Creation or Evolution. What do you believe?

[Christian5]

Oops, I goofed. I’m in the tanish part with “happy wonderer” sorry hehe.

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

Chris W:

The fact that the evolutionists in this thread are so adamant that abiogenesis is NOT connected in any way to the theory of evolution makes me suspicious.

Did you not read a single thing I wrote? For abiogenesis to be a part of evolutionary theory you cannot just say: “Gee, umm…I think it’s kinda’ sorta’ like evolution so it must be part of evolution,” you have to *explicitly *illustrate where abiogenesis is an N-DE underlying the evolutionary historical-narrative explanation for biodiversity. You have so far not done anything remotely resembling this. The reason we are so adamant is because this is a classic creationist strawman, which I at least have heard repeated with the same blase disregard for substantiation countless times. Naturally, one gets rather tired of the same fallacious arguments. If you can show us in no uncertain terms where within the evolutionary H-NE, abiogenesis constitutes one of the pertinent N-DE, we will retract our claim that abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary biology.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Hi Mike!

usherMike:

Hi Oolon. I always thought female hips were more pointed at the top, these hips were rounded, the pelvic area on males are closed, but open on females for child birth?

Well, I don’t know what anatomy classes you’ve attended, but the pelvic shape is indicative of the skeleton being female, as are the prominent brow ridges (supraorbital torus). The pelvis is narrow – specifically the shape of the iliac processes and the diameter of the inferior aperture. And the “pelvic area” of males is not closed (whatever that means) – you’d have a hard time taking a dump if it were. It is merely narrower than in females. Though I accept that it’s difficult to tell from just the pictures

I’ll check my sources tonight for further details on WT 15000.

But anyway, much like the famed Lucy missing link, this one I also believe is made up of skeletal parts from different speices.

Well you’re free to believe anything you like. But if you want to assert that this is in fact the case, you’ll need to back it up. Can you be more specific? Do you mean the skull?

Let’s stick to WT 15000 for now, and come on to your allegations against AL 288-1 when we’ve sorted that out.

I still dont buy the idea humans evolved from apes.

No money need be involved. That’s why we have libraries. Did you not read my post above about the vitamin C gene and telomeres in chromosome 2? Can you, to put it bluntly, tell your coccyx from your olecranon?

We’re just not as ugly as we used to be, but always human.

Sounds like you think the skull is a genuine part of the skeleton. So which bits of WT 15000 are not ‘human’ then?

What you mean is, we’re not as ape-like as we used to be, but always human.

What about this chap?

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/images/BHf.JPG
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/images/Bh3.jpg
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/images/BHl.JPG

Or this one?

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/images/1813f.jpg
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/images/18133.jpg
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/images/1813l.jpg

Armed with this ‘ugliness’ or ape-ness criterion, perhaps you are now in a position to tell me which of the skulls I posted earlier are ugly humans, and which ones are non-human apes? Here is the pic again:

No the bush was a planed burn I just wanted to enjoy it,

Burning bushes, eh? Did it talk to you?

It seemed you were trying to get someone to look at your bones for a long time, I’m glad to have been of service.

Thank you. Though your reply raises more questions than it answers.

Another queston, since you believe in evolution,

No I don’t. I am familiar with more than enough evidence to simply acccept it.

what did the apes evolve from?

Other apes, eg things like Dryopithecus. And before that, things that we’d now probably call monkeys, splitting from the old world monkeys in the early Oligocene with (things like) Parapithecus. Before that, plesiadapiforms (something like Plesiadapis), earlier mammals, mammal-like reptiles, reptiles, amphibians, osteolepiform fish…

Non-Hominid Primate Fossil Record
Primate Fossils 1

Hope that helps!

TTFN, Oolon

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

I look with joy upon the various attacks on my commentary from both the Heathen Wiccan, the one calling himself a sociopath and also a few Catholics. Thank you for your responses. The fact is none of us can prove through science nor can we know for sure the processes by which God made man because we were not there to observe it. Science only has some pieces of the puzzle - data from which we must draw interpretations having no force other than opinion and guesswork. Our scientists cannot create man from nothing nor can they create lower life forms and evolve man from those lower life forms. I base my faith and opinions on the data most likely to turn out to be correct – the Bible and the Catholic Church.

