What Do We Really Know About Our Beliefs?

plants can have hybreds that can procreate ..
animals cannot .. thus the male hybred animals such as ligers and mules are born sterile .. thus the female must mate with another of either specie, which is breeding the hybred back out of them .. to become a new specie, they must maintain breeding within the new specie .. hence your scenario is irrelevant when trying to prove evolution of man ..

BTW: if I took the time, I can find a YE org that says the opposite of the ones you cited .. which is no different then finding different OE orgs that hold different interpretations of data ..
 
Last edited:
ok .. let me ask you a question now ..
since the procreation of mankind resides on both XX (female) & XY (male) chromosomes .. and the replicating command within the DNA, how is it both male and female arose simultaneously with the complex interaction required ???

The nuclei of human cells contain 22 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes ..

here is why hybred animals cannot maintain a new specie ..
Fertilized XX eggs were injected with DNA carrying the SRY gene.

Although the animals have testes, male sex hormones, and normal mating behavior, they are sterile.
 
Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile.

There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions. A few female mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule

if you try answering my question with a hermaphrodite, they normally cannot reproduce .. In humans, the two sets of organs cancel each other out, or neither is fully developed enough to carry the sexual act to full reproduction .. they might be able to have sex, but no fertile offspring could arise.

so before you can try to prove that adaptation, mutation or genetic drift can lead to a new specie (which has never been demonstrated and is a natural occurrence within a specie) you must first answer my original question ..

How is it both male and female arose simultaneously with the complex interaction required ???
 
Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile.

There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions. A few female mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule

if you try answering my question with a hermaphrodite, they normally cannot reproduce .. In humans, the two sets of organs cancel each other out, or neither is fully developed enough to carry the sexual act to full reproduction .. they might be able to have sex, but no fertile offspring could arise.

so before you can try to prove that adaptation, mutation or genetic drift can lead to a new specie (which has never been demonstrated and is a natural occurrence within a specie) you must first answer my original question ..

How is it both male and female arose simultaneously with the complex interaction required ???
 
RiverJordan said:
So how did you come to such firm conclusions on scientific matters then?


Because "an ape turning into a man" isn't evolution...at all.


So even though you're a self-admitted non-expert on science, you've decided you're qualified enough to declare all of evolutionary biology a "fantasy claim"? How does that work?


I certainly agree that for most people who never actually study the biological sciences, it does come down to trust. But for those of us who do study biology, it's a matter of seeing the data and evidence for ourselves and reaching what is quite honestly, a very, very obvious conclusion.
Click to expand...

Actually IXOYE did a really good job at answering my statements... i may not be an expert but i also am not ignorant, i can discern whether what is given us by the scientific world is not always what they profess it to be ... not trying to necessarily have confrontation but do you really believe all that the science world tells us it is so...?
 
ixoye,

According to the criteria you agreed to, the paper I linked to describes an observed case of the evolution of a new species. Whether it was by hybridization or some other means is irrelevant to the question at hand (Is it evolution). The new species is physically unable to reproduce with either of its parent species, but is fully capable of reproducing on its own.

Therefore, the evolution of new species is an observed fact.

plants can have hybreds that can procreate ..animals cannot
Click to expand...
No, you're wrong on this too.

Hybrid speciation in sparrows I: phenotypic intermediacy, genetic admixture and barriers to gene flow

If you want a non-hybrid example, then...

Ecological Speciation in South Atlantic Island Finches

I have lots of other examples, but usually people complain when I post too many at once. But the fact remains, the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed fact. And honestly, I would think a young-earth creationist such as yourself would embrace that, because otherwise, you must believe that Noah took two (or seven) of every species on earth onto the ark.

So now that that's settled, as promised I will start addressing the material you posted previously (one item at a time).

