Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the only error in my calculation is applying asexual to sexual organisms. Then the following statement is correct?

It takes far far less generations for the primordial primate to have evolved to humans than the generations it need for a bacteria to evolve a new enzyme function. (With the caveat that you can’t compare bacteria and humans. But literally there is no mistake in the above statement?)
 
A primordial primate has essentially all the “enzyme functions” a human has. The differences are relatively minor, such as shortening the tail, lengthening the rear legs and enlarging the brain. All the same enzymes are still working to grow a tail, legs and brain, but the controls on those enzymes are tweaked to make some parts larger and other parts smaller. There is no part of the human body that is also not present in chimpanzees.

The calculation would be easier if you split it into two stages: bacteria to single-celled eukaryote and then the second state to multicellular bodies and ourselves. A single celled eukaryote has nearly all the interior cellular machinery that we have. Our 50%+ similarity to a banana is in the machinery of our cells, not in our external body. Yes, bananas are eukaryotes.

rossum
 
ratio1 said:
If the only error in my calculation is applying asexual to sexual organisms. Then the following statement is correct?

It takes far far less generations for the primordial primate to have evolved to humans than the generations it need for a bacteria to evolve a new enzyme function. (With the caveat that you can’t compare bacteria and humans. But literally there is no mistake in the above statement?)
Click to expand...
You didn’t see the pictures… it only takes about 5 or 6 stages to go from ape to man.
 
buffalo said:
It is logical to look at the simplist models and use that data to see if the more difficult models can be achieved.
Click to expand...
There is some truth in that. And in this case the simplest model gave results that were absurd. It will perhaps astonish him, but ratio1 was not the first to notice that. The question is, what to do about it.
ReadTheBible said:
The evolutionist shows you that dogs have 300+ varieties and this proves that evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...
I don’t know any evolutionist that says that. Are you making it up in an all too familiar attempt to denigrate what you don’t like, or have you sources for it?
All 300+ varieties of dogs is guess what, (say it with me class) all still dogs.
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely correct. Still all one species, and all able to interbreed. No evolutionary scientists would disagree.
You will never cross breed 2 dogs, no matter how different they are, and get a cat.
Click to expand...
Again; dead right. Just what we evolutionists think!
You can have 400 quadrillion years and you would still be left with dogs.
Click to expand...
Ah, now you’ve gone and spoilt it. You see, there are no fossils dogs older than about 45 million years. So either the first dogs were created spontaneously about then, or they descended from other kinds of animals. So, no, 400 000 000 000 000 000 years is much too long. After a few tens of millions of years we expect to have lots of animals descended from dogs which aren’t dogs.
Yet evolutionists would have you believe every single living organism today all came from a rock that blew up billions of years ago.
Click to expand...
No evolutionist would have you believe any such thing. Where did you get that idea?
ratio1 said:
So for example if you think it’s wrong to use 31500 then tell me what is the correct number?
Click to expand...
Average about 10.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
It will perhaps astonish him, but ratio1 was not the first to notice that.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t astonish me. I suspected it. (as I mentioned in my previous post) I just couldnt google it easily since every time I google its always a one sided opinion.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
After a few tens of millions of years we expect to have lots of animals descended from dogs which aren’t dogs.
Click to expand...
Yes but it will still be somehow related to dogs, no? What evolutionists want us to believe is that dogs can evolve to dragons eventually.
 
“rossum said:
I did read the article. They lied by omission. You quoted the article, saying that there may have been a single pair 500,000 or more years ago. What they omitted was that humans, Homo sapiens, evolved about 300,000 years ago, at least 200,000 years after that possible (not definite) single pair.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Discovery Institute makes the claim either that human beings (Homo sapiens) evolved (the evolutionary paradigm) about 300,000 years ago or that human beings first appeared about 300,000 years ago. This is what evolutionists claim which the Discovery Institute doesn’t which is why the supposed evolutionary claim would be omitted. Accordingly, what you claim as a ‘lie of omission’ is your own evolutionary paradigm, which again, the Discovery Institute doesn’t claim.
That pair, if they even existed, were not humans like us, but would have been Homo erectus or some earlier ancestor of H. erectus like Australopithecus afarensis.
Click to expand...
This assumes according to the evolutionary paradigm that Homo erectus is some sort of transitional ancestral sub-human to Homo sapiens. The Discovery Institute does not make this claim. In fact, in the book they published recently ‘Science and Human Origins’, there is a sub-chapter within the chapter on the Fossil Record titled ‘All In The Family’ in which the author deals with the Homo genus whose major members are homo erectus, neanderthal, and homo sapiens or modern humans. The author states:

‘In contrast to the australopithecines, the major members of Homo—such as erectus and the Neanderthals (
Homo neanderthalensis)—are very similar to modern humans… They’re so similar to us that some paleoanthropologists have classified erectus and neanderthalensis as members of our own species, Homo Sapiens.’ [here is listed a footnote to various studies]

The morphological differences between modern humans and the erectus and neaderthals fall within the range of modern human variability and as the author states ‘their differences amount to small-scale microevolutionary changes.’ In sum, the Discovery Institute does not rule out the possibility that Homo erectus is not in fact a human being or Homo Sapien. In fact, the book I’m speaking of appears to favor subsuming or sinking both Homo erectus and neanderthal evolutionary taxons under Homo Sapiens as their is no compelling ‘scientific’ reason or evidence to the contrary.