The Bible and the Catholic Church teach that all men and women have descended from two parents, Adam and Eve. The Bible and the Catholic Church teach that there was no death prior to the fall of original sin. If these are true then evolution is not. You cannot prove through science that these historical events did not happen. You would do much better to direct your efforts at collecting data that supports these truths. There is an abundance of data that does support them. These truths are more likely to remain true until the end of time than any interpretations or guesswork concocted by those who wish the Bible were not true. The ideas opposing the bible are held up as true for a few years until the next batch of guesswork changes it all. The ideas opposing the bible are championed by Wiccans, atheists and agnostics. When you jump on their bandwagon you travel on thin ice.

The process of mutation and natural selection is what evolution theory was based on. That made sense so long as we did not know much about the processes of life at the molecular level. Behe has shown that the process of mutation and natural selection could not have built life forms. Evolution theory has had its foundation removed and no one, including Behe, has yet to come forth with anything to replace it that makes any sense. I include Behe amongst the list of creationist literature because he has disintegrated evolution’s foundation and he probably will go down in history as having done so.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Edwin Taraba:

The fact is none of us can prove through science nor can we know for sure the processes by which God made man because we were not there to observe it.

Did the Crimean War occur? Were you there?
Did the Hundred Years War happen? Were you there?
What’s the interior of the earth like? Have you observed it?

Hey, this is fun…
Did God make man out of dust? Were you there?
Did Jesus turn water into wine? Were you there?
Did Jesus rise from the dead? Were you there?

Of course we cannot observe past events. But you see, ‘there’ is here. Events that occurred in the past would be expected to leave traces, and these traces we can observe. If something happened in one way, it should leave different traces from if it’d happened another way. So we can predict what these traces should be like under the different hypotheses, and look for them.

We have. And the predictions of evolution are borne out. Please explain the transitional fossils I have shown, and the telomeres in our chromosome 2. These are predictions about the past, with their traces observed in the present.

Science only has some pieces of the puzzle - data from which we must draw interpretations having no force other than opinion and guesswork.

Nonsense, old chap. We can test hypotheses against the evidence, and so justify the “opinion and guesswork” by reference to the real world. And I object to your libelling of so many Christian scientists in this way. Of course, you are immune to the need to actually justify anything in this way with religion.

Our scientists cannot create man from nothing nor can they create lower life forms and evolve man from those lower life forms.

Who gives a flying ferret?! We have not been to the surface of Neptune, the earth’s mantle or the interior of the sun either. Doesn’t mean we can know nothing about them.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Edwin Taraba:

I base my faith and opinions on the data most likely to turn out to be correct – the Bible and the Catholic Church.

That’s nice. What data is that, exactly?

The Bible and the Catholic Church teach that all men and women have descended from two parents, Adam and Eve. The Bible and the Catholic Church teach that there was no death prior to the fall of original sin. If these are true then evolution is not.

The Catholic Church also used to teach that the earth was the centre of the solar system. If that is true, then astronomy is not? Eppur si muove, one might say.

You cannot prove through science that these historical events did not happen.

Nope. But you can show what did happen, by referring to the traces it left.

You would do much better to direct your efforts at collecting data that supports these truths.

That of course is precisely what the original ‘scientists’, the natural theologists, did. The evidence they came up with showed that things were different from how they thought.

Which reminds me of two more quotes from Galileo:

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

and

“To command the professors of astronomy to confute their own observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them to not see what they do see, and not to understand what they do understand, and to find what they do not discover.”

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Edwin Taraba:

There is an abundance of data that does support them.

What’s “them”?

These truths are more likely to remain true until the end of time than any interpretations or guesswork concocted by those who wish the Bible were not true.

You are really starting to piss me off now. For the final time, plenty of scientists have no problem reconciling their faith with their work. Science only, only rejects a literal reading of Genesis.

The ideas opposing the bible are held up as true for a few years until the next batch of guesswork changes it all.

Really? Cite examples.

The ideas opposing the bible are championed by Wiccans, atheists and agnostics. When you jump on their bandwagon you travel on thin ice.

It is a real shame that the defence of science has to fall mainly to those without faith (a few folks here notwithstanding).