The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work.
Click to expand...
Where exactly did you copy this information from? Do you know enough about K/Ar dating to be able to discuss this subject fully? Because the first question I have is, why are you relying on a source that is giving you the impression that K/Ar methodologies are the same now as they were in the 40's, 50's, and 70's? And finally, do you understand the difference between the different isotopes, and how simply using 40Ar/39Ar completely does away with your objection?
 
RosaVera said:
i may not be an expert but i also am not ignorant, i can discern whether what is given us by the scientific world is not always what they profess it to be
Click to expand...
Your previous post, where you apparently thought "an ape turning into a man" is evolution, indicates that your knowledge on this subject might be a bit thin. And so we're clear, that's totally understandable. Like I said earlier, unless you're actually studying biology, there's no real reason for most people to be an expert on it.

So I'm wondering then, when you say that things "given by the scientific world aren't what they profess it to be", what specifically are you referring to?

... not trying to necessarily have confrontation but do you really believe all that the science world tells us it is so...?
Click to expand...
If when I read something it doesn't seem right to me, or it really goes out on a limb, then if it's something I'm interested it I try and read up on it as much as I can and then I draw my conclusions. And a lot of times, my opinion is something like "The data seems to point in this direction, but more is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn". IOW, I think when it comes to science you have to be comfortable with unknowns, tentative positions, and shades of gray. I know for a lot of people, especially those who lean towards more conservative religious mindsets, that's not always in the cards. Those who tend towards more black/white thinking are typically not comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty.

But getting back to your earlier post, I am genuinely curious how you came to the conclusion that all of evolutionary biology a "fantasy claim". Have you actually studied the subject, or is that conclusion based on something else?
 
We're doing this again?

I have to confess, the discussion of evolution is really getting worn out. We've had about 3 or 4 active threads discussion evolution, even when that wasn't the topic at hand. In addition, I still think evolution is a red herring to the discussion of theology. I understand the argument that it is no, but why have multiple active threads going over it?

All this topic seems to do is bring out the worst in people. RiverJordan for instance has received snarky remark after snarky remark. In turn, RiverJordan has given snarky remark after snarky remark. I too have probably responded in that manner at some point.

Shouldn't we, at the very least, limit this topic to one thread? I'm not saying that because of the less than friendly responses, but just because this topic is just wearing thin. Where do we draw the line?
 
Last edited:
Lysander,

What interests you doesn't necessarily interest others, and what interests others doesn't necessarily interest you. Being a Christian and a biology major, the intersection of faith and science always interests me. I could understand your complaint if thread after thread after thread was started on the same subject, but in this case it's pretty much one or two threads that go on for several pages. That shouldn't be too hard to steer clear of if you don't find the subject interesting, right? There are several threads ongoing now that I'm not too interested in, and I just skip over them. It's pretty easy to do.
 
RiverJordan said:
Lysander,

What interests you doesn't necessarily interest others, and what interests others doesn't necessarily interest you. Being a Christian and a biology major, the intersection of faith and science always interests me. I could understand your complaint if thread after thread after thread was started on the same subject, but in this case it's pretty much one or two threads that go on for several pages. That shouldn't be too hard to steer clear of if you don't find the subject interesting, right? There are several threads ongoing now that I'm not too interested in, and I just skip over them. It's pretty easy to do.
Click to expand...

This is true. I could skip over any thread and not participate if I want. Four threads discussing the same exhausted subject while half of them weren't even intended to discuss those issues seems strange nonetheless. Perhaps I'm being silly.
 
Lysander,

Not sure what you're talking about. Looking at the 1st page in the General Discussions forum, I see only two active threads with an evolution discussion (this one and the "strengthening my faith" thread), and the latter only recently broached the subject (as a means to once again question my faith). Maybe that seems excessive to you because this group isn't very active?
 
RiverJordan said:
Lysander,

Not sure what you're talking about. Looking at the 1st page in the General Discussions forum, I see only two active threads with an evolution discussion (this one and the "strengthening my faith" thread), and the latter only recently broached the subject (as a means to once again question my faith). Maybe that seems excessive to you because this group isn't very active?
Click to expand...