Now, as the book states and which is the standard figure, Homo erectus appears in the fossil record about 1.9 million years ago. This is well within the range of the 500,000 years figure or even earlier.

That both creationists as well as evolutionists have considered sinking both homo erectus and neanderthal taxons under homo sapiens or simply human beings is nothing new. I have discussed this in previous posts and linked various articles such as one written in 1994.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Code: 
Yet evolutionists would have you believe every single living organism today all came from a rock that blew up billions of years ago.
No evolutionist would have you believe any such thing. Where did you get that idea?

It’s simple. Anyone that believes the universe is here due to evolution accepts the big bang theory (when in reality it’s a religion). The big bang theory suggests all the matter in the universe was condensed into a tiny spot. Not only that but this matter had energy because it’s accepted that it was spinning.It’s a religion that claims space, time, and matter created itself. If you believe otherwise please explain who created your matter for the big bang.

Next up there is no life during the big bang. You (assuming) believe it rained on the rocks for millions of years and out of the water came the first signs of life. That indeed is non-living matter creating life. Again, there is 0 proof of this and it can’t be duplicated (which is what science should really be about).

So you believe space, time, and matter created itself and all you need is Time (which plays the part of God in this religion) to accomplish anything.

The evolutionist believes death creates better things. Christians believe by sin death entered the world. There’s a vast difference but they’re both religions. It’s just so happens only one is taught in schools.
 
(continued)
“rossum said:
That possible first couple cannot have been Homo sapiens.
Click to expand...
Again, if homo erectus are human beings (homo sapiens), than it is certainly possible.
The DI is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They have an agenda, and their agenda requires them to be ‘economical with the truth’.
Click to expand...
I think you need to set aside your evolutionary blinkers to see that the DI is not trying to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes as I have explained above. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Time can create anything as long as you have enough time. But if I left all the parts of a bicycle in a large pool of water for millions of years, it could not assemble itself. The other premise is that all animals began in the ocean, and for unknown reasons, migrated onto land. This can happen in fiction but in the real world? I think there is reason to doubt this scenario.
 
There are genetic mutations with each generation simply from the exchange of information between chromosome pairs as part of the process of meiosis. Press him on this, it makes no sense. Most defects in DNA replication are apparently corrected for by internal mechanisms. Glitches in the system are supposed to bring about the evolution part of the change we see in life forms. I have yet to see any explanation let alone evidence for this claim.

Scientists at the University of Aberdeen recently identified a gene responsible for club foot, thought to be a neuromuscular disease that affects the development of the foot. One of the scientists added, "Our hypothesis is that probably for most human club foot patients, it’s not just one gene that goes wrong, there are probably predisposed mutations in several genes in these pathways and they add up to eventually cause muscle weakness.“ So according to evolutionary theories we are to believe that as you get more stuff going wrong, and survives, it gets right. Sorry, but I don’t think so.
 
Last edited:
Just so that people are clear of my position. I am open to believe in evolution based on scientific facts. After all I think the Church allows it. But I have serious questions about it’s validity.

My major sticking points are
  1. Turning inorganic matter into organic matter
  2. Pace of evolution and speciation.
Previously I thought speciation has not been observed, until this E. coli news. But then I did the math and it doesn’t add up. Anyway I’m sincerely hoping to see the hard scientific facts to support evolution and as I mentioned it’s very hard to find information about this as most google sites just assume it is true.

For example I want to find out how many enzymes are different between chimpanzees and humans and I had a hard time finding the answer to that. Most websites just keep on mentioning there is 4% difference in the DNA.

So if you have something to teach me I do genuinely and sincerely want to learn about it.
 
I can’t make this up. The actual experts that defend the big bang religion with lots of degrees and titles agree that all the known laws of physics were broken during the and after the big bang. So we’re supposed to believe matter can’t create itself in the known universe but that very law wasn’t established from the onset. I can show a 1st grader a picture of a dog, a wolf, a coyote, a fox, and a tree and ask them which one is different and at age 6 they’ll get it correct every single time. To the evolutionist it all came from a rock that exploded and when you simplify the religion for them by saying they literally believe we all came from a rock that created itself they get offended (normally) or say you’re not intelligent enough to understand.

Homo Sapiens. The name is Latin for “wise man” and was created in 1758 by Carl Linnaeus

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

What is a fool?

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
 
Freedom of choice is not evil. When I choose faith rather than secularism, I make a choice for the better. Darwinism is a scientific theory. So you should free up your capacity of faith in God from getting bogged down by a scientific theory. Leave it to the scientists do deal with science.

Scripture is sacred. But it came in time. It was written (down) by human beings. We see the human characters of the authors of the Bible shining through its words. The evangelists lived in historical times. So did St. Paul, etc. Their personal views are not eternal, but bound by time.
 
For example I would LOVE to know how the system of vitamin b12 absorption is evolved. I mean nobody knows exactly but can someone at least just give a plausible explanation how this came to be?

It is such a complex system that I can’t even begin to imagine how this happened.
But again I’m happy to be corrected.

The analogy is that you have a pile of scrap metal and tornadoes pass through it. I’m being told that after a billions of tornadoes passing through it one day you will get a perfectly assembled aeroplane!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top