What do you mean by "traces of populations"?
Only if you assume that your own position is correct.
See above.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
What do you mean by "traces of populations"?
Only if you assume that your own position is correct.
See above.
6days
New member
Wiki... "The evolution of biological complexity is one important outcome of the process of evolution".Guyver said:
A common ancestry belief system REQUIRES an overall increase of specified and complex information. Genetics provides evidence that biological complexity is degrading... The data provides evidence that contradicts common ancestry beliefs. Lo
Your beliefs are based in a type of religion, which ignores the data and the evidence. Geneticist J.F. Crow estimates that we have a loss of viability of somewhere between 1 and 2% with each successive generation. He believes we are genetically inferior to Stone age people. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9237985/ An article in the journal Nature says that the high rate of deleterious mutations is paradoxical in a species with low reproductive rate. (Translation the data does not match up with our beliefs... it is a paradox)Guyver said:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9950425/
Any evidence of kangaroo populations in Europe or Asia would be a good start. Preserved remains, written descriptions, that type of thing.
You don’t think that two kangaroos got off of Noah’s ark and hopped all the way to Australia from Mount Ararat do you?
Animals exist in populations like all other living things. If you only have one or two individuals remaining from a population, you most likely have an extinct species. So, in order for the kangaroo to get off the ark and hop all the way to Australia, it would have had to establish a healthy population of twenty five or more individuals and gradually made its way to Australia over time. One kangaroo could not even make that many thousands of miles trip. It would die along the way.
And there’s the problem of the water. I don’t think kangaroos swim, do you?
I’m not arguing for common ancestry, and I wasn’t arguing with you about dna or gene expression. I did state my opinion, that it seems intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers that the human population is quite fit because there are so many people alive all over the planet. so I’m not sure if you are attempting to ask a question or just state your opinion, or what you are
up to.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I don't even assume that Darwin cheerleaders such as yourself are referring to something by the word "evolution". Why, it is not necessary that you are doing so, just because you say the word. Thus, I do not assume you are referring to something linear, nor do I assume you are referring to something non-linear.
Why, then, do you folks assume you ARE referring to something by the word "evolution"? Just because you say words like "evolution", and "evolve", it does not follow that, in doing so, you're necessarily speaking meaningfully. And, like I said, I, for one, do not assume that you are. And, why should I? For, invariably, Darwin cheerleaders embarrass themselves by their being not even the least bit able to speak coherently concerning their use of such words, which incapability is necessitated by their invariable failure to use such words meaningfully.
The ability of what to "survive and reproduce"? An ant? A dog? A cat? A man? A woman? A human baby?
And, the ability to survive what? The ability to survive death?
Which ones? To which human beings are you referring, here? Surely you're not referring to ALL human beings who have ever lived, right? For, only an abject idiot could say, for instance, that
All men and women who bit the dust prior to 24 July 2019...
By the pronoun, 'we', to whom are you referring? Is your "we" inclusive of, say, all the men who died in World War II, Abraham Lincoln, Cleopatra, and Cyrus the Great? If so, what do you mean by saying that somebody who died decades ago, or somebody who died centuries ago, or somebody who died millennia ago is "genetically fit and thriving in [his/her] environment"?
By "We...continue to survive", what do you mean, if not merely "We...have not died yet"? Obviously, only a joker could say "We...continue to survive" while, by the pronoun, 'we', referring to ALL men, women, and children who have ever lived. Would you say that George Washington, who died in 1797, "continue
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I've seen you say "population" a few times. Perhaps you'd be willing to take a moment to try to tell us exactly what you would say constitutes a "population"? (I'm here to learn the basics from those who profess to know.) Then, after that (if you can say anything meaningful and coherent in response to that question), we'll request you to tell us exactly what you would say makes "fit" whatever you say constitutes a "fit population".
Just think how many people there are, and have been, dead all over the planet, though.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You say, "Animals exist in populations like all other living things."
Would you say that what you call a "population" is a living thing, or instead, would you say that it is a non-living thing? Which? I ask this because I observe that you plug in the adjective, "healthy", as though you mean to modify the word "population" by it, and so, if your answer is that what you call a "population" is a non-living thing, I would definitely be curious to know exactly why you would say that a non-living thing is, or could be, healthy.
Perhaps he dropped them off in Australia, on the way to Ararat?
Yes, and the continuing evolution of new alleles in various populations shows increased fitness in many different environments. Examples on request.
See Stripe's post above on this.
I think they could have migrated to the area of land that became Australia, and then got stranded there in the days of Peleg.
No, but they can certainly travel over dry land.
Immediately following the flood, the waters were still only a hundred feet or so below the levels they are now. There would have been a significant land bridge between southern Asia and Australia (and Africa and Madagascar, for that matter, and Russia and Alaska, and southeast North America and the Caribbean, etc).
See the HPT for more details.
That would make more sense than believing that two kangaroos hopped off the ark, climbed down the mountain and bee lined it all the way to Australia over a hypothetical land bridge where they established a thriving population.
Do you accept or reject the notion that chromosome mutations can become fixed in a population?
Nope.
Did you forget? Your own source said that natural selection is useless.
One would have thought you'd have learned by now. Maybe some humility is needed on your part.
With a koala under each arm. Are koalas clean or unclean? I forget.
Stripes post was almost worthless. It shows rock art that seems to show mice, but he thinks they look like kangaroos. Kangaroos are very distinct looking animals because of their large hind limbs and tail. A child could recognize and draw this shape but the petroglyphs in the link do not.
May I suggest you google “relict populations” to understand what we would expect to find in terms of kangaroos in Europe or Asia.
I will begin reading up on HPT today. Since you are more informed about it than I am, would you mind telling me how that theory accounts for all the distinct species of creatures that only exist in one location on the planet, like those of Madagascar and Australia?
It's the dementia setting in for good.
I don’t remember any marsupials being mentioned in the Bible, so I guess that makes them neither clean nor unclean?
I suppose it should not be unusual that they are not found in the Bible, since Bible writers had no knowledge that Australia even existed. Certainly God would have known that they existed if in fact he were directly involved in creating all the species which exist in the universe.
Here is a list of all the animals found in the Bible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_in_the_Bible
Marsupials are no where to be found.
Are you sure the entire book is available online? This link appears to be a collection of summaries.