I could be unfairly counting others which were recently active in this discussion right before you joined. I could be mistaken.
 
River Jordan .. inre animals .. you are mistaking adaptation which is reversible and not hereditary, with evolution .. adaptation, mutation and genetic drift are natural occurrences within a specie and have never been proven to lead to evolution ..

Do want an example why Adaptation is NOT evolution ?
if you put a human in total darkness he will go blind .. thus because of the stimuli or lack of, he adapts and a "change" happens .. this "Adaptation" is NOT heredatary

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080107/full/news.2008.414.html
By mating blind fish from distant underwater caves, researchers have bred offspring that can see.
=======================
DARWIN'S FAMOUS FINCHES:
Darwin's example of "evidence for evolution", the variation among finch beaks among finch birds on the Galapagos Island, off the coast of South America. You'll read about this in nearly every biology textbook. But you will nearly always never be told the truth.
It is true that the finch beaks differ in size according to the habitats that they live in. One study of finch beaks actually showed that during a period of drought in the Galapagos Islands the beaks increased in size slightly. Darwin would have you believe that this is because that during a period of drought the average beak size increases so the birds could eat the larger tougher seeds that are available dry periods. The differences in beak sizes are in the area of tenths of a millimeter (as thick as a thumbnail). This was acclaimed as a confirmation of Darwin's theory. Many evolutionists got very excited about this.
But what happened next that evolutionists do not want you to know?
When the rains returned, the birds beaks returned to normal, when the smaller seeds became available to the birds. This showed that this was actually a cyclic variation that allowed the finches to survive in dry weather. And this could not lead to a new species.
The National Academy of Science's booklet on evolution to teachers conveniently left out the part about the beaks returning to normal, even though they knew of it. They even had the gall to speculate in their booklet about what might happen in 200 years - that this might even produce a "new species of finch".
======================
THE PEPPERED MOTH LIE:
Remember the pictures of these in your High School textbook? The moths appear in two variations of black and gray. Every student of biological evolution learns about peppered moths. Evolutions told us the story like this. There was a dramatic increase in dark forms of this species during the industrial revolution when factories poured out smoke and soot. This pollution darkened the tree trunks where moths hung out, thus making the lighter gray moths much more visible to bird predators. So, evolutionists told us that this resulted in a much larger population of darker moths, clearly pointing to a moth evolving.

THE FAKED PHOTOS
When it was realized that peppered moths don't actually perch on tree trunks in the wild, but instead perch in the upper canopy of trees, the famous pictures of gray and black peppered moths on tree trunks came into immediate question. It turned out that these photographs were staged by "Scientists". They glued the dead moths onto tree trunks.
Why was this shoddy scientific research accepted in academia in the first place? Because Scientists desperately needed to believe in it to grasp onto something, anything, to prove Darwin's faulty theory of evolution.
 
Last edited:
LysanderShapiro said:
We're doing this again?

I have to confess, the discussion of evolution is really getting worn out. We've had about 3 or 4 active threads discussion evolution, even when that wasn't the topic at hand. In addition, I still think evolution is a red herring to the discussion of theology. I understand the argument that it is no, but why have multiple active threads going over it?

All this topic seems to do is bring out the worst in people. RiverJordan for instance has received snarky remark after snarky remark. In turn, RiverJordan has given snarky remark after snarky remark. I too have probably responded in that manner at some point.

Shouldn't we, at the very least, limit this topic to one thread? I'm not saying that because of the less than friendly responses, but just because this topic is just wearing thin. Where do we draw the line?
Click to expand...

I lost interest a LONG time ago. Now I just ninja-stalk the threads to make sure nothing gets too out of hand. A few did, and I put an end to those. This will never be a productive conversation, but so long as it remains civil, it's also not harmful. It's just, as you said, a red herring.
 