Surely when one travels in the rickety cart of ancient authority along a road pot-holed with inconvenient evidence, forget ice: your wheels will tend to come off.

The process of mutation and natural selection is what evolution theory was based on. That made sense so long as we did not know much about the processes of life at the molecular level. Behe has shown that the process of mutation and natural selection could not have built life forms.

Really? I thought he was concerned with certain pieces of biochemical machinery – blood clotting cascades, bacterial flagella, and so on – that he accepts pretty much all of evolution.

Oh look, so he does:

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanism–natural selection working on variation–might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p 5

Oh, and he’s Catholic, apparently.

And, no, he has not shown “that the process of mutation and natural selection could not have built life forms”. He has claimed that certain things are irreducibly complex. And he has been shown to be wrong. See eg here and the links from it.

Evolution theory has had its foundation removed

So everyone – theist and atheist alike – who still sticks with it is… deluded? Ignorant? Insane? Part of some worldwide conspiracy to cover up the truth?

and no one, including Behe, has yet to come forth with anything to replace it that makes any sense. I include Behe amongst the list of creationist literature because he has disintegrated evolution’s foundation and he probably will go down in history as having done so.

Yeah right.
See, it works like this.
“This is irreducibly complex.”
“No it’s not, it could have evolved like this.”
“Well okay, that isn’t, but this is.”
“But that could have formed stepwise like this.”
“Well okay, that isn’t, but this is.”
And so on.

The fact is, this is a bit like the alleged lack of transitional fossils. Just as creationists fail to realise that filling any ‘gaps’ invalidates their position, so the IC crowd can’t grasp that finding a scaffolding route to something that’s irreducibly complex now makes their whole enterprise suspect. *Because * we can find step-by-step routes for some allegedly IC systems, any inability on our part to find them for another one does not automatically make it genuinely irreducible.

You do realise that what you’ve got there is a god of the gaps, yeah?

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

vrummage:

I am writing this one primarily in response to Oolon who took it upon himself (or herself? - forgive me if you clarified this already)

Nope, but it’s himself

The behavioral tendency of matter is always in a downward direction, never upward in the absence of any preprogramming (e.g. coded machinery such as characterizes living things). Without such preprogramming, matter does not transform itself into higher and higher levels of organization.

So this is an abiogenesis argument then…?

The concept can be extended further: in biological systems, the phenomena of sickness, death, and extinction represent applications of the second law.

Sort of. And there’s another ‘second law’ manifestation: mutations.

And natural selection is the process that maintains and even adds information, by removing the ‘prior uncertainty’, the garbling that mutations introduce, thus leaving only the effective originals and any positive ones.

 

[mfaber]

Edwin Taraba:

…] I base my faith and opinions on the data most likely to turn out to be correct – the Bible and the Catholic Church.

The Bible and the Catholic Church teach that all men and women have descended from two parents, Adam and Eve. …]

Unfortunately for you, the scientific data DISPROVES the notion that Adam and Eve ever existed. Males are really derived from alterations in the basic body print of every mammalian fetus which is female. The evidence supporting comes from the studies of embryology and genetics and can be summarized as follows:

***PART 1: The Inheritance of Sex or Why Men Have Nipples ***

The Bible claims that God created Adam first and that Eve is just a “knock-off” male (a rib). The creation of Adam “first” and Eve created from a minor part of the male has been the foundation of the Abrahamic patriachial system that has used this “scenario” for centuries to “justify” discrimination against women (the “weaker” vessels). ** But does science support this “male first” and women as just “inferior males” (this notion of women as "inferior males was a common one in the ancient world, best expressed by Aristotle, used by the early Church fathers as a “science” reference)? The answer is NO on both counts. **

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

All humans have 46 chromosomes or 23 pairs (known as a karyotype)**
More info on Chromosomes**

These pairs are divided into 2 groups. Group 1 comprises 22 of the 23 pairs and are called autosomes. Each pair contains a chromosome inherited from the father and mother. Each pair of chromosomes contains genes coding for the same things and what this means is that one gets 2 copies of the same information for each characteristic (each gene or set of genes coding for a particular characteristic has a “back-up” copy). All of these chromosomes have hundreds (up to 3000) genes that designate function, development or growth.

