Welcome, Guest. Login or register to use the forums.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2009, 03:08:08 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Bookstore | Support | Newsletter


+  Christian Forums
|-+  Christian Interests
| |-+  Apologetics Forum
| | |-+  The missing link finally found and proof that we evolved!		 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The missing link finally found and proof that we evolved!  (Read 2953 times)
Quasarsphere
Junior Member
**

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 14

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #75 on: September 28, 2009, 09:37:49 AM »
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 09:31:30 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 09:23:42 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on September 28, 2009, 09:19:07 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on September 28, 2009, 09:07:27 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 08:52:21 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on September 28, 2009, 08:43:09 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on September 28, 2009, 07:50:22 AM
Quote from: Yehren on September 28, 2009, 06:44:03 AM
Quote
Scripture states that everything bears seed after it's own kind.  Period.

Could you reference that verse for us?   I've spent a lot of years reading from the Bible, but I never saw that one.



Genesis 1

11  Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so.

12  And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

21  And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
 
24  Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

25  And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

How delightful, then, that the theory of evolution does not in any way contradict this.  Everything will be the same species as its parents, and its offspring.

However, over long periods of time, a "kind" (whatever that might mean) can, and often does, split into two or more "kinds".

I don't necessarily doubt at all what you say here; however, I do doubt that you can provide even one verified example of this having happened.

You say "a "kind" (whatever that might mean) can, and often does, split into two or more "kinds"." with a lot of authority; not one bit of which can be actually presented.
Well, that rather depends on what a "kind" is.  If the definition of "kind" is the same as a taxonomic "species" (which is the Latin word for "kind") then yeah, I can dig up several examples.

The old microevolution-is-really-macroevolution argument.  That is a statement not an indication of the reality of it, or lack thereof.

Try as you might, the fact that the boxer came from the wolf doesn't really prove that the wolf came from anything else.
It proves that such a thing is not impossible.
No it doesn't.  It doesn't prove anything and certainly nothing scientifically.
So...you're saying that it is impossible for the wolf to have come from something else?

My layman’s view is that when two species breed the offspring are sterile, so for the species to continue they must bread with their own kind. For me this puts the stopper on one species evolving into another species.
And yet it's been observed many times.  However, at no time was anything required to breed with a different species.  What happens is, two populations of the same species are reproductively isolated.  Genetic traits emerge in one population that, due to reproductive isolation, don't get near the other population.  As this continues to happen, the two populations become more and more genetically different until eventually they are no longer able to interbreed.  At this point, they are no longer the same species.
Logged
0man
Member
***

Manna: 6
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 124


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #76 on: September 28, 2009, 09:45:18 AM »

So is this why the dog and he wolf are diferent species?
Logged
Christian Forums
« Reply #76 on: September 28, 2009, 09:45:18 AM »
 Logged
Quasarsphere
Junior Member
**

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 14

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #77 on: September 28, 2009, 10:01:01 AM »
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 09:45:18 AM

So is this why the dog and he wolf are diferent species?
It's kinda weird with dogs.  Firstly, the word "dog" can be used to refer to any species of the family Canidae, which includes wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes and the domestic dog.  The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is classed as a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus).  So, strictly speaking, they're not different species.  Yet.

To answer your question, though, yes, it is (human induced) reproductive isolation that is responsible for dogs coming from wolves, and all the different dog breeds, etc.  Keep them isolated from each other long enough, speciation will eventually occur.
Logged
Jimmy
Legendary Member
******

Manna: 158
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 5305

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #78 on: September 28, 2009, 10:07:41 AM »
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 09:23:42 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on September 28, 2009, 09:19:07 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on September 28, 2009, 09:07:27 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 08:52:21 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on September 28, 2009, 08:43:09 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: Jimmy on September 28, 2009, 07:50:22 AM
Quote from: Yehren on September 28, 2009, 06:44:03 AM
Quote
Scripture states that everything bears seed after it's own kind.  Period.

Could you reference that verse for us?   I've spent a lot of years reading from the Bible, but I never saw that one.



Genesis 1

11  Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so.

12  And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

21  And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
 
24  Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

25  And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

How delightful, then, that the theory of evolution does not in any way contradict this.  Everything will be the same species as its parents, and its offspring.

However, over long periods of time, a "kind" (whatever that might mean) can, and often does, split into two or more "kinds".

I don't necessarily doubt at all what you say here; however, I do doubt that you can provide even one verified example of this having happened.

