Rapid Adaptation

[everready]

Barbarian asks:
God says life came from the Earth. So you think the Earth is not non-living matter? Is it that you think it's alive, or is it that you think it's not matter? Or both?

C'mon. I'd like to hear this.

(Everready realizes he's messed up and tries a diversion)

God says life came from the Earth. So you think the Earth is not non-living matter? Is it that you think it's alive, or is it that you think it's not matter? Or both?

C'mon. I'd like to hear this.



Nice try. C'mon. Let's see what you really think about that. Why are you so embarrassed to admit what God tells you?

Actually everready realized he had asked a question that Barbarian couldn't answer without betraying his faith in Charles Darwin.

everready

 

[way 2 go]

This fish is poised for the next evolutionary leap!

Helicopter Fish!

He's having a bad rotor day at the moment.

:chuckle:

just needs a need to change or is it a will to change or a want to change

 

[6days]

This fish is poised for the next evolutionary leap!

Helicopter Fish!

He's having a bad rotor day at the moment.

GEORGE!!!!!
you have found the missing link!

 

[way 2 go]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian
God says life came from the Earth. So you think the Earth is not non-living matter? Is it that you think it's alive, or is it that you think it's not matter? Or both?

And I'd like to hear what you think this world was like before sin entered Gods creation.

everready

Actually everready realized he had asked a question that Barbarian couldn't answer without betraying his faith in Charles Darwin.

everready

i would like to read that answer too

 

[everready]

i would like to read that answer too

Before there was death there was life.

everready

 

[Alate_One]

We can easily show that certain animals are part of the same kind given the right data. It's a bit more challenging to show that they are not of the same kind, but you've ignored the point: A definition is not a classification system. Demanding that it be so is just your way of avoiding a rational discussion.

Um no. The definition is the basis of your classification system.

It has a function. It gives evolutionists a word to use that is malleable enough to fit any situation while being established enough to give the veneer of respectability.

In that it's used for all living things sure.

In fact, the word is useless in a scientific setting.

Not remotely. Species as a unit may be the only unit of classification that is truly meaningful. Species is defined by gene flow within a group and lack of gene flow with other groups of organisms.

Nope. Polar bears and Grizzlies are not the same species, but they are of the same kind.

Indeed, they're not the same species but they are of the same genus and family.

So maybe Kind = Genus or family.

One does not have twice the information content of the other.

Why not? It has twice as much DNA in each cell.

 

[The Barbarian]

In reality, both Earth and water were responsible. Most Christians accept that this is a poetic way of explaining how God created nature to produce life.

You inadvertently or dishonestly made earth and water the creators.

No, I'm just pointing out that you don't approve of the way God chose to create life.

He used non-living things to make living things.

Joke: Evolutionist scientists
asserted life could start without God and challenged that they could make life without Him to prove the point.
God accepted the challenge and started with dirt (earth) and water. The evolutionists gathered dirt and water also and God stopped them and said, "Oh no, you make your own dirt ex nihlo."

If your point depends on misrepresenting what evolutionary theory says, isn't that an important point to consider?

For this joke, you MUST misrepresent what evolutionary theory says.

Nothing happens without the Actor. Nothing.

You're evading the point. Creationism says life comes from life. God says it comes from non-living matter. Not much of a choice for those of us who accept His word as it is.

You may agree with all of this, but you inadvertently trip over your own tongue trying to make the furniture on the stage, the main actor or even a supporting actor. THIS is the problem with creationism and always will be. Christians CANNOT accept that poor language. It'd be like denying the Lord God when asserting we have inalienable rights from our Creator.

Imo, your language, without Him, is a sin. Darwin's work was a sin.

I suspect you really don't believe that. It's so far off the truth that you must know it's wrong.

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Last sentence of The Origin of Species 1872

Creationists suppose themselves to be wise enough to write off God's word.

Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools.

That is why Darwin sinned. He exchanged. What does it mean to exchange? To leave God out of the equation.

See above. You've been fooled by those professing to be wise.

The world does not know any better. The Christian (including a Catholic?) has to know better.

And what you just wrote is part of your difficulty. Leave off your pride and new doctrines, and just accept Him and His creation they are.

When you do that, you will have peace. May the peace of God be with you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Indeed, they're not the same species but they are of the same genus and family.

So maybe Kind = Genus or family.

Years ago, I had an email conversation with John Woodmorappe regarding his Ark Feasibility Study. He agreed that a the creationist term "kind" would include species, genera, and families, but not much beyond that.

The problem is always humans and chimps in the same genus. No way to get around that one, especially when humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either is to any other ape.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's see if everready is ever ready to answer the question he's been dodging;

Everready wrote:

Barbarian says "He says it came from non-living matter." that verse doesn't say that, you said that.

Barbarian chuckles:
Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

God says life came from the Earth. So you think the Earth is not non-living matter? Is it that you think it's alive, or is it that you think it's not matter? Or both?

C'mon. I'd like to hear this.

Prediction: Another dodge.

 

[The Barbarian]

Where did the earliest life forms which had a beginning come from?" is not at all redundant.

Darwin supposed that God created them.

God says that the Earth brought them forth as He intended.

Evolutionary theory is O.K. with either of those.

 

[Alate_One]

Science proves Darwin wrong....
"That natural selection will always act with extreme slowness, I fully admit .*.*. I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world have changed. (Darwin 1859, 108–09)"

June 3, 2015
"Abstract
In this study, I show that mitochondrial DNA relationships within extant families depict linear rates of speciation, a finding consistent with a mechanism of speciation that involves an originally created heterozygous allele pool fractionated by genetic drift........"
https://answersingenesis.org/natura...s-imply-linear-speciation-rates-within-kinds/

Ooh an AiG "research" article. It reads more like something written for a fictional universe than this one.

Because the Bible puts the date of creation at 6000–10,000 years ago (Hardy and Carter 2014; McGee 2012) and the date of the Flood around 4350 years ago, speciation under the YE view is much more rapid than speciation under the evolutionary view. Hence, rather than rely solely on mutation and natural selection to explain the diversity of life within “kinds,” many YE creationists have proposed novel mechanisms for speciation. From transposon amplification (Shan 2009) to “variation-inducing genetic elements (VIGEs)” designed within front-loaded genomes (“baranomes”) (Terborg 2008, 2009) to “directed genetic mutations” (Lightner 2009), YE creationists have wrestled with a multitude of processes in order to explain how a host of species might have arisen in the last few thousand years.

Gee lets get out the transporters and replicators while we're at it. Because if we throw enough "bio-babble" at the problem that's sure to fix it!

What's really funny about it is the author uses the term "originally created heterozygous allele pool". But here's the elephant in the room not addressed by the "paper".

If you start off with two individuals. You can have at maximum, 4 alleles for every gene. Adam has allele A and B. Eve has allele C and D. This is because each human being (and pretty much any other eukaryotic organism) has two chromosomes - one from mom and one from dad. So each organism can have two alleles max. So while some individuals might be B and C or A and D, there's very little actual variation.

And any population that originates from two individuals will have max of four alleles. If you left that population alone it would have very low genetic diversity, because the effective population size would be 2, forever.

Unless two things - mutation or creation of new alleles by God as the population expanded - i.e. Genesis wasn't complete.

Of course many genes are well known to have hundreds of alleles. So what that means is either God accelerated the rate of mutation thousands of times fold or He essentially re-created/re-coded all of land living life after the flood. Extra miracles just to maintain the illusion of no flood.

Because the actual genetic evidence does not show any major reduction in genetic diversity in the past few thousand years. And such a reduction - to two individuals is incompatible with rapid speciation. Not to mention the level of speciation we're talking about is beyond anything that's ever been observed. But hey, why let data get in your way . . . :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

What's really funny about it is the author uses the term "originally created heterozygous allele pool". But here's the elephant in the room not addressed by the "paper".

If you start off with two individuals. You can have at maximum, 4 alleles for every gene. Adam has allele A and B. Eve has allele C and D. This is because each human being (and pretty much any other eukaryotic organism) has two chromosomes - one from mom and one from dad. So each organism can have two alleles max. So while some individuals might be B and C or A and D, there's very little actual variation.

And any population that originates from two individuals will have max of four alleles. If you left that population alone it would have very low genetic diversity, because the effective population size would be 2, forever.

Unless two things - mutation or creation of new alleles by God as the population expanded - i.e. Genesis wasn't complete.

Of course many genes are well known to have hundreds of alleles. So what that means is either God accelerated the rate of mutation thousands of times fold or He essentially re-created/re-coded all of land living life after the flood. Extra miracles just to maintain the illusion of no flood.

Because the actual genetic evidence does not show any major reduction in genetic diversity in the past few thousand years. And such a reduction - to two individuals is incompatible with rapid speciation. Not to mention the level of speciation we're talking about is beyond anything that's ever been observed. But hey, why let data get in your way . . . :chuckle:

Remember, "Answers in Genesis" does not write for people who know anything about genetics. Very few who visit their website would know what you've just written.

So from their POV, it's a clever trick and a good one. Remember, they subscribe to Luther's belief that a "good strong lie" is O.K. with God.

