|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4627 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Since 'Macro-Evolution' one critter becoming another critter has never happened you and others here have cast the term 'Macro-Evolution' in the trash can. How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves? I am different from both my parents, so does that qualify me as a different critter?
On the other hand I am supposed to believe that in the last 3 or 4 million years apes, chimps, and humans have evolved from a single life form. Chimps are apes. Humans are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. It is just apes turning into apes. This is microevolution, right?
The problem is they were just 330 different species of foraminifera. Not one critter that was a totally different critter produced in that 66 million year period. 330 different species = 330 different critters, does it not? If they were all the same critter then how could there be 330 different species?
This statement says that all those little microevolution events reaching back to a common ancestor has not been validated or invalidated yet. A common ancestor between humans and chimps has been validated: "Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."Just a moment... Humans and chimps share thousands of these retroviral insertions at the same spot in their genomes. Therefore, common ancestry between humans and chimps has been validated. Add to that the fossil hominids being discussed in this thread. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves? Just a different species of the same critter.
Taq writes: Chimps are apes. Humans are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. It is just apes turning into apes. This is microevolution, right? You may be an ape, I don't know but I have never met one that could type. I am a modern human, descendant of mankind that was created in the image/likeness of God posessing a body, spirit and mind.
Taq writes: 330 different species = 330 different critters, does it not? If they were all the same critter then how could there be 330 different species? All 330 different species is classified as the same critter, a foraminifera.
Taq writes: A common ancestor between humans and chimps has been validated: So says Taq. The article you refferenced makes no such claim. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You may be an ape, I don't know but I have never met one that could type. I am a modern human, descendant of mankind that was created in the image/likeness of God posessing a body, spirit and mind. You, I, every other poster on this site and every other human living or dead is an ape.
ICANT writes: Taq writes:
Just a different species of the same critter. How do you determine if one critter has become another critter? What are the criteria you are using? Isn't a chihuahua a different critter than wolves? So then what is a fox? Is that the same critter as a wolf? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Just a different species of the same critter. Based on what criteria?
All 330 different species is classified as the same critter, a foraminifera. Humans and chimps are classified as the same critter, an ape. Humans and bears are classified as the same critter, a mammal. Humans and fish are classified as the same critter, a vertebrate. Humans and amoeba are classified as the same critter, a eukaryote. So is this the extent of your criteria, the ability to describe two species with the same word?
So says Taq. The article you refferenced makes no such claim. "Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."Just a moment... The paper goes on to show that humans and other apes do share the same ERV's at the same locations in their genomes which validates shared ancestry. And I still have not seen any creationist explanation as to why we see the emergence of modern human features over time in the hominid fossil record. Anyone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: Based on what criteria? They can produce offspring that can produce offspring.
Taq writes: The paper goes on to show that humans and other apes do share the same ERV's at the same locations in their genomes which validates shared ancestry. Since chimps and gorillas share ERV'S that humans don't that invalidates a common ancestor. I think HERV-K serves that purpose. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
They can produce offspring that can produce offspring. So how did you determine that the 330 species of foraminifera were interfertile? Also, can you actually show me the offspring of a chihuahua and wolf? Does such a critter exist? How would that work, exactly?
Since chimps and gorillas share ERV'S that humans don't that invalidates a common ancestor. I think HERV-K serves that purpose. I am only aware of about 2 ERV's that are shared by chimps and gorillas that are not shared by humans. This is 2 out of thousands, a number that would be expected from incomplete fixation of the rare ERV in one lineage. The overwhelming signal is common ancestry and the expected nested hierarchy. This also follows through for overal ERV divergence and LTR divergence, the two other phylogenetic signals seen in ERV's. And I still have not seen a creationist explanation for the pattern of homology in the hominid fossil record. Why is it that we see the emergence of modern human features through time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
Mu understanding is there is only 7 ERV's shared in all primates and that is also out of thousands mentioned here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Mu understanding is there is only 7 ERV's shared in all primates and that is also out of thousands mentioned here. Such ERV's would probably need to be under positive selection to keep from being mutated beyond recognition since integration in the common ancestor of all primates (ca 35 million years if memory serves). For all apes we have a much more recent common ancestor (ca 10 million years).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Taq, having fun with a brick wall?
ICANT wants to see evidence that foraminifera evolved into something like a snail ... ignoring that forams are single cell while snails are not. I've yet to see his explanation why convergent evolution doesn't fill his criteria of "something like" another species.
