samples are taken today. The samples are scientifically analyzed today. These are without a doubt observations. And evolution is the only theory which can explain the details of the observations.

The findings and predictions of these observations can be tested by making additional genetic tests and seeing if they are consistent with what has been found before. In addition, observations from other fields can also be used to test and confirm genetics just as genetics is used to test and confirm observations from other fields.

And of course the fossil record is one of these fileds. Everytime a fossil is found and examined, that consitutes a set of observations about the past. Examination of the details of each fossil can yield much information. The same fossils can be tested by examination by other experts to see if the same conclusions are reached. The same fossils can also be tested by the discovery of additional fossils. Not to metnion things mentioned above, like testing phylogenies based on the morphology of fossils with modern genetics.

"If it can't be proven than anyone that believes it has to do it by faith."

Then it is a good thing that we have all of these observations that support evolution such that no one is asked to belief it by faith but instead are simple allowed to accept the empirical evidence. Just like any other science.

"Just like I believe in the creation. It is by faith."

Just like all of us here believe in creation by faith. It is false to suggest that we do not. It just happens to not be a faith in young earth.

"Evolution is a religion based on faith. The faith is that there is no Creator, yet the theory has become a god."

Nope.

As shown above, it is based on observation, not faith. And scientific theories are unable to take a position on the supernatural at all so there is no basis at all to suggest that it says that there is no god.

"I do not believe it should be taught in schools, because I believe in the separation in church and state."

I think you are confusing evolution and ID.

"As for Christians who believe that God used macro-evolution to get us to where we are, why?"

Are you questioning GOd as to why HE would choose to use evolution to create? If so, then I cannot speak for God.

Are you asking why I accept that God created through evolution? The answer is that the creation itself revelas His handiwork and evolution is how the creation says that He created.

"He spoke this world into existence. Genesis is clear."

Again, you will not find disagrement. We all, here, accept that God is the creator. We merely disagree a bit in the details.

"Of course anyone who believes that a simple-celled ball of goo could actually evolve into a complex-celled, warm-blooded mammal through mutations, has more faith than I do."

Where does faith come in? It is empirically observed.

 

"All of this discussion on genetics simply points to a common creator. A designer who came up with a perfect (before sin) life recipe and copied it many times over with only the variations required to make the different animals."

That is an interesting assertion. Would you care to back it up while referencing some of the actual things brought up on this thread.

For example, it is is just variations on a "recipe" then why is it that when the recipe calls for the same ingredient (a particular protein) that often the spelling out of the recipe has deviations that change the text of the instructions without changing the ingredient itself (silent mutations in the third "letter" of a codon which results in a different DNA sequence but the same amino acid being clled for). And why is it that the pattern of such deviations fits the expectations of evolution?

Why does the recipe call for all sorts of typos in the text which render that part of the instructions useless. Yet these typos fit the expected pattern of common descent. What are some of these? Well a few percent of your genome is made of bits of viral DNA that have been inserted into the genome of your ancestors when infected with a retrovirus and passed on. The insertions and locations are random, yet these insertions are shared between the species in a way consistent with evolution. There are pseudogenes, genes that have been disabled by mutation. These pseudogenes and their patterns of dispersion are again consistent with what would be expected if evolution were true. There are many other examples.

Even the recipe itself show evidence that it was built up through evolutionary mechanisms. Look at the discussion on globins for example.

"I still have not figured out why God would go out of His way to say that creatures came from creatures of their own kind and keep repeating this statement throughout the creation story."

Animals do always reproduce after their own kind. Where did you get the idea that anyone says that they do not? An offspring will always be of the same species as his parents. It could not be otherwise. But evolution is something that happens to populations. So the population itself may slowly change into something different.

"In fact, I don't understand why God would even bother with a fictious creation story."

No one is calling it "ficticious." Or is your opinion that all parts of the Bible that are not literal are "ficticious?" You may not gather a lot of support for that position.

"I cannot understand how an evolutionist can say that Genesis is allegory and turn right around and say that Jesus was God in the flesh and died on the cross for our sins."

Without too much parsing of your phrasing...

The same way you can look at certain parts of the Bible, perhaps Revelations, and see that not all is literal while recognizing that others parts are very much literal.

"There is little evidence for this occurance from the same scientific point of view used to view evolution."

We accept the crucifiction on faith. There could not possibly be scientific evidence for or against because it is supernatural.

The creation account cannot be literla becuase such an interpretation is inconsistent with observations we can make about the creation. Unless of course you wish to assert that God just made it look like He used evolution as a tool.