You say "a "kind" (whatever that might mean) can, and often does, split into two or more "kinds"." with a lot of authority; not one bit of which can be actually presented.
Well, that rather depends on what a "kind" is.  If the definition of "kind" is the same as a taxonomic "species" (which is the Latin word for "kind") then yeah, I can dig up several examples.

The old microevolution-is-really-macroevolution argument.  That is a statement not an indication of the reality of it, or lack thereof.

Try as you might, the fact that the boxer came from the wolf doesn't really prove that the wolf came from anything else.
It proves that such a thing is not impossible.
No it doesn't.  It doesn't prove anything and certainly nothing scientifically.
So...you're saying that it is impossible for the wolf to have come from something else?

I am not saying that at all.  I am not even arguing against evolution.  I am just saying that you have no proof of anything that is claimed.  It is an invented scenario to explain the fossil evidence.  It is really nothing more than that.  There is no proof one way or another.

I am also saying that the "microevolution" observed in the case of dogs, for example, is not proof of any postulated occurance of "macroevolution".
Logged
0man
Member
***

Manna: 6
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 124


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #79 on: September 28, 2009, 10:11:38 AM »
Go on admit it, the DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical after how many thousands of years? Twelve thousand to my knowledge.  Smile
.
Logged
Quasarsphere
Junior Member
**

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 14

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #80 on: September 28, 2009, 10:16:39 AM »
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:11:38 AM
Go on admit it, the DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical after how many thousands of years? Twelve thousand to my knowledge.  Smile
.
Yeah, about that, I think.  In another 12 thousand, they'll be rather less identical.  Chimpanzee and human DNA are almost identical after six million years, though.  But then, chimpanzees and humans are both of the family Hominidae.
Logged
Christian Forums
« Reply #80 on: September 28, 2009, 10:16:39 AM »
 Logged
0man
Member
***

Manna: 6
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 124


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #81 on: September 28, 2009, 10:27:16 AM »
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:11:38 AM
Go on admit it, the DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical after how many thousands of years? Twelve thousand to my knowledge.  Smile
.
Yeah, about that, I think.  In another 12 thousand, they'll be rather less identical.  Chimpanzee and human DNA are almost identical after six million years, though.  But then, chimpanzees and humans are both of the family Hominidae.

So the DNA of Chimps and humans are almost identical (what about the mouse) and yet you cannot give a human a blood transfusion of Chimp blood or they will die. Beats me how one evolved into the other.
Logged
walker starr
PROTECTED
Sponsoring Member
Senior Member
*******

Manna: 127
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 1465


HE is my refuge and my fortress

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #82 on: September 28, 2009, 10:32:26 AM »

    Horses and donkeys must breed together to create Mules.  Mules cannot breed together to get more mules.
    Mules are nueter.  There may be a better word here than create but don't play semantics please.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2009, 04:09:53 PM by walker starr » Logged
Have patience, I am 81 years old and new to computers and I don't know how to type.
Quasarsphere
Junior Member
**

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 14

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #83 on: September 28, 2009, 10:33:30 AM »
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:27:16 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:11:38 AM
Go on admit it, the DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical after how many thousands of years? Twelve thousand to my knowledge.  Smile
.
Yeah, about that, I think.  In another 12 thousand, they'll be rather less identical.  Chimpanzee and human DNA are almost identical after six million years, though.  But then, chimpanzees and humans are both of the family Hominidae.

So the DNA of Chimps and humans are almost identical (what about the mouse) and yet you cannot give a human a blood transfusion of Chimp blood or they will die. Beats me how one evolved into the other.
One didn't evolve into the other.  Both evolved from the same thing.
Logged
0man
Member
***

Manna: 6
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 124


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #84 on: September 28, 2009, 10:40:52 AM »
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:27:16 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:11:38 AM
Go on admit it, the DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical after how many thousands of years? Twelve thousand to my knowledge.  Smile
.
Yeah, about that, I think.  In another 12 thousand, they'll be rather less identical.  Chimpanzee and human DNA are almost identical after six million years, though.  But then, chimpanzees and humans are both of the family Hominidae.

So the DNA of Chimps and humans are almost identical (what about the mouse) and yet you cannot give a human a blood transfusion of Chimp blood or they will die. Beats me how one evolved into the other.
One didn't evolve into the other.  Both evolved from the same thing.

