All of these, and others, are elements of current evolutionary theory. The “Modern Synthesis” was developed from about 1900 to 1920 as Mendelian genetics was incorporated into the then existing theory. Since that time Kimura’s Neutral theory, symbogenesis (as you mention), DNA sequencing and more have been incorporated.
Male and female is evidence for ID by a wise and loving Creator. Despite wishful speculation to the contrary of a purely random and naturalistic origin to humanity, male and female has been there since the beginning when Almighty God created Adam and Eve.
That is not true in the slightest.
I’m not aware of any French ancestry but as the French say “Vive la difference!”. The existence of male and female has made the human experience to be rich, better… and possible.
And male and female are not unique to humans.
Male and female He created them to subdue the earth. Design and purpose…
Most TE’s here will ignore this evidence…
stoplooklisten:
And male and female are not unique to humans.
Still don’t see how it’s relevant.
Interdependency is built into the earth’s ecological systems. Interdependency is built into the many systems of the human body (circulatory, respiratory, digestive, glandular, more). This cannot have happened blindly and incrementally. The reproductive system of the male is dependent upon the reproductive system of the female to reproduce. We have air to breath continuously. The earth provides food to eat and water to drink. Gravity doesn’t crush us. There are many provisions (as in nature) that sustain us. We have a Creator to love, serve, thank and obey. Science can’t see beyond death but the Bible says: “We must all appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ.”. If we can be humble, God can be merciful.
Then all hermaphrodite species and plants were not created by your “loving” God who arranged for male spiders to be eaten by the females? Erm… Don’t call us, we’ll call you.
Right, life has to support life, everything has to be in place at the same time for it to all work together.Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:
stoplooklisten:
And male and female are not unique to humans.
Still don’t see how it’s relevant.Interdependency is built into the earth’s ecological systems. Interdependency is built into the many systems of the human body (circulatory, respiratory, digestive, glandular, more). This cannot have happened blindly and incrementally.
??? You think Creationism is science?
Science is subjective - one man’s “evidence” is another man’s junk.
The neo-Darwinian version of the history of life on earth and its explanation of the process involved has not produced a single practical use. It is totally irelevant to “real science”.
… despite the fact that it can’t explain the fossil record. So much for “the best explanation” available - it fails the most fundamental test and falls at the first hurdle!!
… the understatement of the century.
The neo-Darwinist explanation for the history of life on earth has only one enemy - reality, in the form of scientific evidence.
Yes, Scripture does speak to this. Genesis is history and speaks with significant detail about the six days of Creation, the genealogies of Adam and Eve and their descendants, about the global flood at the time of Noah, about the origin of nations. For genealogies, see Genesis chapters 5, 10, 11. If Genesis chapters 1-11 were meant to be a spiritual/spiritualized description of events then it wouldn’t have included so much precise detail.
If necessary, I can provide multiple quotes to affirm six day creation from the Early Church Fathers with the specifics on the source of the quote. I could quote these Early Church Fathers: St. Ambrose, St. Archelaus, St, Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Basil, the Venerable Bede, St. Clement of Alexandria, more.
For what purpose? To confuse everyone and make people like you look completely non-credible and give religion a bad name to prospective believers?
So, you fall into the “I haven’t read Darwin because I know he was wrong” camp.
The first of these was used by Professor Behe to develop the idea of Irreducible Complexity. That had a small success in that it made an improvement to the then existing theory, which has now been incorporated.
All fish and tetrapod embryos have gill arches (not gills) at an early stage. In fish, those arches develop into jaws and gills, in tetrapods they develop into jaws and various structures in the neck and ear. See Branchial arches for details.