The last pair are called the sex chromosomes because they contain the majority of the genes that determine sex. This pair is unique because unlike the other chromosomes, there are two different types of chromosomes known as the X-chromosome and the Y-chromosome. The X chromosome is a very large chromosome that contains genes essential to life in addition to playing a role in sexual detemination. The presence of two X-chromosomes results in a female, whereas an X and a Y chromosome produce a male. The Y-chromosome is are very interesting chromosome and will described in more detail.

The Y is the smallest chromosome and it’s presence is required for male sexual differentiation (the presence of a X and a Y-chromosome produce males). The Y contains only 20 genes (the others contain many times that number) that are involved in 3 functions:

• 1. 9 of the gene match genes on the X (otherwise the Y would be lost during meiosis because it couldn’t “pair” with X)
• 1. 11 genes are involved with the following:
     -----a) Male fertility–defects here produce low sperm counts
     -----b) “Male-determining” function (the mapping of the testis-determining factor or the “male-determining genes” to the SRY region took scientists more than 50 years to accomplish and are highly conserved. The function of SRY genes is to arrest the formation of embryonic tissue (Mullerian) into ovaries and halt the degeneration of the Wolffian ducts and turn them into testes that produce testosterone, needed to masculinize the fetus.
  Because the rest of its DNA doesn’t code for anything and readily acquires mutations, the Y has been referred to as a “genetic junkyard” . This is not as pejorative as it sounds because the variablity of the Y chromosome has proved tremendously valuable in tracing patrilinear lineages that have yielded some surprising results:
  
  **Y and Mighty (migration, populations)
  
  Use of Y-Chromosome Variation to Study Populations and Migration **
  Continued in Part 2…

 

[mfaber]

***PART 2: The Inheritance of Sex or Why Men Have Nipples ***

EVIDENCE FROM THE GENETICS OF SEX DETERMINATION

The truth is that the fundamental “body print” for mammals (humans are mammals) is females and males are an alteration of that this fundamental “body pattern”. This alteration occurs later in embryonic development IF an functional Y chromosome or any part that contains the Y’s sex-determining genes which sometimes attaches to an X chromosome during meiosis are present in the embryo. (Note: the later condition gives what is known as an “XX male”). What follows is the genetic evidence that the fundamental “body print” is female (not male, contrary to a literal interpetataion of Genesis).

It is the inheritance of sex that is important to this discussion so the autosomes will be ignored for the moment. Let’s look at this process in more detail. It is the variations from the “normal” conditions that are the most informative:

Combinations of Sex Chromosomes and Genetic Abnormalities Affecting Embryonic Sexual Development

• 1. XX----- Normal female
• 1. XY------Normal male
• 1. XO-----Abnormal female with Turner’s syndrome ovaries nonfunctional and must be treated with female hormones to achieve and maintain sexual maturity.
• 1. XXY----Abnormal male with Kleinfelter’s syndrome has small genitalia and other signs of feminization.
• 5) OY----This is a LETHAL combination because an X chromosome harbors genes essential to life. These vital genes have no counterparts on the Y. No flawed male from this combo, akin to the Turner’s female in 3). NOTE: This type of genetic abnormality is known as “nondisjunction” (whole chromosomes lost or added). Nondisjunction can occur in the autosomes as well ( Trisomy 21 or 3 copies of chromosome 21 is the most common form of Down’s Syndrome)
  FIG. 1. Non-disjunction
  http://bioweb.wku.edu/courses/Biol495/PrenatalDiagnostics/images/nondisjunction.gif
• 1. The “XX” male was is really a Klinefelter male. The SRY region from the Y was “translocated” (a piece of the Y recombined with the X) onto one of the Xs during meiosis of the father’s sperm. NOTE: Translocation and nondisjunction are not the same thing.
     FIG. 2: Translocation
     http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Translocation(8-14).gif
• 7) Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS)–This is the case where the genotype of the person is XY and should develop as a male. But there is a defect in another gene that prevents the testosterone from being “absorbed” by fetal cells so the fetus continues developing along the original programming with is to become a female. When the baby is born, it appears to be female. Because the tissue still responds to estrogen, the infant matures as a female. The problem is that there are no female organs to produce the amount of estrogen needed for full development so this condition is usually not detected to around the age of 16 because the “girl” fails to menstruate.

