I was unaware there was a single, unified group that explained evolution. There certainly seem to be plenty of internal debates among the proponents over small details.
Evolution - A serious question.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
I was unaware there was a single, unified group that explained evolution. There certainly seem to be plenty of internal debates among the proponents over small details.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears. Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “micro evolution.” (evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.)
Examples of micro evolution? The size of the sparrow? Sparrows in colder places are now generally larger than sparrows in warmer locales. Since these differences are probably genetically based, they almost certainly represent micro evolutionary change: populations descended from the same ancestral population have different gene frequencies. However, was is entirely overlooked and discarded is the fact that the Sparrow.....REMAINS a Sparrow! It has not "evolved" or changed into a lizard or frog or any other distinct classified specie or different "kind"!
The fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200*million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.
However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macro evolution.” The teaching of macro evolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?
The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, the conclusion? Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th*century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macro evolution supposed to have taken place?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Why would I have problems with Blacks, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Polish, German, etc. etc. etc.? They can all reproduce nicely as long as they are not "gay." Practical Gastroenterology ran a series of articles on diseases caused by homosexuality. Hepatitis simplex, liver infections, gonorrhea, syphilis, parasitic infections, small-bowel lymphoma, Kaposi’s sarcoma, and, of course, the dreadful AIDS—these are just a few of the diseases common among homosexual men!
DutchJazzer
Banned
specifically what of that list of evidence CONTRADICTS the old testament?
cus most of what i read does not
Red, do you know much about the "modern human mutation rate"? It was mentioned in your second link I believe.
How likely is it that the modern human mutation rate is much different than the mutation rate in the past, and so that is throwing off the dating estimates? I guess I'm interested to know if we can count on the accuracy of this rate for older dna samples/people.
I'm thinking they have dated the layers and other materials beyond just the bone/teeth samples as well which factor into it.
Red
Well-Known Member
No, I honestly don't know. I know there does not seem to be consensus. It does seem like the rate fluctuates....
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/04/human-mutation-rates-whats-right-number.html
"Geneticists ... are having trouble deciding between one measure of how fast human DNA mutates and another that is half that rate.
The rate is key to calibrating the ‘molecular clock’ that puts DNA-based dates on events in evolutionary history. So at an intimate meeting in Leipzig, Germany, on 25–27 February, a dozen speakers puzzled over why calculations of the rate at which sequence changes pop up in human DNA have been so much lower in recent years than previously. They also pondered why the rate seems to fluctuate over time. The meeting drew not only evolutionary geneticists, but also researchers with an interest in cancer and reproductive biology — fields in which mutations have a central role."
https://www.nature.com/news/dna-mutation-clock-proves-tough-to-set-1.17079
"Last year, population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and his colleagues compared the genome of a 45,000-year-old human from Siberia with genomes of modern humans and came up with the lower mutation rate. Yet just before the Leipzig meeting, which Reich co-organized with Kay Prüfer of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, his team published a preprint article that calculated an intermediate mutation rate by looking at differences between paired stretches of chromosomes in modern individuals (which, like two separate individuals’ DNA, must ultimately trace back to a common ancestor).
Reich is at a loss to explain the discrepancy. “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us,” he says. “It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”
DutchJazzer
Banned
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
You say right, Dutch! The opening words of Genesis tell us: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Do these words of Genesis say that this happened about ten thousand years ago? No, it gives no time period. “The beginning” could therefore have been billions of years ago.
However, right at “the beginning,” the Bible puts an intelligent being, the Creator, in control of the creative work. Although many scientists are uncomfortable with this idea, it harmonizes with the conclusions of astronomers that the universe did have a beginning, that it is very well ordered, and that it is governed by definite laws. An orderly arrangement based on law can come only from an intelligent mind. While science has explained many of these laws to us, Genesis alone introduces us to the Lawgiver!
The account in Genesis then goes on to outline the famous six “days” of creation. These days, though, were not the time during which the material of the earth and the universe was created. That had already happened “in the beginning.” The six days of creation were, rather, the periods of time during which the primordial, inhospitable earth was slowly made fit for habitation.
Was each one of those six days a literal 24-hour day? That is not what Genesis says. The word “day” in the Hebrew language (the language in which Genesis was written) can mean long periods of time, even millions of years. (Compare Psalm 90:4; Genesis 2:4.) For example, “the seventh day” in which we now live is thousands of years long. (Genesis 2:2,*3) Hence, the evidence shows that the entire period of six days should be viewed as tens of thousands of years long.
The order of the six creative epochs shows a procession of water, earth, light, atmosphere, plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally humans. (Genesis 1:3-27) This order of development is generally in agreement with the order uncovered by scientists.
But a noteworthy statement appears repeatedly in the account in Genesis chapter*1. For example, regarding the fifth creative day, Genesis 1:21 tells us: “And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds.” Regarding the sixth day, verse*24 reads: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.”
Hence, it was the kinds of animals that were created, not every individual species. But the various “kinds” were created separately and are not descended from one another. Within each “kind,” there could be great variety, as we see in the cat “kind” or the dog “kind” or the human “kind.” But genetic factors put there by the Creator would always keep these “kinds” separate from one another. That is why a cat and a dog cannot mate and start another form of life.
This contradicts the evolution theory. But it does not contradict any observed facts. While animals produce much variety within their “kind,” no one has ever documented that one “kind” of animal has reproduced or evolved into a different “kind.”
What of the structural similarities that exist between certain kinds of animals? These are understandable when we consider that all of them are the product of one Creator and that they were designed from the same materials of the earth to live in a similar environment.
Additionally, Genesis provides an answer to a problem that scientists cannot solve: From where did life come? Scientists try to answer this question with various theories, but in truth they cannot. And the hard fact that has been proved repeatedly in scientific laboratories is that life can come only from already existing life, and from the same “kind” of life.
Genesis also tells us that life is older than the universe and that all other life in heaven and on earth issued from the original Source of life, the almighty Creator. Science cannot come up with a better explanation, one that harmonizes with all the scientific facts that we can observe.—Psalm 36:9; 83:18; Isaiah 42:8; Revelation 4:11.
Not individually, but they do collectively.
By the gradual transformation of a population into two different populations that can not interbreed.