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.
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
Tell us how you think we came to be where we are now.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered at least three times in the last 100 or so posts…
Click to expand...
You’ve made about 14 or 15 posts in the last 100 or so, and all we have from you from within those posts is:

‘As to an alternate theory, there is none’.

There is literally nothing else you have offered. But surely you must have something. This didn’t all happen last Tuesday. What is your explanation?

‘I believe that the variety of life we see around us has reached this point in time by the following process: XXX’

Just fill in the X’s. Why is this so difficult? And as I said a few posts upstream, it needn’t be scientific. Just tell us what you believe…
 
Last edited:
How about a theory that parallels the theory your hero proposes for the origins of life:
“The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing -is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Click to expand...
Or his more recent speculation: alien implantation.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Please get back on your meds.
 
Buzzard3 said:
Scientifically speaking, you have a point … But when you throw a Creator into the mix, scientific theories become irrelevant.
Click to expand...
That depends on where you are “throwing” the creator in, yes? If Christians want to say that God was the initial giver of the process of evolution, I have no argument or problem. I actually don’t have a problem with God directing the random mutations as long as everyone admits that He made them look totally random so we can’t tell the difference and there is no way currently to determine random from supernatural.

If God made humans special, it sure would have been nice if He had used unique material for humans that are not used by every other creature so we could actually give credit where credit is due. But God has evolution looking exactly like a natural process throughout and whatever He did, wherever He did it sure looks exactly like Him not doing anything detectable.
 
Pattylt said:
I actually don’t have a problem with God directing the random mutations as long as everyone admits that He made them look totally random so we can’t tell the difference and there is no way currently to determine random from supernatural.
Click to expand...
You deny cell directed mutations?
 
rossum said:
The human eye is very similar to the chimpanzee eye. We inherited our eyes from our common ancestor with the chimps. We do have a few minor differences – chimps do not have blue eyes – but we have the same basic eye as our ancestors.
Click to expand...
Homology per chemistry: the state of having the same or similar relation, relative position, or structure.
“many proteins show homology across their whole length”
Click to expand...
Homology per biology: In biology, homology is similarity due to shared ancestry between a pair of structures or genes in different taxa.
Click to expand...
The definition of homology per biology makes assumptions and shows the bias of its presumptions.

Similarity in position or structure does not a common or shared ancestor make.
 
Pattylt said:
If God made humans special, it sure would have been nice if He had used unique material for humans that are not used by every other creature so we could actually give credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...
What is the material (matter) difference between any living creature and that same creature immediately upon its death? Nada.

The matter did not change in any significant way (absent death by severe trauma) but the creature’s form did. Matter and form are both necessary causes to a substance. Form explains what makes substances one thing rather than another.

The dead creature lost its previous form (soul); a property identified by a Aristotle (a quite irreligious fellow). The form is rationally necessary but beyond sense perception so beyond strictly scientific inquiry as understood today. Fortunately, our earliest scientists did not reject metaphysics as proper to a well-rounded scientific inquiry.
 
Last edited:
stoplooklisten said:
Similarity in position or structure does not a common or shared ancestor make.
Click to expand...
Similarity in position and/or structure is evidence for shared ancestry. Or are you telling us that all those DNA paternity tests the courts use are not really evidence of paternity?
 
o_mlly said:
What is the material (matter) difference between any living creature and that same creature immediately upon its death?
Click to expand...
A large reduction in the electrical activity in its nervous system and brain. A little activity in peripheral nerves may continue for a short time, but activity in the central nervous system ceases almost instantly.

You need to study biology mare closely.
 
rossum said:
A large reduction in the electrical activity in its nervous system and brain. A little activity in peripheral nerves may continue for a short time, but activity in the central nervous system ceases almost instantly.
Click to expand...
Activity is not matter. You need to be more logical.
 
o_mlly said:
How about a theory…
Click to expand...
We don’t want someone else’s. We’d like to know what yours is.

Could you tell us? ‘It didn’t happen the way you describe because it happened like this…’

Just fill in the ellipses. It can’t be hard, surely. Your quote mined from the last hundred or so posts cannot be the only answer - that there is no alternative (there was nothing else in the way of explanation so what on earth were you referring to when you said you’d responded?). That’s obviously a nonsensical response in any case.

So…what is it?
 
o_mlly said:
Activity is not matter. You need to be more logical.
Click to expand...
Electrical activity is electrons moving. Electrons are matter. You need to check on the science before posting. You make a lot of errors, which get in the way of getting your point across.
 
rossum said:
40.png
stoplooklisten:
Similarity in position or structure does not a common or shared ancestor make.
Click to expand...
Similarity in position and/or structure is evidence for shared ancestry. Or are you telling us that all those DNA paternity tests the courts use are not really evidence of paternity?
Click to expand...
Similarity in position and/or structure could be “evidence” for something being shared but it may not be a shared ancestor. It could be a shared Intelligent Designer. :-). There’s been no scientific observations of chimps being transformed into humans (and I don’t expect that there will be). This conjecture about shared ancestry can be presumed but it cannot be observed.

Biology’s current definition of homology assumes that similar physical features indicate shared ancestry but the comparisons are imprecise and wrong assumptions can easily be made.

The chromosome pair count is different in chimpanzees than in humans. It’s 24 pairs for the chimps and 23 pairs for the humans. So a DNA paternity test to compare a human male to a human child is going to find more similarity than a test comparing chimp / human genes. Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes vs 46 chromosomes for humans but that doesn’t make the chimpanzees to be superior. The genes are structured differently and the similarities are only partial.
 
Last edited:
stoplooklisten said:
There’s been no scientific observations of chimps being transformed into humans (and I don’t expect that there will be).
Click to expand...
There will not be, because chimpanzees are not our ancestors.
stoplooklisten said:
Biology’s current definition of homology assumes that similar physical features indicate shared ancestry but the comparisons are imprecise and wrong assumptions can easily be made.
Click to expand...
No, DNA and physical features point to common ancestry.
Buzzard3 said:
If you do that, I’m going to tell my mother, and then you will be in BIG trouble!
Click to expand...
Very funny. Now tell us your theory.
 
Going back to fossils and the geologic record, please consider that the rock layers may not provide a record of everything that lived at a point in time but only provides a record of what happened to have been preserved. Most carcasses of living beings will rot and decay quickly (or be eaten) and are never preserved as fossils. Preservation requires special conditions such as the rapid water-borne transport and rapid sedimentation that will often happen during a storm and flood.
 
Last edited:
Your theory for the reason that life is so diverse now, and the evidence that supports it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top