"Why should be even bother to believe any of this supernatural business if we cannot accept it in the beginning?"

I think that everyone here accepts that God was supernaturally involved from the beginning.

"Again, all of the posts here on genetics simply show intelligent design by the same designer."

Again, nice assertion. Care to back it up by dealing with the actual things presented here?

 

I haven't seen anything on this thread that supports the idea that God used evolution to populate this planet with the life that inhabits it. I do see a lot of talk about mutations, DNA, experiments that supposively lead to the facts. I don't buy it. I would actually have to see evolution take place with my own eyes to believe it. Not inside the lab. I want to see one species become another over a period of time. Historical macro-evolution cannot be mimicked. This dicussion is over what took place at the beginning. How could we possibly mimic that which no one witnessed and then have the audacity to come to the conclusion that we've solved the puzzle. Altogether, bad science practice.

The "old earth" theory distorts the creation of man, fall of man, and the redemption of man.

The universal acceptance of experts..... Wow, if they accept maybe I should too..... NOT! A whole century......Wow ....that's a long time.......NOT. The fossil record doesn't support the theory. Too many gaps! It's like many snap shots, but unfortunately in all the wrong places. To support the theory a film version is necessary and that hasn't been unearthed. Observations aren't what they used to be!

 

"I haven't seen anything on this thread that supports the idea that God used evolution to populate this planet with the life that inhabits it. I do see a lot of talk about mutations, DNA, experiments that supposively lead to the facts. I don't buy it."

Have you read the whole thread to see the various types of evidence presented?

If so, then can you offer an alternative explanation for the observations, how we could test your alternative and what you think would enable us to distinuish your alternative from common descent?

"I would actually have to see evolution take place with my own eyes to believe it."

Are you an agnostic?

Do you not accept other concepts that you cannot see with your own eyes? Do you accept that matter is made up of atoms, atoms of protons neutrons and electrons, and protons and neutrons of quarks? Why?

"I want to see one species become another over a period of time. Historical macro-evolution cannot be mimicked."

The biological definition of macroevolution is speciation. If you wish, you can be provided with many examples of observed speciation, in some cases in periods as short as a few years.

Larger changes simply take longer time. Do you accept that redwood trees are really thousands of years old in some cases? Why? Has anyone direcly observed a redwood growing from the beginning into adulthood?

"How could we possibly mimic that which no one witnessed and then have the audacity to come to the conclusion that we've solved the puzzle. Altogether, bad science practice."

Through observation.

There are many cases where we solve puzzles for which there were no eyewitnesses. Convicts are convicted daily by forensics.

In the case of evolution, our observations demand an explanation. Common descent provides that explanation. YOu are free to proose an alternative.

"The universal acceptance of experts..... Wow, if they accept maybe I should too..... NOT!"

So you think it is a bad idea to accept the opinions of people who have devoted their life to study of a given subject? YOu think it is better to accept the opinions of those who have not studied and learned about the subject instead?

I guess when you are sick, you go to your auto mechanic, too? No need to go see a doctor...Who trusts the opinion of an "expert" anyhow? I'm sure I know better than the peron studying the matter themselves.

"The fossil record doesn't support the theory. Too many gaps! It's like many snap shots, but unfortunately in all the wrong places. "

Another interesting assertion. Do you care to back it up?

"Observations aren't what they used to be!"

What? How have they changed?

 

UTEOTW

You've got a lot of nerve. You accuse me of misrepresenting the two National Geographic articles??

Look at the titles alone:

The 2002 article

Humans, Chimps Not as Closely Related as Thought?

The 2003 article

Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says

I read BOTH articles. The 2002 article says that chimps and humans may not be as related as previously thought. The 2003 article says chimps are so closely related to humans that they should be considered "human".

If anyone is misrepresenting around here, it is you.

And I like the way you blow off the Bible. In Genesis 1 it clearly says Adam was made from the dust of the ground. No mention of being evolved or created from the substance of a previous creature. But in Genesis 2 God clearly tells us that he took Adam's rib and made Eve.

And I am sure this wasn't evolution, or Adam would have died waiting for his wife.

Look at what Adam said;

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Look at the simple word, "NOW".

You see that? This verse tells us that Adam and Eve shared the same substance. This verse also tells us that up until the creation of Eve, that no other creature shared the same substance as Adam.

Adam was saying that NOW here is someone who shares the same substance as me. She has the same bones, and the same flesh.

Up until Eve was created Adam could not say this. Or at least HE DIDN'T SAY IT.

But he did say this about Eve.