CONCLUSION:
The Turner’s syndrome and CAIS demonstrate that the basic body print is FEMALE, not male. Males are really “modified” females. It also takes fewer gene to have a complete male (remember that the Y-chromosome alone can’t produce a male without the X and has very few genes).

Continued in Part 3…

 

[mfaber]

***PART 3: The Inheritance of Sex or Why Men Have Nipples ***
THE EVIDENCE FROM EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT

Consider the following time line in embryonic development of internal genitalia which arise from Mullerian ducts(female) or Wolffian ducts(male).

• 1. At 8 to 10 weeks, embryo has neutral gonads with two duct systems (Mullerian and Wolffian) joined at the lower end.
• 2)At the 13th week, gonads differentiate in response to germ cell invasion.
  -----a)If XX, no hormones released; Mullerian ducts develop into oviducts (Fallopian tubes), uterus, and upper portion of clit0ris; Wolffian ducts disappear without stimulation from testosterone. NOTE:The development of a female fetus DOES NOT require estrogen, but proceeds of its own accord (the “default” programming is female)
  -----b)If XY, gonads produce Mullerian duct inhibitor (MDI) which causes Mullerian duct to disappear; gonads produce testosterone which causes Wolffian ducts to develop into sperm collecting apparatus - epididymis, sperm duct (vas deferens), and seminal vesicle; conversion of testosterone to dyhydrotestosterone (DHT) causes development of prostate gland.

From
[Sexual Development in Humans (UVA Public People Search, U.Va.)

Note that the Mullerian ducts develop without any kind of hormonal stimulation and will continue to develop, whereas the Wolffian ducts (male) degenerate unless “rescued” from oblivion by the SRY genes on the Y. This is done by the factor MDI which first shuts down development of the Mullerian ducts. It is possible to interfere with the MDI and the Mullerian ducts will continue to develop. This is evidence on a molecular and biochemical level that the “female” body print is the “first” choice, not the second (“Eve” gives rise to “Adam” ) .

**CONCLUSION:

The bottom-line is that it isn’t Adam’s Rib, but Eve’s Rib and what is “Eve’s Rib”?---->you guessed it!! Testosterone.** Genesis fails as a book of science again. Also be aware that the oldest steroid hormone is not testosterone but estrogen.
**Estrogen Is Evolution’s Most Ancient Steroid Hormone

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE NIPPLES?**

BOTTOM LINE:
Men still have nipples because it is part of the “female” program. Some mens’ breasts will produce milk, just as a woman’s will, though most won’t produce the amount that the average lactating female can---->

**Read about the “Milkmen” here:

Why Men Have Nipples

…, but at least they don’t have boobs…

But men do have “boobs” (in a manner of speaking). ** Most of them just don’t have the fatty tissue so prized by Westerners that make them large or active ducts (the size of the breast is no indicator of how much milk it will produce). Consider the following:

• Men can get breast cancer and die of it (not as often as women because their bodies don’t produce larger quantities of estrogen when promote the development of breast cancer).
• Men can also develop breasts (the breast accumulates fatty tissue) for a number of reasons (here are several, not an exhaustive list):
  ----a. Some will develop breast as the result of the decrease in testosterone that accompanies the aging process (most common reason)
  ----b. There are males with genetic conditions that result in extra estrogen. One condition is the Klinefelter’s male (XXY) and the “XX male” (Again, the sex-determining regions of the Y-chromosomes become attached to an X chromosome during formation of sperm in the father of the “XX male”. )
  ----c. A few men can develop tumors that secrete estrogen (gynomastia or breast enlargement results).
  
  **Further references (difficult to easy)
  1: Goodfellow PN, Lovell-Badge R. SRY and sex determination in mammals .Annu Rev Genet. 1993;27:71-92. Review.
  
  2: Berta P, Hawkins JR, Sinclair AH, Taylor A, Griffiths BL, Goodfellow PN, Fellous M. Genetic evidence equating SRY and the testis-determining factor. Nature. 1990 Nov 29;348(6300):448-50.
  
  3: Sinclair A. Related Articles, Eleven years of sexual discovery. Genome Biol. 2001;2(7):REPORTS4017.
  
  4: Whither the Y?
  
