Creation vs. Evolution

[DFT_Dave]

Java Skull Raises Questions on Human Family Tree

"There's no way modern humans could be direct descendants of Homo erectus," said Kenneth Mowbray, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

"The dating is tricky, but the Java material suggests that H. sapiens and H. erectus overlapped in time. H. erectus can't stay the same and be an ancestor at the same time," he said. "It's possible that there's a side branch in H. erectus, but there's no fossil evidence that can lead us in that direction." --National Geographic, Thursday, October 28, 2010

"New dates for Homo erectus fossils from Ngandong, Java, suggest this hominid lived as recently as 53,000 to 27,000 years ago. The dates, obtained by Carl Swisher of the Berkeley Geochronology Center and colleagues, add to the debate between those who favor an out-of-Africa model and those who adhere to a multiregional one. The former believe modern humans developed in Africa 150,000 to 100,000 years ago, then dispersed into the Middle East and Europe, where they replaced Neandertals by 30,000 years ago, and into Asia, where they replaced H. erectus."--Archaeology March/April 1997

Here is another major change in the evolution of the theory of evolution. We are no longer considered a descendent of Homo Erectus as we once were.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Lucy's Baby

"Like adult A. afarensis, the Dikika baby had long, curved fingers. But the fossil also brings new data to the debate in the form of two shoulder blades, or scapulae--bones previously unknown for this species. According to Alemseged, the shoulder blades of the child look most like those of a gorilla. The upward-facing shoulder socket is particularly apelike, contrasting sharply with the laterally facing socket modern humans have. This, Alemseged says, may indicate that the individual was raising its hands above its head--something primates do when they climb."--Scientific America

Another change in the theory of the theory of evolution is that Australopithecus afarensis--Lucy, was far more ape than previously thought.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Your constant "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy.

--Dave

Well let's see Dave. I can see what the professionals in the field say, or I can go by your unqualified opinion. Hey Dave would you like to come over and clean my septic tank? No? Then shut up.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well let's see Dave. I can see what the professionals in the field say, or I can go by your unqualified opinion. Hey Dave would you like to come over and clean my septic tank? No? Then shut up.

You seem to fail to see that there are creationist professionals, to deny it would be, well you know, another fallacy.

--Dave

 

[6days]

Ok, so an individual in a group, with a change in the gene pool, is born with a new physical ability to produce more offspring then those who do not have that new physical "whatever".

Give me examples then of those physical changes in the evolution of man that you know, as fact, helped produce more offspring.

Genes that allowed us to metabolise milk lactose, and same for alcohol. The alcohol metabolism gene had a smaller benefit in the far east where water was sterilised by boiling instead of by poisoning with alcohol, so this gene is not ubiquitous in Japan even now.

The gene that made for lighter skin on mid-northern latitudes to aid the photosynthesis of a vitamin in our skin.

The gene that causes sickle cell anaemia in malaria endemic areas.

GC... your examples are the opposite of what you want.

You have provided several examples of a mutation that has a beneficial outcome but through a loss of information.

For example Lactose intolerance is the 'normal' condition. Humans have a gene that switches off the ability to metabolize milk in childhood. So, your example is really if a broken switch.

We could compare it to a broken electrical switch ... it may be a benefit to some to leave the light on all the time, but nothing new was created.

In God's Word... there is nothing about consuming milk products, until after the flood. Then consuming milk products becomes quite common.

The ability to digest milk can be handy, but its not an example that supports ToE....And its not an example that answers Dave's question. Can you demonstrate that people who don't digest milk produce less offspring?


Sickle cell anaemia... I think I would agree with you this mutation likely has resulted in the ability to produce more offspring. Being a carrier of sickle cell is certainly better than catching malaria. But the example again is downhill evolution... a loss of information. A mutation corrupts pre-existing coding directions for producing hemoglobin. ToE needs a mechanism that provide huge gains of new information, but the examples you provide fail... its loss of info.

As Dave said, your example does nothing to show humans evolved from a common ancestor. Loss of information mutations will never turn a frog into a handsome prince.

 

[6days]

You seem to fail to see that there are creationist professionals, to deny it would be, well you know, another fallacy.

