Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolutionary chain
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 31 of 204 (256976)
11-04-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Christian
11-03-2005 6:37 PM


This is not on topic here. Do not respond.

christian writes:
1) The Bible geneologies are fictitious.
Highly unlikely since the people back then knew who their relatives were and if the geneologies were fictitious, people would've had something to say about it. However this has very little to do with the topic.
Hmmmn. Are you seriously suggesting that the Bible genealogies are reliable?
Here is a quote from the King James bible, Chronicles 2, chapter 24, verse 20:
bible writes:
Then the Spirit of God took possession of Zechari'ah the son of Jehoi'ada the priest
and from Matthew chapter 23, verse 35:
bible writes:
that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
And a lot more where that came from (but as you say, perhaps for another post)! DNA kind of helps sort out these conflicts....
Mick
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-04-2005 11:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:37 PM Christian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by AdminNosy, posted 11-04-2005 11:37 PM mick has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 32 of 204 (256982)
11-04-2005 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mick
11-04-2005 9:37 PM


T o p i c !
The Biblical geneologies are NOT on topic here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 9:37 PM mick has not replied

  
today9823 
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 204 (257000)
11-05-2005 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by AdminNosy
11-04-2005 9:36 AM


in fact this is top level biology
you see our soul gives life to the body and the fact that we each have different creation power and the fact that the eyeball is there is because creation power! uuuuhhhhh where did we get that from?! From God himself and I'm right on the target on that one!
Love Richard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AdminNosy, posted 11-04-2005 9:36 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
today9823 
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 204 (257003)
11-05-2005 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by mick
11-04-2005 9:10 PM


we can change by our creation power
of course we have the ability to change our lives... that is not the issue but rather we have a maximum of the power it takes to change that body of ours
a power to change from their current body
building a new body by soul cells and thought is definitely a creation along with your words... NO explore your insides doing these things... think...say...(do again and concentrate on your insides
Love Richard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 9:10 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by AdminNosy, posted 11-05-2005 8:19 AM today9823 has not replied
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 11-05-2005 12:06 PM today9823 has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 35 of 204 (257004)
11-05-2005 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by mick
11-04-2005 9:10 PM


Mick,
I really like your example, I would love a good ref for your picture. I think it answers many creo arguments. I am an invertebrate zoologist, and find that my examples get snowed over by ignorance. The loss of a head (as in front where a brain might be) was lost in rostroconchs and their descendants the bivalved mollusks and scaphopods is viewed as 'changes within a kind'.
As an aside, I like your avatar and was wondering where it came from. It is Pandalus platyceros, P. borealis, P. hypsinotus, another P. borealis, and P. goniurus. Definatley an E Pacific group. (I am a caridean shrimp biologist in Alaska).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 9:10 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 8:55 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 36 of 204 (257021)
11-05-2005 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by today9823
11-05-2005 6:15 AM


Last warning from me
Ok, today, last warning from me (others may react more quickly).
On more wild spam of a post that is not to do with the topic and you are going to be suspended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by today9823, posted 11-05-2005 6:15 AM today9823 has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 37 of 204 (257034)
11-05-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by mick
11-04-2005 9:10 PM


Re: Mick's diagram in message 30
The diagram had me a bit confused at first - I guess I was looking at it geologically, with the progression being bottom (oldest) to top (youngest). I just want to clarifiy that the progression is from upper left to lower right.
I haven't been following this topic real closely, but your diagram (IMO) is still a tree. I guess you could call it a branching chain.
Would it be accurate to say that the various line junctions would represent the proverbial "missing links" (no chain pun intended)? A common ancestor to the species that came later?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 9:10 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 6:44 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 38 of 204 (257056)
11-05-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by today9823
11-05-2005 6:15 AM