  5: Why the Y?**

This is not all the evidence that disproves the Adam/Eve story…there is more (the above is more than enough to disprove the Biblical account beyond a reasonable doubt)

Continued in PART 4…

 

[mfaber]

PART 4–The Biblical Adam and Eve Never Existed (More Evidence from Genetics/the Fossil Record)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION-Human Origins

The fossil record suggest that modern man originated ~150,000 years ago in Africa. These sites examines the hominid fossil record:**

Hominid Fossils/Talk Origins FAQs

Human Fossil Record (links) **

This out of Africa hypothesis has been confirmed by studies by analyzing the hereditary material (DNA) carried by the mitochondria which are inherited exclusively from the mother. If you don’t know what mitochondria are go here:

Mitochondria-Powerhouse of the Cell

The "Mitochondrial Eve"

This the so-called Mitochondrial “Eve”, our most recent common ancestor, a woman who lived in Africa 143,000 years ago. Let’s clarify what is meant by the phrase “Mitochondrial Eve(ME)”

• 1. We are not talking about the 46 chromosomes in the nucleus, but about the DNA comprising the mitochondrial genes. The DNA component in the mitochondria is tiny compared to that in the nucleus and comprises only 1/400,000 th of the total amount of DNA in a cell. Mitchondria were once free-living bacteria which began a symbiotic relationship with larger cells over a billion years ago. Because of their free-living background, they carry their own original genetic material and replicate themselves inside the cells as if they were still bacteria. They are good candidates for genetic studies because…
     ----a. They accumulate mutations and evolve faster than nuclear genes do. This allows for a close-up study of evolutionary change. In other words, the mutations in the mitochondrial DNA provide the molecular clock that allows us to determine how much time has elapsed since the ME lived.
     ----b. They are only inherited from the mother (matrilinearly) because sperm, while they have a few mitochondria, usually don’t contribute them to the egg upon fertilization.
• 2). It is important to remember that while there was only one ME, she was by no means the only living woman on Earth during her lifetime. Creationists like to pretend that ME was the ONLY woman alive at the time (not true). Many women were her contemporaries, but did not leave descendants (those carrying nuclear genes) or did not leave descendant that can be traced using mitochondrial DNA inheritance .
• 1. It is important to remember that this research shows that our mitochondria, not our nuclear genes, are all descended from a single individual.** It in no shape, form, or fashion implies that all of our nuclear genes came from one person or that there was only ONE female ancestor* (a distinction readily glossed over by creationists). ***
• 1. In other words, the research shows that of all the women alive in 143,000 BCE, only one of them succeeded in passing her mitochondria down to us today. The women in the other lineages may have failed to pass on their mitochondria, but these women still have descendants in every generation between then and now (nuclear inheritance as opposed to mitochondrial inheritance).

Three excellent discussions of the Mitochondrial Eve are to be found in:

1. TalkOrigins-ME
   talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
2. Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, Basic Books, 1995.
3. Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Simon and Schuster, 1995. (offers an elegant proof of the ME hypothesis)

continued in PART 5

 

[Townsend]

Obviously, this thread is not long enough yet!

I voted for Creation.

I’ve read several books on Creationism and Intelligent Design. There are problems with the old Earth theories that span every discipline. Most of these are too far out of my range of basic scientific knowledge for me to personally judge their merit.

I know God created Adam and Eve. They sinned, and we are all now subject to death as a result. Conventional evolution theory is not compatible with that truth, so I go with special creation.

 

[mfaber]

**PART 5–The Biblical Adam and Eve Never Existed —More Genetic Evidence

Finding “Adam”–The hunt for the Y-chromosome Adam (YcA)**

Since Y-chromosomes are unique to men it was possible to identify YcA by sequencing a small region of the Y-chromosome that all men carry. A detailed analysis of the sequences from 1,069 men living in 22 different geographic areas, indicate that our most recent common male ancestor was a man who lived in Africa around 59,000 years ago. How can these studies be reconciled? How could Adam and Eve have ever begotten us if they never met? (It looks like “Adam” was 84,000 years “late” for his first date, or does it?)