If chimps and humans had the same origin I would expect the white blood cells to be compatible but they are not.

So you say it takes millions of years for a species to evolve, so what happened in the Cambrian explosion when almost instantly in evolutionary terms all the species appeared overnight so to speak?
Logged
Christian Forums
« Reply #84 on: September 28, 2009, 10:40:52 AM »
 Logged
Quasarsphere
Junior Member
**

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 14

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #85 on: September 28, 2009, 10:43:04 AM »
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:40:52 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 10:33:30 AM
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:27:16 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:11:38 AM
Go on admit it, the DNA makeup of wolves and dogs is almost identical after how many thousands of years? Twelve thousand to my knowledge.  Smile
.
Yeah, about that, I think.  In another 12 thousand, they'll be rather less identical.  Chimpanzee and human DNA are almost identical after six million years, though.  But then, chimpanzees and humans are both of the family Hominidae.

So the DNA of Chimps and humans are almost identical (what about the mouse) and yet you cannot give a human a blood transfusion of Chimp blood or they will die. Beats me how one evolved into the other.
One didn't evolve into the other.  Both evolved from the same thing.

If chimps and humans had the same origin I would expect the white blood cells to be compatible but they are not.

So you say it takes millions of years for a species to evolve, so what happened in the Cambrian explosion when almost instantly in evolutionary terms all the species appeared overnight so to speak?


Almost instantly in evolutionary terms = millions of years.
Logged
0man
Member
***

Manna: 6
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 124


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #86 on: September 28, 2009, 10:57:08 AM »
One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion”   Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail.  This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.”  It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory.  Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge.  Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.

http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html
Logged
Quasarsphere
Junior Member
**

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 14

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #87 on: September 28, 2009, 11:02:51 AM »
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:57:08 AM
One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion”   Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail.  This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.”  It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory.  Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge.  Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.

http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html


How does a whole bunch of species evolving put a dent in evolutionary theory?  Also, not one of the species that evolved during the Cambrian explosion is around today.

Oh yeah, and loads of books discuss it at length.
Logged
Christian Forums
« Reply #87 on: September 28, 2009, 11:02:51 AM »
 Logged
0man
Member
***

Manna: 6
Offline Offline

Mood:

Gender: Male
Posts: 124


Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #88 on: September 28, 2009, 11:15:45 AM »
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 11:02:51 AM
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:57:08 AM
One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion”   Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail.  This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.”  It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory.  Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge.  Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.

http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html


How does a whole bunch of species evolving put a dent in evolutionary theory?  Also, not one of the species that evolved during the Cambrian explosion is around today.

Oh yeah, and loads of books discuss it at length.

They did not evolve that is the point. They were suddenly there. Then something happened and many were lost and what we have now is what evolved from the initial creation. 

So in the beginning we have creation and then what we have today is that which evolved from what survived. You need something to be there though in order for it to evolve, but the beauty of the Cambrian explosion is that the fossil record shows them to be identical with what we have today. Perhaps the genetics were already in place?
Logged
Quasarsphere
Junior Member
**

Manna: 0
Offline Offline

Mood:

Posts: 14

Blog entries (0)

View Profile
« Reply #89 on: September 28, 2009, 11:28:11 AM »
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 11:15:45 AM
Quote from: Quasarsphere on September 28, 2009, 11:02:51 AM
Quote from: 0man on September 28, 2009, 10:57:08 AM
One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion”   Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail.  This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.”  It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory.  Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge.  Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.

http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html


How does a whole bunch of species evolving put a dent in evolutionary theory?  Also, not one of the species that evolved during the Cambrian explosion is around today.

Oh yeah, and loads of books discuss it at length.

They did not evolve that is the point. They were suddenly there. Then something happened and many were lost and what we have now is what evolved from the initial creation. 

So in the beginning we have creation and then what we have today is that which evolved from what survived. You need something to be there though in order for it to evolve, but the beauty of the Cambrian explosion is that the fossil record shows them to be identical with what we have today. Perhaps the genetics were already in place?
You are aware that the Cambrian explosion took place over tens of millions of years, right?
Logged
Christian Forums
   
 Logged
The missing link finally found and proof that we evolved! - Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Grace-Centered Christian Forums
Bible concordance | abortion ticker | is God real? | galaga | play tetris | copter game | mini golf games | arcade | donkey kong | Christian marriage help | articles | privacy
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC