Adam and Eve came into existence by special creation of God, has had no ancestors, were not born, as were first humans, as made in image of God!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
On Evolution...
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
KeyserSoze
Member
No, what we’ve proved is that you are pretty clueless about science.
I do not have to “take a primate & make him human” since humans are ALREADY PRIMATES..
Humans have been recognized and claffified as primates since Linnaeus in the 1700s.
Why is it that people with no knowledge of this subject matter feel the need to embarrass themselves over and over.?
Humans are not evolved from lower primates, as we alone were created in image of God...
Now that you’ve demonstrated that you’re as intelligent as an ape and hung like one too, I’ll appease your argument based on semantics. Semantics which are used to murder millions upon millions of people.
1. Take anything that is not a human.
2. Make a human.
Can’t do that?
You have no scientific proof.
I’ll let you get back to murdering babies.
Jesus stated that he agreed with understanding that God created Adam and Eve, not evolved them, so since he stated it, has to be agreed with, unless Jesus either lied or was ignorant of certain facts!
KeyserSoze
Member
Sorry, but DNA tests show otherwise.
Now unless you have some documented tests which show how those genome maps are wrong, then our shared common ancestry with the other earth primates is confirmed.
KeyserSoze
Member
You really are clueless, aren’t you.?
Evolution is the confirmed way that humans arose on this planet.
Now, if knowing that makes you want to kill babies.?
Then you’re more delusional than I thought.
As for “scientific proof” of this evolution.?
Full genome maps published over a decade ago confirmed our evolution. DNA tests are accepted as proof in all US courts.
So good luck refuting those DNA tests,, lol
"Thus, in two-thirds of the cases, a genealogy results in which humans and chimpanzees are not each other's closest genetic relatives. The corresponding genealogies are incongruent with the species tree. In concordance with the experimental evidences, this implies that there is no such thing as a unique evolutionary history of the human genome. Rather, it resembles a patchwork of individual regions following their own genealogy."
Ebersberger, I. et al. 2007. Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 24 (10): 2266-2276.
"In fall 2009, the journal Science dedicated a special issue to Ardipithecus ramidus. Popularly known as "Ardi," the fossil was characterized by researchers Tim White and C. Owen Lovejoy as a replacement for Lucy as mankind's direct evolutionary ancestor. Many of those exposed to the ensuing extensive publicity were misled by the media's pro-Darwinian euphoria, when they would have been better served by a little healthy skepticism.
Several of the 11 separate papers in that issue of Science offered pure speculations about Ardi's social behavior, sexual practices, mode of life, peculiar habitat, and walking habits. At the time, the Institute for Creation Research pointed out that these imaginative reconstructions were not based on the data.1 Now, an evolutionist has formally expressed some of the same doubts.
Also publishing in Science, Esteban Sarmiento of the Human Evolution Foundation in New Jersey indicated that most of the earlier interpretations of Ardi were either unfounded, not borne out by data, or were premature. These were the same conclusions drawn by ICR last fall.
Sarmiento refuted the critical aspect that had placed Ardi among hominids, those imaginary ape-like possible ancestors of man that could supposedly walk upright. He wrote, "Sufficient support for this claim…is lacking."
Sarmiento, E. E. 2010. Comment on the Paleobiology and Classification of Ardipithecus ramidus. Science. 328 (5982): 1105.
Evolutionist Tosses Out 'Ardi' As Human Ancestor
Several of the 11 separate papers in that issue of Science offered pure speculations about Ardi's social behavior, sexual practices, mode of life, peculiar habitat, and walking habits. At the time, the Institute for Creation Research pointed out that these imaginative reconstructions were not based on the data.1 Now, an evolutionist has formally expressed some of the same doubts.
Also publishing in Science, Esteban Sarmiento of the Human Evolution Foundation in New Jersey indicated that most of the earlier interpretations of Ardi were either unfounded, not borne out by data, or were premature. These were the same conclusions drawn by ICR last fall.
Sarmiento refuted the critical aspect that had placed Ardi among hominids, those imaginary ape-like possible ancestors of man that could supposedly walk upright. He wrote, "Sufficient support for this claim…is lacking."
Sarmiento, E. E. 2010. Comment on the Paleobiology and Classification of Ardipithecus ramidus. Science. 328 (5982): 1105.
Evolutionist Tosses Out 'Ardi' As Human Ancestor
KeyserSoze
Member
Let me get this straight,?
You are using a genetics book which details human evolution as a basis for your argument that we didn’t evolve ,,? Lol
More nonsense you do not deal with the substance of the post.
In the past, evolutionists have tried to prove human evolution by comparing only similar DNA segments between humans and apes—disregarding the non-similar DNA regions.1 Many evolutionary studies have involved the selective use of protein-coding segments in the genome called genes. But comparing just the genes of humans and apes produces much higher DNA similarities than many other regions of the genome would yield.
Surprisingly, a recent study compared chimpanzee chromosomes to their similar human-counterpart chromosomes using highly optimized DNA matching conditions and found that the chimpanzee genome was only 70 percent similar to human overall.2 But what about the protein-coding genes? In humans, less than 3 percent of the genome is thought to contain actual protein-coding sequence, while the rest of the genome is involved in controlling how genes work and other aspects of chromosome function.3
Of the genes that are found in both species, evolutionists have only reported on the sub-segments of the genes that are similar. Because of these highly selective studies, we really don’t know how similar human genes are to ape genes because non-similar data were discarded. Therefore, an extensive study is in progress at the Institute for Creation Research to compare a wide variety of primate gene data sets against a comprehensive database of known human gene variants.
Surprisingly, a recent study compared chimpanzee chromosomes to their similar human-counterpart chromosomes using highly optimized DNA matching conditions and found that the chimpanzee genome was only 70 percent similar to human overall.2 But what about the protein-coding genes? In humans, less than 3 percent of the genome is thought to contain actual protein-coding sequence, while the rest of the genome is involved in controlling how genes work and other aspects of chromosome function.3
Of the genes that are found in both species, evolutionists have only reported on the sub-segments of the genes that are similar. Because of these highly selective studies, we really don’t know how similar human genes are to ape genes because non-similar data were discarded. Therefore, an extensive study is in progress at the Institute for Creation Research to compare a wide variety of primate gene data sets against a comprehensive database of known human gene variants.
- Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2012. Genomic monkey business— estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation. 26 (1): 94-100.
- Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6 (2013): 63-69.
KeyserSoze
Member
OK lets deal with the substance of the post.
YOUR OWN RESOURCE says
<quote>
"We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. This explains recurrent findings of very old human-specific morphological traits in the fossils record, which predate the recent emergence of the human species about 5-6 MYA."
Got that genius.?
Your own resource is telling you that the DNA shows that we evolved, that the evolutionary split was between 5 and 6 million years ago, and that by default, the earth can NOT possibly be 6000 years old..
This above is exactly why creationists can never win in court.
You dont even understand what you're advocating for.. lol
Nope still haven't dealt wit the substance of my posts just more name calling.
Evolutionists claim that genetics has proved humans and chimpanzees are close evolutionary relatives. The current chimpanzee genome, however, was not constructed on its own merits. Instead, the human genome served as a framework for developing it. All of the short DNA sequences produced from the chimpanzee genome were assembled onto the human genome, using it as a reference sequence.1,2 This problematic shortcut was taken due to budget constraints, convenience, and a healthy dose of evolutionary presuppositions that humans evolved from apes.
Another serious potential problem with the chimpanzee genome is human DNA contamination—human sequences inadvertently included with the chimp sequences. That would also help to produce a more human-like chimpanzee genome. In 2011, a very interesting study was published in which the researchers screened 2,749 non-primate public DNA databases from all over the world and found 492 to be contaminated with human sequence—almost 18%.3 These DNA databases represented species ranging from bacteria to plants to fish. Ape and monkey databases were not tested, leaving the question open as to how much human DNA contamination may be present in them.
Another serious potential problem with the chimpanzee genome is human DNA contamination—human sequences inadvertently included with the chimp sequences. That would also help to produce a more human-like chimpanzee genome. In 2011, a very interesting study was published in which the researchers screened 2,749 non-primate public DNA databases from all over the world and found 492 to be contaminated with human sequence—almost 18%.3 These DNA databases represented species ranging from bacteria to plants to fish. Ape and monkey databases were not tested, leaving the question open as to how much human DNA contamination may be present in them.
- The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature. 437 (7055): 69-87.
- Tomkins, J. P. 2011. How Genomes Are Sequenced and Why It Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees. Answers Research Journal. 4: 81-88.
- Longo, M. S., M. J. O’Neill, and R. J. O’Neill. 2011. Abundant Human DNA Contamination Identified in Non-Primate Genome Databases. PLoS ONE. 6 (2): e16410.
KeyserSoze
Member
The "substance" of your post is a genetics analysis that shows EVOLUTION is correct.. lol
Did you actually READ the report..? Or did you just accept what that charlatan ICR website "claimed".?
Here's a helpful tip for you if you desire to never get embarrassed by your own incompetence in the future..
DONT JUST ACCEPT THE BULL FECES THAT ICR FEEDS YOU..
actually READ THE ORIGINAL REPORT.. lol
You sir have no credibility. Several of us have made an attempt to engage you on this. Your total response has been nothing but adhominems and personal attacks. Here is a list of them:
1. This above is a common tactic by creationists
2.No, what we’ve proved is that you are pretty clueless about science.
3. You really are clueless, aren’t you.?
4. Then you’re more delusional than I thought.
5. Got that genius.?
6. You dont even understand what you're advocating for.
7. if you desire to never get embarrassed by your own incompetence in the future.
8. DONT JUST ACCEPT THE BULL FECES THAT ICR FEEDS YOU
Since you have not provided any substance or dealt with our posts in a substantive way but instead are hostile to those with whom you disagree I can only surmise that you are unable to. Further, it does not appear that you want to. You are more than welcome to wallow in your hostility but I am done.
KeyserSoze
Member
I see.. So you got snagged by your own incompetence, and now you are running away..
Typical creationist response when losing the debate..
This shows that you never really had any desire to learn anything, but simply wanted to parrot creationist drivel..
KeiserS has been answering and responding very well to the posts and his responses have been quite to the point.
And no one has responded to him in a way that remotely indicates they are listening to what he says.
The silly attacks against what he has posted have been quite juvenile.
Rob
And no one has responded to him in a way that remotely indicates they are listening to what he says.
The silly attacks against what he has posted have been quite juvenile.
Rob
KeyserSoze
Member
- Status