I am only aware of about 2 ERV's that are shared by chimps and gorillas that are not shared by humans. This is 2 out of thousands, a number that would be expected from incomplete fixation of the rare ERV in one lineage You could also look to see if the loci for the anomalous ERVs shows evidence of subsequent mutation in the human lineage, thus eradicating the evidence in our lineage while not affecting it in the chimp and gorilla lineages. Given that we are talking 1 or 2 ERVs out of several thousands, with the rate of mutations, plus the millions of years since the human\chimp\gorilla split, it would seem to be very reasonable to expect such subsequent mutations to happen. Certainly one would expect old ERVs to be lost at some point, as mutation\evolution is not just additive. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
ICANTREADENGLISHEITHER writes: arachnophilia writes: no, according to the bible. man is made on day day 6. do i need to cite the verse? Yes, specifically the one that uses עשה with the beginning of man to exist. sure!
quote: you see the עשה don't you?
Could you please point out the verse that שבת appears in prior to Exodus 16:23 sure!
quote: when the Sabbath was first instituted and observed. sure! same as above.
So asserts arachnophilia. and orlinsky. and rashi. and pretty much anyone that can read hebrew.
I can't help it if your sources ignore the rules concerning Biblical Hebrew to support their personal beliefs. rashi! that's a good one. tell you what, why don't you actually learn some biblical hebrew before you make that charge.
So you prefer what some man says rather than what the text says. er, no. i prefer to understand what the text means rather than creating a jumble of words that amount to nonsense. if i want to read what the text literally says, it's easy enough to go grab a hebrew copy. if i want to know what it means, i have to understand the idioms. and the grammar. literally rendering the words into another language often does not translate meaning. here's from the wikipedia article on idioms -- i think it provides a sufficient example.
quote: I think I can tell the difference in Hebrew and English. i'm not convinced that you can.
Could you explain how the verb ברא which is the Qal perfect which is completed action can become imperfect which means continuing action. and this is what i mean. hebrew grammar is not english grammar. it doesn't have present and past tense -- the verb is perfect (and yes, even complete, though this is not the same as past tense), but there is no grammatically correct way to portray this in english, on the level of the individual word. instead, the verb in english is "began creating", which, btw, is a (past) perfect construct. hebrew (even modern) does not distinguish between past and present perfect.
What does infinitive and gerunds have to do with a preposition placed on a noun turning it into a verb in Biblical Hebrew? again, you cannot render the grammar perfectly literally in english and retain meaning. "at first of created god" doesn't make much sense in english. yet, bareshit bara elohim makes perfect sense in hebrew.
To get your interpertation of "when god began creating the heaven and the earth" you have to change the perfect verb into an imperfect verb. How do you acomplish that feat? "created" and "creating" are simple past participles. "began creating" is past perfect. but thanks for playing.
Trying to support one idiomatic translation with another idiomatic translation is not going to get you any points with me. that's funny. please note that i only suggested a translation. you are free to read the verse i actually posted all on your own. here it is again:
quote: since you can't actually read any hebrew, here's the horribly literal, word-for-word nonsense you prefer.
quote: that's a lot of waws. and this verse clearly includes both כי (as/because/when, beginning a dependent clause), but also החל (begin/began)* -- and every phrase that follows it begins with a vav. * not, btw, חלל as you wrote in Message 62, which means something like "heresy".
Definitely seems to me that the story in Genesis chapter one is being resumed later in Genesis 2:4. That may not be what was intended but it is what was stated. that's fine. but it's clearly comparing the two stories, and drawing a parallel. this is not the same as conflating the two stories.
Yes I know "in the day" is literal. God gave the definition of day. but the days in genesis 1 aren't? you just apply your standards wherever you see fit, don't you? how ludicrous. ביום is a classic biblical idiom. just anywhere else it's used. for instance, numbers 3:
quote: yet, as we know from exodus, moshe was on the mountain for forty days.
So I will take God's definition of what Day is over anything you want to say or anyone else as He is responsible for Day existing. if you're going to be that idiotically literally, then these two contradict:
God called a light period Day. God called a light period and a dark period Day. either there are multiple usages, or there aren't. you can't argue both.
Any light period from Genesis 1:1 until today is a literal day. i agree. however, not every time the word "day" is used do the authors mean a period of light. sometimes, they mean a period of dark as well. sometimes, they mean something quite different:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT
Doing well hope you are also doing well. I've been better, and I've been worse. Plus ca change plus ce le meme chose
There are very few places that mentions transmutation at all but the three gentlemen in his article did refer to transmutation which was the belief at that time is what was required to produce a different critter from an existing critter. Ah, so we are going back to the time when Darwin was writing "Origin of Species" to find mention of transmutation, not any current biology texts, and you'd rather use something that was over 150 years than modern biology.