Dr. Peter A. Underhill from the Dept. of Genetics at Stanford University explains:

Paleontology has always had a problem with dates. However, the thoroughness of the current study as well as 13 years of mitochondrial DNA analysis indicate that fallible interpretations cannot explain the whole discrepancy with the Book of Genesis. Rather, they show that the different chromosomes now in favour among humans were not ‘invented’ all at once. Approximately 143,000 years ago, among the different mitochondrial DNA sequences floating around in the human population, one remained advantageous for its carriers and started to expand; eventually, all women carrying the other versions of mitochondrial DNA would leave no descendants.

In parallel, different versions of the Y-chromosome were dispersed through the population as well, but it took 84,000 more years before one particular version of it started to take over in the human population. In other words, each chromosome evolved to its own drum and each had a common ancestor chromosome of its own, in very distant times. "

Daniel C. Dennett adds this “final note”:…

“The techniques of DNA sequencing, DNA-relatedness comparisons, and the calibration of the molecular clock have been improving dramatically over the past few years. The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosome Adam are no longer in any doubt (remember, both are mathematical necessities)—what is still being discussed is the estimation of how long ago they lived. Determining their ages requires an accurate calibration of the molecular clock and there is some disagreement here.”

Creationists try to pretend that these minor disagreements over the calibration of the clock means that the whole theory is in dispute, which is absolutely not true. The upshot of all of this is that again, the Biblical Adam and Eve are just plain bunk!

Additional References…

1. Cann, R., Stoneking, M. & Wilson, A.C. (1987) Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature 325: 31–36
2. Ayala, F.J. (1995) The myth of Eve: molecular biology and human origins. Science 270: 1930–36
3. Di Rienzo, A. & Wilson, A.C. (1991) Branching pattern in the evolutionary tree for human mitochondrial DNA. PNAS USA 88: 1597–601
4. Thomson, R., Pritchard, J.K., Shen, P., Oefner, P.J. & Feldman,M.W. (2000) Recent common ancestry of human Y chromosomes:evidence from DNA sequence data. PNAS USA 97: 7360–65
5. More Y-chromosome links than you can click a mouse at!

THE BOTTOM LINE:
Adam and Eve never existed (the scientific data disproves their alleged existence). If you have any kind of empirical evidence that backs up this story, then let’s see it.

 

[buffalo]

sohpdica:

Evidence for the flood? Really?! Please don’t tell me you actually believe Ron Wyatt… he is the only person I know of that actually claims to have found charriots on the bottom of the Red Sea (when in reality it is well accepted that Red Sea is a mistranslation of Sea of Reeds)

Robert Ballard had a PBS show recently about the flood. Seems to me he was pretty certain a great catastrophe had taken place and found evidence in the bottom of the Black Sea.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

Townsend:

Obviously, this thread is not long enough yet!

I voted for Creation.

Fine. What sort? If literal Genesis, then this thread is obviously too long, as it’s dissuaded you from reading it!

I’ve read several books on Creationism and Intelligent Design. There are problems with the old Earth theories that span every discipline.

Yep, that’s what they’ll tell you. Funny how these problems with the old Earth theories do not seem to affect the oil industry, which relies on them not being problems.

Most of these are too far out of my range of basic scientific knowledge for me to personally judge their merit.

Yet you accept them anyway?

I know God created Adam and Eve.

What species were they?

They sinned, and we are all now subject to death as a result.

And the six-inch long dagger teeth of T rex and the alimentary tract of lions are just perfect for grass…

Conventional evolution theory is not compatible with that truth, so I go with special creation.

Yet you freely admit that the science of it is beyond your grasp.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

buffalo:

Robert Ballard had a PBS show recently about the flood. Seems to me he was pretty certain a great catastrophe had taken place and found evidence in the bottom of the Black Sea.

I’ve mentioned previously about how easy it is to get fed up with having to say the same thing over and over… but I’ve not often had it happen in the same thread!

Buffalo, see my post 235.

 

[Chris_W]

Whether the evoutionists in this thread accept it or not, abiogenesis is evolution. I stumbled upon a web-site called trueorigins.com which provided the following information:

"Science textbook authors Wynn and Wiggins describe the abiogenesis process currently accepted by Darwinists:
Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but… Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution (1997, p. 105).