It is a silly argument to say that God would say he created Adam from the dust of the ground if evolution were true. God could have easily told us that Adam was taken from the substance of some previous creature.

We know God could have told us this, because this is EXACTLY what he did when he told us about the creation of Eve.

Unless you believe God is inconsistent?? Or maybe he just forgot to tell us about Adam's evolution from another creature??

No, it is you evolutionists who misrepresent.

You understand these verses as easily as I do. They are simple and straightforward. Everything I have said is perfectly reasonable and logical.

But you misrepresent. You pretend to yourself that my argument doesn't make sense when you know better.

You fool yourself.

This is why you evolutionists argue that the Genesis account cannot be taken literally.

Because you KNOW it disagrees with evolution.

Sad.

Knowledge is wonderful. Integrity is better.

 

They show a tree of descent. I don't argue that there is an intelligent designer, I believe there is an intelligent designer as a matter of faith and theology, but it is not a scientifically verifiable belief. On the other hand, the kinship of all DNA based life forms a valid tree of life consistent with common descent. Why does it do that?

The common inheritance includes defects. Surely you do not wish to claim that common defects were designed across species?

The common inheritance includes vestiges. How you you possibly explain vestigial legs in the embryos of whales, except as a harking back to a macro-evolutionary change from land to sea?

OK maybe you have an explanation that suits you. Sure you do.

BUT - your assertion without that there is no genetic evidence for evolution begins to seem somewhat strained in the face of what appears to be genetic evidence.

 

I think you're having just as much trouble with the Bible as with National Geographic articles. Nowhere in Genesis 1 does it say -- clearly or otherwise -- that Adam was made from the dust of the ground. Further, the only references to Adam in Genesis 1 refer to more than a single person.

Why do you misrepresent sources (even the Bible) to make your points?

 

Mercury

Pardon me, it was Genesis Chapter 2.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

We know this refers to Adam because it speaks of the Garden of Eden and says God put this man whom he had formed from the dust of the ground there.

So there is where it says God formed Adam from the dust of the ground.

After the fall, Adam and Eve were forced to leave the garden, and the garden was guarded by an angel.

Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

So it can refer to no other man than Adam. There were no other men there "drove out THE MAN".

I have no trouble with the Bible. I believe what God says is literal. It is you evolutionists that claim otherwise.

And why not? You twist all evidence to fit your preconceived belief in evolution. Why not the Bible as well??

If a literal translation of Genesis 1 and 2 contradicts evolution, simply say that it is an allegory, or that people misinterpret it.

I mean, if someone can claim a lack of transitional fossils can be explained by rapid evolution that leaves no fossil record, nothing is impossible to explain. Yes, Punk Eek again.

Only an evolutionist can argue that a lack of proof is proof of evolution.

How silly.

Bet it wouldn't stand in a court of law though.

I just get a little tired of you fact twisters saying I misrepresent the facts.

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

 

I'm glad you now looked it up to check. Based on the way you were contrasting Genesis 1 and 2 in your last post, it doesn't appear that your mistake was just a typo -- if I'd thought it was, I wouldn't have jumped on it. The problem is that you were claiming to have a better interpretation of Genesis than others, and yet you apparently hadn't even bothered to see if it said what you claimed it said.

Correct. And Genesis 1 is where it doesn't say that. So, to follow the logic of your earlier post, you could now say:

In Genesis 1 it clearly says God created humans in his image. No mention of being made from the dust of the ground or from the substance of a previous creature. But Genesis 2 clearly tells us that God formed Adam from dust of the ground and took part of Adam's side to make Eve.

Of course, I think that's faulty logic because it's using a lack of mention in one instance to force a contradiction with something else. It's also faulty logic when you use that approach to set the Bible against what we've discovered from creation itself.

Interesting. Just yesterday in another thread you were telling me that the son born to Abraham by a slave woman and the son born to Abraham by a free woman represented people of two covenants. As you said, "But God has used allegories before as Paul explains in Gal. 4:22-24."

The difference here is that I think Paul was finding a deeper allegorical meaning in a historical account. In Genesis 2-3, the allegorical meaning seems to be directly in the account, as many acknowledge at least in part, especially when it comes to Genesis 3:15.

No, you call literal what God has not called either literal or otherwise.

Your "fact twisters" ad-hom aside, we get tired of pointing it out too. Why not stop misrepresenting the facts? I'm glad that at least in this case (about your recollection of what Genesis 1 says) you've acknowledged your mistake. What's strange is that in the same post you say that you're tired of things like that being pointed out. Don't you want to know where you're wrong so you can learn more? I know I do.