Since 'Macro-Evolution' one critter becoming another critter has never happened you and others here have cast the term 'Macro-Evolution' in the trash can. Ah, not quite: that is not what 'Macro-Evolution' means in the science of evolutionary biology, instead this how creationists try to misuse the term.
My definition of 'Macro-Evolution' = evolution above the level of species. From Berkeley Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
Do you disagree with Berkeley? I don't disagree with Berkeley, I disagree with the way you interpret what Berkeley says. This is confirmation bias on your part, not careful reading to arrive at understanding. Berkeley goes on to say that macro-evolution is the formation of nested hierarchies by speciation and descent from common ancestors; instead of looking at the specific evolution within species (micro-evolution) you look at the effects of such evolution on speciation, the formation of nested hierarchies and descent from common ancestors. Berkeley does NOT say that some other kind of evolution occurs, no matter how much you try to interpret it this way. An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: Small scale evolution: Defining microevolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: It is looking at the tree rather than the forest, to use another analogy. Speciation, the dividing line: Defining speciation - Understanding Evolution
quote: Large scale evolution: Macroevolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: We look at the growth of a forest from a single tree, seeds from the tree grow into new trees, and this process continues until the forest is formed. Speciation is the seed that allows a new tree to grow. What is macroevolution? - Understanding Evolution
quote: It is looking at the forest rather than the tree. Each tree in the forest is a record of the evolution within the clade represented by the tree ...
quote: ... and the forest does not grow by a mechanism new and separate from the growth of the individual trees, that each grow from seeds from other trees. Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection are processes of microevolution. Once speciation has occurred, the seed is planted for increased diversity as the two branches grow apart from their common ancestors and each other as each generation passes, producing seeds of their own that go on to grow into new trees, new clades of species.
The problem is there is no direct visible evidence that one critter has become a different critter. One critter becoming another critter would be necessary for all life forms to begin to exist from one life form. We have a 66 million year history of foraminifera presented by Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) in which there was 330 species of foraminifera began to exist. The problem is they were just 330 different species of foraminifera. Not one critter that was a totally different critter produced in that 66 million year period. This is you equivocating on what is a "different critter" rather than a true statement about the evolution of foraminifera. The 330 species are different critters within the lexicon of evolutionary biology - they are different species. Curiously, in evolutionary biology, being different species is sufficient to be different critters. Not only are there 330 different critter species observed in the paper by Arnold and Parker, there are many more species within the order, including multiple taxonomic classes between the order foraminifera and the individual species. Foraminifera - Wikipedia
quote: Within each order there are superfamilies, within the superfamilies there are families, within the families there are genera, and within the genera there are species. Species from one genera within one family that is part of one superfamily are indeed "different critters" from the species from another genera within another family that is part of another superfamily, even though they are all part of the order of foraminifera --- just as you are a "different critter" from a ring-tailed lemur (which is also a member of the primate order) --unless you want to say that humans and lemurs are still just primates, that evolution has not produced a critter in the last 66 million years that was a totally different critter in the primate order .... Fossil Record of Foraminifera
quote: Do those all look like the same critter to you? Do some look similar to snails? FORAM FACTS - OR AN INTRODUCTION TO FORAMINIFERA
quote: You once said that you would be impressed if forams evolved into something like a snail, something that is a bottom dwelling shell enclosed type of critter that use their pseudopodia to catch food and for locomotion ... do you change your name to RECANT? or do we see continued equivocation? Or is your standard of a "totally different critter" unrealistic, as evolution does not create "totally different critters" by speciation, but by continued evolution of daughter populations after speciation, including further speciation events. Do you consider yourself a "totally different critter" from Pelycodus ralstoni? Why? Pelycodus evolution Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : dbcode by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes: you see the עשה don't you? Sure I see make in verse 26 but I don't see a man or mankind existing. I don't see mankind until they are ברא created male and female in verse 27. There is no specific number of mankind created, there could have been many.
arachnophilia writes: sure! same as above. I didn't know God needed a day of atonement.
arachnophilia writes: and orlinsky. and rashi. and pretty much anyone that can read hebrew. Others that disagree with you would include, Driver, Briggs, Brown, Dillman, Pusey, Delitzsch, Dillman, among others.
arachnophilia writes: i prefer to understand what the text means rather than creating a jumble of words that amount to nonsense. Then explain how the following is a mess.