 

[6days]

What's really funny about it is the author uses the term "originally created heterozygous allele pool". But here's the elephant in the room not addressed by the "paper".

If you start off with two individuals. You can have at maximum, 4 alleles for every gene.

4?
Are you sure??
Wasn't Eve created from Adam's rib?

 

[George Affleck]

If you start off with two individuals. You can have at maximum, 4 alleles for every gene. Adam has allele A and B. Eve has allele C and D. This is because each human being (and pretty much any other eukaryotic organism) has two chromosomes - one from mom and one from dad.

News Flash: Adam and Eve had no "Mom and Dad". They were specially created. Let me go out on a limb here and suggest that God knew what he was doing and how history would play out. He equipped them (including genetically) to be the first parents.

Also note that Adam lived nearly a thousand years. But big drop in life expectancy happened after the flood. What could that tell us?

 

[6days]

Barbarian (absent mindedly) chuckles:
Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

God says life came from the Earth.

Do you believe that verse?

Do you believe verse 3 that tells us God created light before He created our sun and the star?

Do you believe verse 9 which tells us the earth was covered in water before dry land appeared?

Do you believe verse 16 that God created our son the day after he created the plants?*

Do you believe verse 21 which tells us that God created the Whales before the land animals?

Etc...... or do you just believe the one phrase from verse 24 and ignore everything else?

 

[6days]

.... Let me go out on a limb here and suggest that God knew what he was doing and how history would play out.

Sorry...... that doesn't comport with evolutionism. ha (Good answer George)

 

[Alate_One]

News Flash: Adam and Eve had no "Mom and Dad". They were specially created.

No kidding. Still would have to be created with the same number of chromosomes as you and me, the same rules apply regardless.

Let me go out on a limb here and suggest that God knew what he was doing and how history would play out. He equipped them (including genetically) to be the first parents.

I already gave the best case scenario. You don't get to make up new rules for genetics just because you don't like the results.

Also note that Adam lived nearly a thousand years. But big drop in life expectancy happened after the flood. What could that tell us?

Because God said Man shall live 120 years?

 

[Alate_One]

4?
Are you sure??
Wasn't Eve created from Adam's rib?

Well depends on what kind of "process" you'd propose for making a woman out of a man. If she were a literal clone, you'd have real problems within a generation or two.

This of course is why I think there were likely other people around. (Cain's wife being Biblical evidence that way). Adam and Eve are representatives of humanity. Not the only ancestors. Genetically speaking they can't be unless you have loads of extra, non-scriptural miracles.

 

[Lon]

In reality, both Earth and water were responsible. Most Christians accept that this is a poetic way of explaining how God created nature to produce life.



No, I'm just pointing out that you don't approve of the way God chose to create life.

:nono: Again, earth nor water 'can' create life. It is impossible AND the scripture says it isn't so. Colossians 1:17 John 15:5 (I note that you normally do not quote nor show you live by scripture Matthew 4:4

Look, you are a Catholic in the liberal tradition that tramples all over the Word of God. Fact (liberal theology discounts/tramples God's words as none authoritative). To whatever reality you embrace liberal theology, i.e. "God's word is poetic rather than fact..." you do not at all give Him or His Word final say in your life. This is a huge problem I have with liberal theology et al. Man is on the throne, God is relegated to support actor - aloof from His creation as if it 'could' survive without Him. It is terrible theology Matthew 4:4 John 15:5 Colossians 1:16-18 Without Him, as leading actor in all things, first-hand, we can 'do nothing!' That's a fact, science or no science (it can't prove what is empirically true for every Christian.

He used non-living things to make living things.

Goes without saying. Again, it is the 'material' not the impetus. It is akin to saying lumber and nails build a house. It is grossly inaccurate and untrue. If you want or have to eliminate God from the equation, you can 'try' to make a bunch of half-statements and half-truths to explain what happens, but there is no getting around that it takes a human to build a nail and lumber house. It "can't" be built otherwise. In fact, 'house' means 'sentient.' A cave without life isn't a home to anything so no 'home.' Words mean things and the problem with evolution is the complete elimination of the 'purpose' of creation. Without that, you can call it 'science' and the men without God do. You however, are going to have to choose against language that eliminates your Creator. I've taught secular science in the classroom. I am extremely careful in my language to give kids facts but I have no problem saying 'creation' in the classroom. I do it on purpose because there is no 'science' without God. Fact.

If your point depends on misrepresenting what evolutionary theory says, isn't that an important point to consider?

What is MORE important? The misrepresenting of God, or the misrepresenting of a scientific theory proffered by man???

