Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Buzzard3 said:
It took human beings 400,000 years to invent a simple raft and the wheel and writing - Darwinist folklore is a riot … so funny!
Click to expand...
Rafts and wheels are wood, which is unlikely to survive well for 400,000 years.

Early writing generally falls into two categories: accounting or kings boasting. Both of those require towns, cities and social organisation. In those days most common stories were memorised, not written. Homer and the Rig Veda were not written down until long after their composition.
 
PickyPicky said:
Yep, there you go again. Ho ho ho. Thank goodness you don’t bamboozle us folklorists with anything like reason or facts.
Click to expand...
There to go again - whinging that I’ve pointed out a very obvious flaw in your Darwinist folklore. You can’t explain why it took H. sapiens 400,000 years to invent a simple raft, a wheel and writing, so you resort to vacuous whinging.
 
Buzzard3 said:
You can’t explain why it took H. sapiens 400,000 years to invent a simple raft, a wheel and writing,
Click to expand...
We have. Many times. Can you please recognize that we’ve done what you’ve asked, instead of ignoring us constantly? If you don’t like our explanation, can you at least tell us why?
 
Last edited:
Buzzard3 said:
So, human beings were hunter-gatherers for 400,000 years, then suddenly they weren’t?
Click to expand...
Some people think pastoralism developed from hunting/gathering; some that agriculture preceded pastoralism.
 
PickyPicky said:
Some people think pastoralism developed from hunting/gathering; some that agriculture preceded pastoralism.
Click to expand...
Either way, the answer is pretty much a yes. At some point, people figured out a reliable way to cultivate crops for food and shifted from nomads to settled peoples. Evidence suggests that this change occurred in the Fertile Crescent, an area well-prepared for a flourishing population of wild animals and humans at the end of the last ice age.
 
Last edited:
I’d suggest that it was ‘trade/commerce’ that really made the difference.
 
The validity of the new species claim for tragopogon miscellus Tm hinges on the aforementioned all too elastic definition of “species”. Is Tm a new species or an adaptation (microevolution) to a changing environment, i.e., elevation changes or Europe to North America?

Tm self-pollinates. Does it also pollinate with its parents? If so then Tm is not a new biological species in either event. Are the parent plants of Tm really different species? Since they successfully reproduce in nature and in the lab, is their species designation only morphological?

Until the scientific community solidifies the “species” concept from the manifold – typological (morphological), biological, evolutionary, ecological, cladistic/phylogenetic – to a single concept, the designation does not have much meaning.
 
Last edited:
NSmith said:
we don’t share 95% genetic material with chimps, recent estimates place the number at nearer to 80% (chimps have 18 chromosomes and humans have 23, for one thing). In any case, it wouldn’t matter overly much, because small changes in DNA result in massively significant changes in biochemistry.
Click to expand...
So much scientific information bets thrown around in these discussions that I rarely look into most of it. This intrigued me enough for me to look at it.

Wilipedia has an article on The Chimpanzee Genome Project. It does not give % difference between chimpanzee and humans, though it suggests about 5% difference between a random human and random chimpanzee.

Chromosome count is the interesting one. The Great Apes all have 24 chromosomes, while humans have 23. The difference is in the human chromosome 2, which looks like a combination of two ape chromosomes. The genome projects have identified several genes in the area between the analogs of ape chromosomes on human chromosome 2, none of which look particularly important.

Genomic changes happen in different ways. Merging chromosomes, as described for human chromosome 2, is one kind of change. Another kind is the duplication, creating more or fewer copies of genes or a part of genes. Less common are “point mutations” where the sequence is altered at a single point of the dna. These can happen without any impact, or with enormous changes.

Apes may have a gene that protects them from Alzheimers. Humans have some different genes affecting hearing, possibly related to our use of spoken language. We really do not know the significance of most of the differences.

As @NSmith said, none of this is particularly important, just a fascinating little distraction.
 
Buzzard3 said:
40.png
PickyPicky:
If I remember aright, @Buzzard3 is not a YEC. Just thinks humanity cannot have spent many thousands of years not discovering America, not inventing writing, etc.
Click to expand...
Surely only a Darwinist would not find it curious that, if H. sapiens have existed for 400, 000 years, they invented rafts, writing, metallurgy and the wheel only in the last 10, 000 years.

According to Darwinist folklore, for almost 400, 000 years we were complete morons, then suddenly in about the last 15,000 years we suddenly become brainy and started inventing all sorts of clever things!
Click to expand...
They had to wait a while for the right environmental pressure to come along and kick the creativity gene into gear. :roll_eyes:
 
Buzzard3 said:
So, human beings were hunter-gatherers for 400,000 years, then suddenly they weren’t?
Click to expand...
Exactly right. 400,000 years ago the earth was flat, as the Bible says. They had to wait until it had bent into a sphere before they needed to invent boats so they could sail to Australia. 😃
 
Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Do not change the subject to something I don’t support, please.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
How could abiogenesis happen without God?
Click to expand...
It cannot happen with God. If God is alive, then the origin of life is the same as the origin of God. Since God does not have an origin then life does not have an origin.

God cannot create the first life since He Himself is both alive and uncreated.

All you have is one living thing making other living things, and that is very common.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top