To answer to River Jordan, with common sense, though i am not a student in school of biology as you are, but common sense and seeing around us how nature develops, which IXOYE has done really good in listing the differentiation between ''evolution" of the kind in the lab and God's creation of mankind... common sense will tell we did not evolved from sludge but were created by God as only God can create a human like anyone of us from absolutely nothing... no evolution from an amoeba that became a fish that became an ape that became a human, does this really make sense in anyone's mind no matter how limited our minds are...? Here is what someone else said and i am quoting their statement:

Question: Darwin said the world came from a big bang of some sort, and man evolved from an amoeba. The Bible says that God created the world and man. What's the difference which one we believe?


Answer: While it might not seem to make much difference which one we believe, there is a HUGE difference. If we believe that we evolved from monkeys and amoebas - that's not too much of a heritage to live up to. It puts mankind (you and me) in a category with fish, snakes and every other animal good or bad.


Besides the point, I could never figure out how through millions of years we evolved from an amoeba to a human, and if so, why do we still have all the inbetween animals etc. And if the world came from an explosion of sorts, where did the things that exploded come from?


The thinking behind the big bang, and evolution theory is that no one is control. It all just happened accidentally or randomly. There is no God, the Grand Designer behind this magnificent world and human race. There is no God who created and sustains it all, and no God to whom we must give an account. Life is all about man and what we can or cannot do. We are our own god.


If we humans came from sludge; there is no high call on a by-product of sludge—and no good end for a product of sludge. Life can tend to be cheap and disposable because we are a mere animal. However, we are made in the image of our Creator God. He loves us and has a good plan for our life. We are fearfully and beautifully made (Psalm 139) to know and glorify Him forever. We are His most special and highest creation. When the world and everything else (except man) was created, He said it was good. It was only when He had created mankind that He said, “indeed, it was very good!” (Genesis 1:31).


We not only have a God who created this world and us - but a God who wants us to know Him and live with Him forever (John 3:16).

When i was in college many instructors tried to explain the ''big bang theory'' but could never explain the One behind it... does anyone here know of any scientist that has actually proved the first spark that initiated life in our universe was not from God ...?
 
ixoye_8 said:
you are mistaking adaptation which is reversible and not hereditary, with evolution
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're talking about here. The examples I provided you were entirely hereditary and meet the exact definition of the evolution of new species that you previously agreed to.

.. adaptation, mutation and genetic drift are natural occurrences within a specie and have never been proven to lead to evolution
Click to expand...
First of all, I don't think you even know what evolution is. Evolution is a change in the genetics of a population over time. So evolution is a means of adaptation. IOW, if a population evolves a new trait in response to a changing environment, that is adaptation via evolution.

Second, as we previously agreed, when two populations are physically unable to breed but are fully able to reproduce themselves, they are different species. The examples I provided you meet those criteria 100%, and thus are observed examples of the evolution of new species.

Also, you didn't answer my question: Do you believe that Noah took two of every species aboard the ark?

The rest of your post is you once again introducing entirely new topics before I've even had a chance to address everything from your previous posts. Not only that, you completely ignored my response to one of your previous points. That's not operating in good faith. So again, please don't introduce new topics until we've covered the ones you've already posted. If you're patient, we'll get to all of them.

To remind you where we were at....

The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work.
Click to expand...
Where exactly did you copy this information from? Do you know enough about K/Ar dating to be able to discuss this subject fully? Because the first question I have is, why are you relying on a source that is giving you the impression that K/Ar methodologies are the same now as they were in the 40's, 50's, and 70's? And finally, do you understand the difference between the different isotopes, and how simply using 40Ar/39Ar completely does away with your objection?
 
ixoye_8 said:
actually it is not an accusation .. you didn't address half of the things I spoke on ..

explain how it is even possible for life to even arise naturally ..
scientist cant .. they ignore that now ..
Click to expand...
Seriously? I'm trying to address everything you've posted. You don't seem to be cooperating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top