Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
We have had several go arounds with your examples.
Click to expand...
We have, and you still haven’t got it.
First off - that is all you got? This is the entire basis for macro-evolution. Just on that basis it is weak.
Click to expand...
You claimed that there was “not one whit” of evidence for macroevolution. All I have to do is to show one piece of evidence for macroevolution to show you wrong. In this case a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove your assertion. You are wrong on this one, buffalo.
Second - we have gone over speciation and loss of function once had so many times.
Click to expand...
What does loss of function have to do with macroevolution? There is no requirement for a gain in function in macroevolution, merely speciation. The new species may have a loss of function, the same function or a gain in function. Loss or gain of function is not relevant to whether or not macroevolution has happened. Functionality is a separate discussion.
 
buffalo said:
The evolutionist made the distinction between micro and macro.
Click to expand...
I will repeat myself. This:
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.[2] Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales.[3][4]
Click to expand...
Is not the distinction you are making it out to be because you are purposefully disregarding what was intended by the terms as originally conceived.
buffalo said:
In any case the most recent evidence is stronger for design everyday.

The evo’s are trying to save the modern synthesis with EES, that is self organization. The recent meeting at the Royal Society revealed the challenges within the community to keep it going.

I have detailed these in other threads.
Click to expand...
I have not participated in those other threads, but your assertions here are incorrect.
buffalo said:
Speciation is devolution. Things are broken and eventually on their way to extinction.
Click to expand...
Horse-hockey.
 
Allyson said:
There is more than sufficient evidence for evolution, which properly understood, makes no distinction between macro and micro. That distinction is a creationist shibboleth that was made to prop up an anti-intellectual stance by making ID sound scientific by sort of kind of accepting evolution.
Click to expand...
I took him to mean there were real-time examples of subspecies arising due to environmental pressures but no examples of a population with one number of chromosomes giving rise to another population that has a different number of chromosomes. The mechanism is presumed to exist and comparisons of species that seem closely related gives evidence of how it could happen, but he means the actual mechanism has not be demonstrated. There is no known set of environmental conditions that do that: no virus identified, no chemical agent that does it, etc. Obviously it is impossible to have what he would call macroevolution without it, hence why he says there is not evidence that it happens that way.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
The mechanism is presumed to exist and comparisons of species that seem closely related gives evidence of how it could happen, but he means the actual mechanism has not be demonstrated.
Click to expand...
Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, with one centromere and the remains of a second centromere, together with the remains of two telomeres adjoined in the middle. Corresponding genes are in the expected positions on the fused chromosome.
 
buffalo said:
There isn’t.

Speciation is devolution. Things are broken and eventually on their way to extinction.
Click to expand...
You are redefining words to suit yourself. That is a Humpty Dumpty argument. Can I ‘prove’ that Christianity does not exist by calling it “Jesusianity” instead?

Macroevolution has a standard scientific definition, and evidence for it exists.
 
PetraG said:
I took him to mean there were real-time examples of subspecies arising due to environmental pressures but no examples of a population with one number of chromosomes giving rise to another population that has a different number of chromosomes. The mechanism is presumed to exist and comparisons of species that seem closely related gives evidence of how it could happen, but he means the actual mechanism has not be demonstrated. There is no known set of environmental conditions that do that: no virus identified, no chemical agent that does it, etc. Obviously it is impossible to have what he would call macroevolution without it, hence why he says there is not evidence that it happens that way.
Click to expand...
I understood that he meant this, but he is incorrect.

See: Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn’t mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn’t prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.
Click to expand...
I just learned this by googling for “observed examples of speciation.”
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Freddy:
It’s not an ad hominem, Buff. It’s a heads up.
Click to expand...
Do not judge buffalo’s posts on their merit, judge them on the fact he is an ID proponent. Nice…
Click to expand...
Your posts need to be read through the lens of your fundamentalism. You never debate. You simply push a particular view. That of creationism.

Did you ever get to tell us how old you think the earth is? It’s a waste of time discussing celestial mechanics with someone who thinks the world is flat. It is equally a waste of everyone’s time discussing matters that encompass time periods of millions of years with someone who thinks the planet is only thousands of years old.

Be honest with your beliefs and you’ll have them treated with the respect they deserve.
 
Allyson said:
I just learned this by googling for “observed examples of speciation.”
Click to expand...
I don’t think he counts that, because it is plants, but I would. On the other hand, the Catholic Church does not bar the possibility of evolution having occurred, so this isn’t a debate I watch with bated breath.
Allyson said:
All of the evidence shows (as common sense would suggest), that at no point have we ever been descended from just two fully human bodies.
Click to expand...
Well…Genesis says “The man gave his wife the name “Eve,” because she was the mother of all the living.” It doesn’t say she is the only mother of all the living. That passage occurs before Cain or Abel were born.

The thing is, the Good News puts these words into the mouth of John the Baptist: “And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.” (Matt 3:9) If Our Lord told us to baptize everybody, it must be because everyone needs baptizing. Everybody needs saving, everybody is affected by the sin of Adam and Eve. That is all I need to know. I don’t need a biology dissertation to look into it.

I believe that the assertion of the geneology experts is that everyone of European ancestry is related to Charlemagne. There are no “pure” bloodlines anywhere. Well, that puts anybody who left a living lineage thousands of years ago in the bag, I’d think. So yes, we’re all descended from Adam and Eve, and countless other couples, too.
 
Last edited:
Modeling shows Adam and Eve with designed genetic diversity is more in line with actual observations than evo theory.
 
PetraG said:
I don’t think he counts that, because it is plants,
Click to expand...
I do not argue speciation does not happen. I argue it is not macro-evolution. I argue the offspring are degenerating and on their way to extinction.
 
buffalo said:
I do not argue speciation does not happen. I argue it is not macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
Then you are basing your argument on an error. Macroevolution is, by definition, speciation. Macroevolution is the formation of a new species.

You do not get to redefine existing words to suit your own personal ideas.
 
Dr John Sanford gene gun inventor - ‘’

“the reality is everybody is mutant”​

“the selection process really has nothing to grab hold of”​

“so it’s kind of a trade secret amongst population geneticists,any well informed population geneticist understands man is degenerating”​

“so in deep geological time we should have been extinct a long time ago”​

“the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation”​

Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Speciation is lineage splitting over and over again. Eventually the splits lose their ability to reproduce with each other . In addition the mutational load increases.
Click to expand...
Even if 99.999% of the time it doesn’t work, that 0.001% combination that gets the lucky DNA ticket does have an opportunity to exploit an available niche that isn’t being exploited. It isn’t as if the DNA “knows” how many times it has been split. It is just that with more splits the odds of a failure go up.

'Tis dangerous to take a cold, to sleep, to drink; but I tell you, my lord fool, out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. Hotspur, Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3

So yes, it isn’t a gamble you’d take if you were choosing gambles. The question is whether it ever pays off. If it ever pays off to undergo the kind of genome changes that could lead to a new species, then it is a mechanism. That the change is usually fatal isn’t necessarily any problem to the theory unless the change is always fatal. Actually, if it were a common thing, it would almost certainly not be the mechanism, since new species with a different number of chromosomes are not common occurences. They’re really rare, if the fossil record is any indication.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Modeling shows Adam and Eve with designed genetic diversity is more in line with actual observations than evo theory.
Click to expand...
My research director used to say you can model the wrinkles on an elephant’s backside, if you want to. That something can be modeled doesn’t make it the truth; it only puts it in the realm of possibility.

Nobody’s model put the 199th pick of the 2000 draft as a player who’d not only last 20 years in the league but also start at quarterback in nine Super Bowls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top