Creation vs. Evolution

[Tyrathca]

Yet the single-celled organisms that you (must inevitably claim) that these evolved from do not. Therefore, stop assuming what it is you wish to prove and go back to before male and female, then show how such a thing happens. Circular reasoning may be the accepted norm within groups that already accept evolution as gospel, but this is not such a group.

But single-celled organisms do have a form of sex (exchanging of genetic material). It's called conjugation. Even bacteria do it and with similar proteins to our meiosis.

The detailed specifics of how the whole process evolved at each step is hard to know though. There are different ideas but because there can't be any useful fossils to analyse (being microscopic) it makes it rather hard to test them.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.......I have found that 6days interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is almost always correct, if not always.......

Then perhaps you should re-evaluate your interpretations as well. Did you see what started the whole conversation? Here:

The "either/or" mindset and thinking usually leads nowhere. "Both/And" thinking is often better.
God's Word IS absolute truth, but God is also the author of natural law and He set into motion the natural processes. Evolution, if understood correctly and not the way atheists understand it, is totally compatible with Genesis.

I disagree ...except for the part that God's Word is absolute truth.
It seems like you are suggesting we believe God's Word but try to make it fit with secular ideas.
If physical death is not the result of first Adam's sin....then the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection is destroyed.

I am not at all suggesting that we try to make God's Word fit with secular ideas. I am suggesting that you have wrongly interpreted Genesis.

Genesis 1 is meant to teach one thing and one thing only:

That God created everything out of nothing, that he created man in his own image, that man seperated himself from God through disobedience, and that God immediately set about the long - or at least it seems long to us - process of healing that rift, a process which culminated with the death and resurrection of Christ. That is ALL it teaches.

Everything in Genesis is meant to convey that truth, but it is done in the ancient Semitic style of writing, using allegories, fantastic imagery, and all based on traditions that were handed down for centuries. I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc. These are all images & allegories, in a certain style of writing, meant to convey the fundamental truth I stated above.

His response was that I don't believe in scriptures. Seriously? That is a childish ignorant response. Its the response of someone who thinks that if you don't believe in their spin on the scriptures, well then by golly you're just not a believer. Only as jerk would say that. And if you support that then, as I said, perhaps you should re-evaluate your interpretations as well.

 

[gcthomas]

Yet the single-celled organisms that you (must inevitably claim) that these evolved from do not.

This ^^^^ really illuminates your misunderstandings. Why would I believe that out most distant ancestral populations are still about here somewhere? How can you possibly say that they are and they don't reproduce in the way I suggested? They are NOT still around, and neither of us can investigate their sexual reproduction methods, so your claim is bunkum.

 

[Stripe]

Very simple....
'Could have', 'would of', 'must have', 'I suggested', 'apparent' "the obvious solution", "if we postulate"... Those are words of belief. How many of those words have evolutionists used just in the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread?*

:darwinsm: Are we arguing over the definition of "could" again?

 

[Jose Fly]

Genetic information is conceptualized by the ability an organism has by means of its DNA to generate offspring that can propagate its kind.

This can be measured. The most simple way would be to analyse the rate of infertile offspring.

So the way to tell which of two organisms has more "genetic information" is to count and compare the number of infertile offspring? I just want to be clear on that.

Also, 6days has said repeatedly that "rapid speciation is part of the Biblical model of creation" and defines speciation as "when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population."

Do you agree with that definition? Do you agree that populations do become reproductively isolated from each other? And do you agree that this is part of the "Biblical model of creation"?

 

[6days]

Also, 6days has said repeatedly that "rapid speciation is part of the Biblical model of creation"

And, 6days also said this can be called rapid adaptation.*

and defines speciation as "when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population."

You didn't apologize for the last time you fabricated a quote, so I don't think we should trust this new quote.

What I likely said was 'Evolutionists don't have a firm definition, but it is often defined as*when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population.' That, or a similar definition is often used except in situations where it challenges the belief system. *

 

[Jose Fly]

You didn't apologize for the last time you fabricated a quote

Geez....there really is something fundamentally wrong with you.

Here's my last post to you (and you posted 20 minutes later, directly underneath)...

Then you have my apologies. I was mistaken in thinking that you understood AiG's Statement of Faith....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

...to not be a scientific framework. I now realize you believe their framework is scientific.​

What I likely said was 'Evolutionists don't have a firm definition, but it is often defined as*when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population.' That, or a similar definition is often used except in situations where it challenges the belief system. *

This is exactly what you said:

"Well..... as Stripe has mentioned the word 'speciation' is a rubbery evolutionist word. But generally it means when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population."

You've also claimed that speciation, as defined above, is part of the "Biblical model of creation".

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.....You didn't apologize for the last time you fabricated a quote, so I don't think we should trust this new quote......