The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include (a) evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules, (b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules, (c) evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules, (d) eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and (e) eventually evolution into the first cells. This process requires multimillions of links, all which either are missing or controversial. Scientists even lack plausible just-so stories for most of evolution. Furthermore the parts required to provide life clearly have specifications that rule out most substitutions.
The logical order in which life developed is hypothesized to include the following basic major stages:

1. Certain simple molecules underwent spontaneous, random chemical reactions until after about half-a-billion years complex organic molecules were produced.
2. Molecules that could replicate eventually were formed (the most common guess is nucleic acid molecules), along with enzymes and nutrient molecules that were surrounded by membraned cells.
3. Cells eventually somehow “learned” how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule (which contains a complete set of instructions for building a next generation of cells). During the reproduction process, the mutations changed the DNA code and produced cells that differed from the originals.
4. The variety of cells generated by this process eventually developed the machinery required to do all that was necessary to survive, reproduce, and create the next generation of cells in their likeness. Those cells that were better able to survive became more numerous in the population (adapted from Wynn and Wiggins, 1997, p. 172). "

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess the responses this post will have: Winn and Wiggins are probably not what evolutionists consider legitimate text book authors. Tureorigins.com is probably not authored by what evolutionists consider scientific people, etc etc. Nevertheless, I will still draw my own conclusions.

Abiogenesis is an integral part of the Theory of Evolution. If evolutionists really deny that abiogenesis is part of the whole picture of evolution, then it brings all of evolution theory into question.

Shall we accept the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation of how man evolved from apes, apes from some form of monkey, monkeys from some other life form, other life forms from even more primitive life forms and so on back through time, but then stop at an ambiguous imaginary wall (the first living cell)? That doesn’t make sense to me. If evolution has to stop there, then it calls the whole process into question.

How does evolution really answer the question of how we see the complexity and variety of life forms we see today if it only works past the point of the first living cell? To put it another way, if evolution cannot answer how the pool of chimicals evolved into the first living cell, the most basic and first step in the evolution of the simplest matter, then why should I believe it answers how more complex matter evolved, even if evidence exists to suggest it is possible? Indeed there may be theories that have been shown to be possible, but it requires one to overlook the most fundamental problem.

As I have concluded for many years, evolution requires its proponents to ignore problems, which is why some evolutionists are insisting abiogenesis is not evolution, when it clearly is. Abiogenesis is the necessary first step to all of evolution, and it is anti-God. So it is in the evolutionists best interest, while posting on a Catholic web-site, to insist they are separate, so that they can continue to argue that evolution is not anti-God.

 

[Townsend]

Oolon:

Yet you freely admit that the science of it is beyond your grasp.

Yes, the latest theories in astro-physics, microbiology, organic chemistry, and vulcanology are beyond my experience. I am not a scientific illiterate, merely not an expert. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough, my post was a simple response to the original question about evolution.

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

ChrisW:

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess the responses this post will have: Winn [sic] and Wiggins are probably not what evolutionists consider legitimate text book authors.

No, they seem to be genuine enough: Charles Wynn at least seems to have written a textbook of some sort or other (Natural Science: Bridging the Gap is not exactly informative!). However, the books they have written together are popular science. For lay people. In other words, not textbooks. Pulling quotes from pop science is like getting your Roman Judean history from Life of Brian. Entertaining, but not necessarily a good place to start.

I have two general evolution textbooks at home (Futuyma and Skelton), and some others on more specific topics. I’ll see what they have to say on the matter.

Tureorigins.com is probably not authored by what evolutionists consider scientific people, etc etc. Nevertheless, I will still draw my own conclusions.

And nothing we say can disabuse you. So draw away.

Abiogenesis is an integral part of the Theory of Evolution. If evolutionists really deny that abiogenesis is part of the whole picture of evolution, then it brings all of evolution theory into question.

What was I saying about repeating myself? Maybe this time it will get through.

Geology would be impossible without the earth. If we cannot explain the origins of the earth, then it brings all of geology into question.

Yes or no?

Chemistry would be impossible without elements. If we cannot explain the origins of the elements, then it brings all of chamistry into question.

Yes or no?

Geology takes for granted that there is an earth, and though where it came from is interesting, it takes it from there.

Chemistry takes for granted that there are elements, and though where they came from is interesting, it takes it from there.

Evolutionary biology takes for granted that there is life, and though where it came from is interesting, it takes it from there.

I am at a loss as to why this is so difficult.