Re: we can change by our creation power
9823 writes:
building a new body by soul cells and thought is definitely a creation along with your words... NO explore your insides doing these things... think...say...(do again and concentrate on your insides
Why are you changing the message of Christianity where we allow Gods power and love to change us (through relationship and communion) into some sort of metaphysical gnosticism whereby we imagine our own destiny and control our creative power? You are sounding dangerously like a Gnostic Pantheist! Better back off the metaphysical christianity....its not kosher and its not orthodox!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by today9823, posted 11-05-2005 6:15 AM today9823 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AdminAsgara, posted 11-05-2005 12:11 PM Phat has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 39 of 204 (257057)
11-05-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Phat
11-05-2005 12:06 PM


Biological Evolutioin - Evolutionary Chain
BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ppl.
Evolutionary chain...lets keep on topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 11-05-2005 12:06 PM Phat has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 204 (257059)
11-05-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Christian
11-03-2005 6:37 PM


Yes, that leaves out a lot of family members, but it shows who his direct ancestors were.
No, it doesn't. If you go back in a chain, you don't see all his direct ancestors. Everybody has two parents, not just one; both of those parents are his direct ancestors; all four of his great-grandparents are his direct ancestors; all eight of his great-great-grandparents are his direct ancestors, etc. See the pattern? It's a tree, not a chain.
Highly unlikely since the people back then knew who their relatives were and if the geneologies were fictitious, people would've had something to say about it.
Excuse me? The geneologies in the Bible weren't written down until centuries after the events they detail. There would have been nobody at the time of writing who would have been able to verify or corroborate or challenge the geneologies.
They're fictional.
Simplifying the geneologies is useful to show more clearly who the ancestors were.
But you don't see all the ancestors. That's the point. There's hundreds of individuals who would be direct ancestors who are left out of those geneologies.
With a simple chain I could look at each species and determine if I agree that it is plausible that this species evolved from the previous one.
That's not even how species evolve, though. You're asking to see something that isn't possible, based on the reality of heredity and speciation.
Well, It's lovely to look forward and imagine the tree of ancestors I will have, but it does very little to prove or disprove evolution. So lets work backwards.
You've misunderstood me. Not forwards from you to your decendants; forwards from your ancestors to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:37 PM Christian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by AdminNosy, posted 11-05-2005 7:06 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 41 of 204 (257076)
11-05-2005 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Christian
11-03-2005 6:37 PM


This is a great point Christian! And it's a perfect illustration of how evolution works.
Imagine having a photograph of every person your husband descends from going back 14 generations. How alike do you think their going to be?
Now imagine that all you had was the photographs. And you knew they were related somehow. All you would have to go by is the pictures.
You would probably not come up with a direct line, but you would come up with a set of possible candidates based on morphological analysis and dating techniques. (test the photographs for age etc.)
That's what we got basically. Does that make sense?
This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-05-2005 04:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:37 PM Christian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-05-2005 4:29 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 42 of 204 (257110)
11-05-2005 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Yaro
11-05-2005 2:14 PM


Chain of photographs - Gave it a POTM
Gave the idea a POTM.
I wonder if there's an example of such available on the web. Would be interesting to see.
I don't think there's much of a photographic history for my personal ancestory. Especially since my father was orphened at a very young age.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Yaro, posted 11-05-2005 2:14 PM Yaro has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 43 of 204 (257140)
11-05-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
11-05-2005 12:19 PM


Topic
Crash, you were warned about the topic a day ago.
I'm without my own PC till tuesday or I would suspend you right now. I'll see you Tuesday and I'll be able to post much faster on my new machine ( cause it is a Athalon 64 2800+ instead of an old 866) .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2005 12:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2005 8:22 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 204 (257165)
11-05-2005 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by AdminNosy
11-05-2005 7:06 PM


Re: Topic
Crash, you were warned about the topic a day ago.
What are you talking about? The topic is "evolutionary chains", which is the title of the thread, and that's the subject of my post. I guess I don't understand how you think I'm off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by AdminNosy, posted 11-05-2005 7:06 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Yaro, posted 11-05-2005 8:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 45 of 204 (257166)
11-05-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
11-05-2005 8:22 PM


Re: Topic
Hey crash, I think hes refering to the bit about geneologies in the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2005 8:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2005 8:34 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024