The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
Jacob, do you believe that the Earth is the center of the universe? Do you believe that woman was made from Adam's rib?
theories are either good or bad, evolutions is a very good theory, creation is not even a bad one, it does not even qualify because it requires supernatural forces or "magic" as some people sayJacob said:Yes it is a theory.
I used to "debate" in creation/evolution forums. The one thing I used to ask that nobody could back up..was..show me the transitional fossil record on anything. Not pictures or drawings..which is what they would start posting. The actual fossil record- photographs.
Jacob said:Yes it is.
I have reproduced a small part of the diagram given in the article [The editor has redrawn this with limitations in part attributable to the low quality of his copy of Gift of Fire.], showing the human second chromosome on the top, and two chimpanzee chromosomes on the bottom. It is patently obvious that the human second chromosome was created by translocation, or a fusion if you prefer, of two chimpanzee chromosomes. Or to be more precise, that the human second chromosome was created by a translocation of two chromosomes in an animal that was ancestor to both man and chimpanzee.
The sequence of events probably took place something like this. About five million years ago a translocation like that described above occurred in a pithecine male who was the controller of a harem of females. Rather than having 48 chromosomes, which was normal for his species, he had 47. When he mated with members of his harem, who possessed the usual number of chromosomes, half of his offspring would have had 48 chromosomes and half would have had 47. If some of those with 47 chromosomes mated among themselves, or were back-bred to their father, one quarter of their offspring would have had 48 chromosomes, one half would have had 47, and one quarter would have had 46. Those with 46 were the prototype of the new genus Homo. But at this stage they were not yet a new species. At most they can be thought of as a new chromosomal race., probably with great phenotypic difference from their fellows, but still not yet a new species. That had to wait for the appearance of one of the chromosome inversions discussed above. This inversion also probably occurred in a male with a harem and was transmitted in much the same way as the translocation. In this case, however, crosses between individuals with the inversion and those without produced only a few offspring, while matings between inverted chromosomes continued to be fertile, as did those without the inversion. This was the first step in breeding isolation. Suddenly, almost overnight, a new species came into existence.
Jacob said:Of course it's not needed when it can't be shown. :roll: The fact is..there are no such fossil records on ANYTHING.
There are some misconceptions about what those of us believe when it comes to things like you suggest- lions and tigers. Here are a couple of links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... lphins.asp
This is from another page there but summarizes it pretty good:The pictures [available only in Creation magazine] show dad lion, mum tigress and ‘liger’ cubs. Since the pair came together in 1997 in the Samsung Everland safari park in South Korea, they have produced 17 cubs.1 Such hybrids probably do not occur in the wild, largely because lions and tigers do not live in the same areas. Ligers grow to become the largest cats in the world—up to half a tonne in weight—bigger than either parent. Did God create lions and tigers separately on Day 6 of Creation Week? That they readily hybridize suggests that lions and tigers may have descended from the same original created kind—just as chihuahuas and great danes have both been bred from an original wolf kind. Female ligers can often mate successfully with a lion or a tiger, but male ligers are apparently infertile.2
I'm glad you called it a theory though.
BTW..here's an interesting article I read recently: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... tissue.asp
It reminds me of a certain pine tree thought extinct for "millions of years". It was recently found again...looks the same as the fossils of them. That particular one just happened to not "evolve" all these millions of years 8)
Jacob said:Oh that's a brilliant point. The mass of the earth..that just happened to form the way it did(from what again?)...just happens to be the correct distance from the sun...just happens to have everything necessary to sustain life.
Again..the transitional fossil record is only pointless because you cannot provide one for anything.
bubka...perhaps you'd like to show us the transitional fossil record? Just call it a wacko website..but don't refute anything. "Fundi"..let the name calling begin.
How is it again that those pine trees were found recently....when they were supposed to be extinct for millions of years? Looking just like the fossils?
wookster: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp
In May, scientists at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, released a study comparing human and other primate genomes with more intense scrutiny than ever before, down to the letters of each base pair. The striking similarities between humans and chimpanzees, especially on the sex-determining X chromosome, led the scientists to a pair of astounding conclusions. First of all, chimps and humans likely diverged from the same evolutionary tree less than 6.3 million years ago, more recently than previously thought. Secondly, the break might not have been a clean one: Early humans and chimps quite possibly interbred for a period of about 4 million years before they split for good. This type of on-again, off-again speciation had formerly been documented in plants and other animals, but never in humans.
The implications sent shock waves through our anthropocentric culture, cuing mental footage of the interspecies monstrosities in The Island of Dr. Moreau. The fear and revulsion some feel at the thought of interbreeding with our simian ancestors is echoed in the expressed objections to modern biotechnologies that blend human and animal parts. President George W. Bush, for one, called for a ban on human-animal hybrids in his 2006 State of the Union address. Yet scientists have already infused mice, sheep, pigs, and other animals with human cells, and a closer look at the boundaries between species reveals the lines to be much more fluid and amorphous than commonly thought, even between humans and nonhumans. If what the Broad Institute scientists suggest is true, we likely descended from humanzees, and if the pace of progress continues, humanzees may be what we once again become.
Jacob said:Oh that's a brilliant point. The mass of the earth..that just happened to form the way it did(from what again?)...just happens to be the correct distance from the sun...just happens to have everything necessary to sustain life.
Jacob said:Again..the transitional fossil record is only pointless because you cannot provide one for anything.
Jacob said:How is it again that those pine trees were found recently....when they were supposed to be extinct for millions of years? Looking just like the fossils?
Bryan said:Millions? Billions? Trillions?
The Gardener said:Bryan said:Millions? Billions? Trillions?
Carl Sagan?
The Gardener said:Well, I must join Jacob in a belief in Creation... but I believe it happened on more of a macro level. Our individual biology as humans is a product of evolution, but biology on the whole, that is the stuff that things are made of, was created.
Jacob said:Of course it's not needed when it can't be shown. :roll: The fact is..there are no such fossil records on ANYTHING.
There are some misconceptions about what those of us believe when it comes to things like you suggest- lions and tigers. Here are a couple of links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... lphins.asp
This is from another page there but summarizes it pretty good:The pictures [available only in Creation magazine] show dad lion, mum tigress and ‘liger’ cubs. Since the pair came together in 1997 in the Samsung Everland safari park in South Korea, they have produced 17 cubs.1 Such hybrids probably do not occur in the wild, largely because lions and tigers do not live in the same areas. Ligers grow to become the largest cats in the world—up to half a tonne in weight—bigger than either parent. Did God create lions and tigers separately on Day 6 of Creation Week? That they readily hybridize suggests that lions and tigers may have descended from the same original created kind—just as chihuahuas and great danes have both been bred from an original wolf kind. Female ligers can often mate successfully with a lion or a tiger, but male ligers are apparently infertile.2
I'm glad you called it a theory though.
BTW..here's an interesting article I read recently: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... tissue.asp
It reminds me of a certain pine tree thought extinct for "millions of years". It was recently found again...looks the same as the fossils of them. That particular one just happened to not "evolve" all these millions of years 8)
The Gardener said:Bryan, that depends on what one thinks "God" is.
The Gardener said:Bryan said:Millions? Billions? Trillions?
Carl Sagan?
Well, I must join Jacob in a belief in Creation... but I believe it happened on more of a macro level. Our individual biology as humans is a product of evolution, but biology on the whole, that is the stuff that things are made of, was created.
The Gardener said:Our individual biology as humans is a product of evolution, but biology on the whole, that is the stuff that things are made of, was created.