Pot meet Kettle. You did not apologize for accusing me of not believing God's Word just because I reject your goofy interpretation of it.

 

[6days]

But single-celled organisms do have a form of sex (exchanging of genetic material). It's called conjugation.*Even bacteria do it*and with similar proteins to our meiosis.

Your answer reminds me of the answer evolutionists give for the origin of life....saying maybe it came from somewhere other than earth. That is still avoiding the issue of how life originated.*
And.... that answer avoids having to consider that life bears evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

Likewise your answer for origin of sex is avoiding the issuse when you suggest it may have originated with conjugation.*
And...that answer avoids having to consider that conjugation and meiosis bear evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.*

Jean Lightner PhD in journal of creation *wrote an article titled "Meiotic Recombination- Designed For Inducing Genetic Change"

The detailed specifics of how the whole process evolved at each step is hard to know though.

That the process evolved is not just hard to know...but almost impossible to believe. Long before you get to this stage, you need to believe in the evolution of all types of fantastical things (information system, molecular motors, proteins, transport system etc)

 

[Wick Stick]

1,422 pages and counting.

I doubt you can spend that much time with someone without a strong personal attachment. Why don't you just shag and get it over with?

 

[6days]

Then you have my apologies. I was mistaken in thinking that you understood...

I wasn't asking for an apology of what you thought, of what I thought.
I asked for you to apologize for fabricating what was said.*

This is exactly what you said:
"Well..... as Stripe has mentioned the word 'speciation' is a rubbery evolutionist word. But generally it means when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population

Very good..... so why didn't you post what I actually said, instead of trying to reframe it as my definition. You can't defend your beliefs honestly Jose, so you fabricate and create strawmen arguments.*

 

[6days]

*You did not apologize for accusing me of not believing God's Word just because I reject your goofy interpretation of it.

I did make an accusation similar to that after you said "I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc." . So where does your belief begin and unbelief end? Was first Adam a real person? Was physical death a result of sin? Was the global flood a real event? Are the geneaologies real history? Did the walls of Jericho fall at the sound of the trumpets? *Did Last Adam physically die because of first Adams sin? Was Jesus born of a virgin? Did God create woman from mans rib?

 

[Jose Fly]

I wasn't asking for an apology of what you thought, of what I thought.
I asked for you to apologize for fabricating what was said.

That's fine. I apologize for saying that you said AiG's framework...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

....is not scientific. I now realize you believe their framework is scientific.

Very good..... so why didn't you post what I actually said, instead of trying to reframe it as my definition.

Again, there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with you. Here is what I posted to Stripe...

Also, 6days has said repeatedly that "rapid speciation is part of the Biblical model of creation" and defines speciation as "when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population."​

Compare that to what you said...

"Well..... as Stripe has mentioned the word 'speciation' is a rubbery evolutionist word. But generally it means when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population."

 

[6days]

Also, 6days has said repeatedly that "rapid speciation is part of the Biblical model of creation" and defines speciation as "when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population."

Like Hillary... you have difficulty with the truth. Like Donald, you can't apologize when you are wrong. Like Stripe says...evolutionists are hard of reading.*

Read again what I said... no Jose...read it slower so you can understand. Notice that I was providing a typical evolutionist definition. *I called it a rubbery evolutionist word. *Evolutionists often use rubbery words like 'species', 'speciate' and 'speciation'. When they do use the words ,I will continue saying that rapid speciation fits the Biblical model.*

Jose... you seem to have a memory problem, so I will repeat what you have already been told...

*Science helps confirm the Bible, no matter if you call it rapid change...rapid speciation...rapid adaptation...speedy evolution.....breakneck transformation....accelerated variation...expeditious modification, or lickety split alteration. Organisms can adapt rapidly using God given pre-existing genetic information and mechanisms.

Jose...in a previous thread...In fact in the link you give above I explain that 'rapid adaptation' or 'rapid change' are also terms we use to describe the same thing. Read the quote This was the complete quote

Well..... as Stripe has mentioned the word 'speciation' is a rubbery evolutionist word. But generally it means when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population.*This is what was posted before on the topic....
Rapid Adaptation*

"Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.*

"One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.*

"As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.*

"But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

"Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.*
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)*

"Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.*

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:*
Fruit flies grow longer wings...*
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'*
New Scientist 165 wrote:*
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"

"Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...*
... Evolutionists are surprised.*
Science Daily wrote:*
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm


"And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.*
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...*
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.*
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!*

"That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.*
http://theologyonline.com/showthread...pid-Adaptation*"

So Jose.... please save this post. Refer to it often. Rapid speciation fits the Biblical model. Remember you can call it adaptation, modification,change or many other words. And remember, if you use the word 'species', I will likely use *it to.*

Now... one more thing. My wife gives me a daily word quota. Its a very low number. I just want you to know that with this one post, i have exceeded my daily allotment of words.*

 

[Rosenritter]

But single-celled organisms do have a form of sex (exchanging of genetic material). It's called conjugation. Even bacteria do it and with similar proteins to our meiosis.