I say "man" is the fallible one in the equation and don't buy his/her assertions without talking to God about them first. After that, I'll proffer what God says of first import. None of us exist on this earth without science. I use it in heating my food, keeping my food cold, and SCUBA diving. What I don't allow it to do, however, is tell me how to think about creation without God involved in it. On the contrary, if I live and breath, I live and breath to the Lord. Romans 14:8

You're evading the point. Creationism says life comes from life.

Fact.

God says it comes from non-living matter.

:nono: Did you even bother to read those verses??? Whois your God?

Not much of a choice for those of us who accept His word as it is.

You have a BAD habit of claiming what you 'think' and what it says are the same thing when they are quite different. Again, you have earth and water as the main actor, as does all 'secular' science. You, however, are not your own, if you are a Christian. You were paid with a price.
1 Corinthians 6:20

I suspect you really don't believe that. It's so far off the truth that you must know it's wrong.

As you make plain above, you have earth and water creating life. These verses do not say that. You have life coming from the nonliving. Genesis 1 says "God" created. Unfortunately, you've adopted the language of pagans. You MUST reject some of it. There is no choice for a Christian. You can't be unequally yoked and 'earth and water created life' is unequally yolked. You can say lumber and nails 'make' a house but don't lie, ever, and say that lumber and nails 'created' a house. The pagan is forgiven his ignorance and lack of education. The Christian knows better.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Last sentence of The Origin of Species 1872

You've said similar but Darwin too thought a lot of wrong thoughts about creation. Colossians 1 says God is currently 'sustaining' creation. This necessarily means that some of his observations were wrong. Things don't just adapt but even change under His power. It is a general knowledge of the 'mechanism' of how creation is sustained that Darwin and evolutionists get wrong. Do I expect them to? :nono: I do expect you to, however, else there is no point to talking to you on a Christian forum that is primarily concerned with God and then creation, as He has made it and says He has made it.

Creationists suppose themselves to be wise enough to write off God's word.

Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools.

Nope, I already and clearly showed that you did that. You 'try' to marry paganism to your Christianity. They are incompatible. Sorry to tell you that. Science isn't your enemy, the one who leaves God out of the equation and uses language that does so, is. Learn your enemy AND learn what scripture actually says: "In the beginning, the earth and water created life..." is completely false. You may, again, say "it takes nails and lumber to build a house," but you are wrong, (flat out) if you say nails and lumber build a house.

See above. You've been fooled by those professing to be wise.

"I" provided the verses, not you. In fact, you rarely do, if indeed you can. That is problematic to facts, Barb:
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

You eliminated, conveniently? the next verse:
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.


When you worship the created rather than the creator: Earth and water create life. Conversely, Genesis 1 and Colossians 1 say "God" created AND sustains life!!!

And what you just wrote is part of your difficulty. Leave off your pride and new doctrines, and just accept Him and His creation they are.

When you do that, you will have peace. May the peace of God be with you.

Lies can never bring peace. God created all life. There are no other players. Do I see and believe in a LOT of observations from nonChristian scientists? Yes. However, I say it quite a bit differently than they do, because they are wrong that this system sustains itself. That is COMPLETELY inaccurate. Can you say 'nails' hold up a house? Sort of, but the wise man built his house upon the rock, not on the sand. "Evolution" is inaccurate sinking sand. It eliminates logic, reason, intelligence, and the God of the universe by observation. Such is ignorantly excusable from the nonChristian. It is not at all acceptable for a believer. Things do not and cannot evolve, if Colossians 1:17 and John 1:3 is a fact.

So, what is the bottom line between you and I? I'm saying 'nails cannot build a house' and you are saying 'yes they do!" I use a LOT of screws. Guess what? A carpenter builds a house and that really, really, is the end of the story. He can use rocks, he can use cement, he can actually build one without one nail or even one piece of lumber. Why? Because the real story of a house is who it houses and who built it. Science is wrong if it tries to make a blueprint without the architect or builder. No such building exists, period. NonChristians are excused, you are not.

 

[Stripe]

The definition is the basis of your classification system.

Right. A definition is not a classification system.

You asked for a definition, you got it. Because you don't like the fact that there is a rock-solid definition, you move the goalposts, demanding that it double as a classification system. Doesn't work, sorry. Definitions are definitions; they are not classification systems.

Not remotely. Species as a unit may be the only unit of classification that is truly meaningful. Species is defined by gene flow within a group and lack of gene flow with other groups of organisms.

So grizzlies and polar bears are the same species, right?

So maybe Kind = Genus or family.

Nope. We'll stick with the definition that has been provided, thanks. :up:

Why not? It has twice as much DNA in each cell.

:chuckle: Maybe :blabla: barian will point out your mistake.