בראשית רא אלהים ברא את השמים ואת האדץ בראשית a femine noun which is the Hebrew word meaning first, beginning, best, chief, with the preposition ב meaning in, on, with, by and we can even add your at?The proper translation of that word and the preposition would be, In beginning, At beginning, At first ברא is a Qal perfect verb that is only used with God as the subject of the verb and means to create, shape, form? Biblical Hebrew does not have past, present, or future tenses. Biblical Hebrew verbs are either prefect which is completed action or imperfect which is incomplete action.
אלהיםmasculine noun plural, meaning God the subject of the verb ברא? Translated God
את particle, sign of the definite direct object not translated in English.
השמים masculine noun meaning Heaven sky, with the prefix ה the definite article thus translated the Heaven?
ואת particle, sign of the definite direct object not translated in English. With the prefix ו translated and.
האדץ femine noun meaning land, Earth with the prefix ה the definite article thus translated the Earth? In the Beginning, at the beginning, or at first tells us when God did the forming, shaping or creating. I know you want בראשית to be translated as when began God to create. That is impossible as the verb ברא is Qal perfect telling us the action of God was completed. The Heaven and Earth existed. Now you can make your attacks and tell me I don't know what I am talking about that I can't read Hebrew and don't understand English. I would probably agree with you. But I do know the rules of Biblical Hebrew and I know that you can not make a Qal perfect verb an imperfect verb. Therefore I will conclude you are mistaken when you try to take modern English and modern Hebrew and apply their rules to Biblical Hebrew.
acrahnophilia writes: again, you cannot render the grammar perfectly literally in english and retain meaning. "at first of created god" doesn't make much sense in english. yet, bareshit bara elohim makes perfect sense in hebrew. And when bareshit bara elohim is translated properly it makes perfect sense. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. At the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. At first God created the Heaven and the Earth. I have no problem understanding from any one of the three that in eternity past God created the Heaven and the Earth. You and I just don't agree on when that was. But then no one else agrees with me so what is one more.
arachnophilia writes: that's a lot of waws. and this verse clearly includes both You did mean verses didn't you as that is two verses.
arachnophilia writes: i agree. however, not every time the word "day" is used do the authors mean a period of light. sometimes, they mean a period of dark as well. sometimes, they mean something quite different: So you accept that God called the light יןם. Do you disagree that God called the חשש night. Do you disagree that God called the evening (end of a light period) and the morning (the end of a dark period) יןם. Here is Genesis 1:5 to refresh your memory.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So God called a light period day. God called a light period combined with a dark period day. God did not call anything else day and that settles it as far as I am concerned. God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : Insert code for Hebrew word in a quote "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi RAZD,
Sorry the problems presist.
RAZD writes: Speciation is the seed that allows a new tree to grow.
It is not a new tree if it comes from the seed of a tree.
RAZD writes: It is looking at the forest rather than the tree. Each tree in the forest is a record of the evolution within the clade represented by the tree ... Using trees in a forest is not a good example of what you are trying to explain to me. If you want to explain how all those little changes in a critter can produce a competely different critter you probably wasting your time as there is not enough variation in the critters we have to look at to convince me.
RAZD writes: Not only are there 330 different critter species observed in the paper by Arnold and Parker, there are many more species within the order There are probably millions of species of foraminifera that have lived in the past and that we have burned in our automobiles. But if you got 330 different species of foraminifera you still only got one critter. Now when you back off and look at life and you see a foraminifera and a horse you got two different critters. And you are trying to convince me they decended from the same life form. I don't think so.
RAZD writes: that evolution has not produced a critter in the last 66 million years that was a totally different critter in the primate order .... But modern humans have only existed for 6 to 10 thousand years.
RAZD writes: Do you consider yourself a "totally different critter" from Pelycodus ralstoni? Why? Yes I am a totally different critter as I am a descendant of modern humans that was created in the image/likeness of God. I have faith that in the future the prediction of the Bible that I will stand before God and give an account of my life will be validated which will then validate all other beliefs I have held. Just like you have faith that in the future there will be evidence that will validate the prediction of the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population. God Bless, as I remember you always in my prayers. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
How does creationism explain these? (Click on the picture for a nice big view of these skulls.)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Yes I am a totally different critter as I am a descendant of modern humans that was created in the image/likeness of God.
Which of the fossils in the post above are different critters from humans, and what criteria are you using?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024