The detailed specifics of how the whole process evolved at each step is hard to know though. There are different ideas but because there can't be any useful fossils to analyse (being microscopic) it makes it rather hard to test them.

So your first cell reproduced by exchanging information with .... another first cell?

 

[gcthomas]

So your first cell reproduced by exchanging information with .... another first cell?

Let me break it down for you.

Early organisms reproduced by dividing.
Early organisms could also swap genes.
Later, these organisms became more complex.
They developed specialised parts for swapping genes.
But they didn't lose the ability to produce young asexually.
Some organisms' specialised swapping parts became more specialised to either give or receive genes.
All of these had both types of sex parts.
Some of these species split into two sexes, with each sex only retaining one of the male/female type parts.
Hence sexual dimorphism.
Some didn't.

At no time did a species just spontaneously form into two sexes in one generation.
It was gradual.
There are now some organisms which reproduce asexually.
Some reproduce sexually but without different sexes.
Some reproduce sexually with different sexes.

None of the ancestral organisms still exist (you found this one hard earlier, so pay attention!)

That should be clearer for you.

 

[Stripe]

So the way to tell which of two organisms has more "genetic information" is to count and compare the number of infertile offspring?

Probably not.

I just want to be clear on that.

No, you don't.

You started out by demanding that I had used an undefined term that could not be measured. Then when presented with a definition and a way to measure things, you switch to another unjustified line of mockery.

You're not at all interested in a sensible discussion.

If you were, you would retract you assertions that the term is undefined and there is no way to measure it.

Are you up to such a thing?

Also, 6days has said repeatedly that "rapid speciation is part of the Biblical model of creation" and defines speciation as "when an isolated population no longer breeds with the parent population."
Do you agree with that definition? Do you agree that populations do become reproductively isolated from each other? And do you agree that this is part of the "Biblical model of creation"?

How about you read what I say and deal with it instead of insisting that everyone who does not bow to your precious evolutionism must agree with each other on every single item. :up:

Or you could keep being a troll. :troll:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Let me break it down for you.

Early organisms reproduced by dividing.
Early organisms could also swap genes.
Later, these organisms became more complex.
They developed specialised parts for swapping genes.
But they didn't lose the ability to produce young asexually.
Some organisms specialised swapping parts became more specialised to either give or receive genes.
All of these had both types of sex parts.
Some of these species split into two sexes, with each sex only retaining one of the male/female type parts.
Hence sexual dimorphism.
Some didn't.

At no time did a species just spontaneously form into two sexes in one generation.
It was gradual.
There are now some organisms which reproduce asexually.
Some reproduce sexually but without different sexes.
Some reproduce sexually with different sexes.

None of the ancestral organism still exist (you found this one hard earlier, so pay attention!)

Is that cleareer for you?

Dear gcthomas,

I am wondering, do the one-celled amoebas and bacteria, or protozoa reproduce by dividing into two cells, etc. or is that also asexual reproduction? Aren't there any cells that reproduce themselves still left on Earth? Are they all specialized to be asexual? I have a good friend and he and his mother both have male and female genitalia. The mother still wants a man and her son is with another woman. So, it is interesting to say the least. It was the first time I ever came across it. No, I did not get to see my friend naked, but I take his word for it. I have no idea what it would look like! Intriguing! Worms have both male and female sexual organs also. They are ambidextrous!! Just kidding!!

Just Curious,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

So your first cell reproduced by exchanging information with .... another first cell?

I don't know, maybe you should read what some of the people who research this have said. I'm not paid to research everything for you and as I said we have no way of actually testing the ideas in detail since there are no fossils. We're left trying to look back at similar genes among organisms with common ancestors around the predicted time to maybe glean some understanding. There can never be any fossils to examine and the original organisms form are likely long gone. Your argument is simply one of incredulity and that the process must be (according to your incredulity) impossible.

What I was responding to was you said something that was simply untrue. I corrected you and if you'd made any real attempt to educate yourself first you'd have known that what you were saying was untrue. It's not exactly specialist knowledge known only to experts and researchers that bacteria share genetic material between each other.

 

[Jose Fly]

Read again what I said

This is ridiculous. I quoted you directly and even linked to the post it came from so anyone could go look and see the entire thing if they wanted, and you're still complaining because I didn't copy and paste all your subsequent wiggling and obfuscation.

I'm done. I've lost all interest in chasing a couple of fundamentally dishonest, slimy creationists around trying to get them to answer simple questions, state clear positions, and own what they've said. Someone else can do it for a while.