--Dave

Huh?? There are paleontologists, biologists, physicists etc with opposite opinions??
But they are only "professional" if they agree with your worldview...according to some.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Huh?? There are paleontologists, biologists, physicists etc with opposite opinions??
But they are only "professional" if they agree with your worldview...according to some.

Shirley knot.......... :noway: .............. :AMR1: ........ :thumb:

 

[MichaelCadry]

I don't mean to interrupt, but I decided to come back to TOL because I missed you guys, and all of my other friends. Just wanted to let you know.

Praise God and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit,

Michael

 

[alwight]

But what does this have to do with proof that we have evolved from a common ancestor with apes?

--Dave

It is evidence that a particular gene results in more offspring that survive in a given situation.
Clearly nevertheless it is a practical trade-off simply because in practice it works, despite the anaemia, and thus imo rather more a sign of an example of mindless evolution in progress rather than any divine intent.
Since we have returned to common descent (rather than specific beneficial traits) then I am already personally convinced by Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) doing that on their own, regardless of say fossil based evidence, either rigorously or doubtfully concluded. Do I have to be convinced of it separately by each source of evidence rather than combining any or all of them Dave?

 

[gcthomas]

GC... your examples are the opposite of what you want.

You have provided several examples of a mutation that has a beneficial outcome but through a loss of information.

For example Lactose intolerance is the 'normal' condition. Humans have a gene that switches off the ability to metabolize milk in childhood. So, your example is really if a broken switch.

We could compare it to a broken electrical switch ... it may be a benefit to some to leave the light on all the time, but nothing new was created.

In God's Word... there is nothing about consuming milk products, until after the flood. Then consuming milk products becomes quite common.

The ability to digest milk can be handy, but its not an example that supports ToE....And its not an example that answers Dave's question. Can you demonstrate that people who don't digest milk produce less offspring?


Sickle cell anaemia... I think I would agree with you this mutation likely has resulted in the ability to produce more offspring. Being a carrier of sickle cell is certainly better than catching malaria. But the example again is downhill evolution... a loss of information. A mutation corrupts pre-existing coding directions for producing hemoglobin. ToE needs a mechanism that provide huge gains of new information, but the examples you provide fail... its loss of info.

As Dave said, your example does nothing to show humans evolved from a common ancestor. Loss of information mutations will never turn a frog into a handsome prince.

Evolution is the changing frequency of alleles in the gene pool, not the increase of information. Can you find any research paper that describes the essential increase in information, 6days?

You are setting up an Aunt Sally to knock the head off, but you are committing the sort of fallacy you are always banging on about. Time to abandon fallacies yourself, I think.

 

[alwight]

Sickle cell anaemia... I think I would agree with you this mutation likely has resulted in the ability to produce more offspring. Being a carrier of sickle cell is certainly better than catching malaria. But the example again is downhill evolution... a loss of information. A mutation corrupts pre-existing coding directions for producing hemoglobin. ToE needs a mechanism that provide huge gains of new information, but the examples you provide fail... its loss of info.

On the contrary, sickle cells are a remedy to a specific problem, albeit not an ideal one, that would have required an increase of information nevertheless. It's a naturalistic remedy that cannot easily be explained away even by perhaps "originalsinists" with their doctrinally derived decline dogma. (Alliteration rules! )

 

[noguru]

there are creationist professionals.

--Dave

I understand that, it is a very small percentage (negligible amount). And that is because they hold a literal interpretation of Genesis as a foundational assumption in the philosophy of science. Seems kind of like stacking the deck to me. But you, 6gays, 0mind100sprits and the rest of you die hard YECs are free to continue using your unreasonable methods to keep living your life. You can just chalk your stubborn ignorance up to having "strong faith". But do not expect the rest of to not notice.

 

[DFT_Dave]

It is evidence that a particular gene results in more offspring that survive in a given situation.
Clearly nevertheless it is a practical trade-off simply because in practice it works, despite the anaemia, and thus imo rather more a sign of an example of mindless evolution in progress rather than any divine intent.
Since we have returned to common descent (rather than specific beneficial traits) then I am already personally convinced by Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) doing that on their own, regardless of say fossil based evidence, either rigorously or doubtfully concluded. Do I have to be convinced of it separately by each source of evidence rather than combining any or all of them Dave?

None of the examples are reasons why anyone in that group with the mutations mentioned are, any more or less, said to be able to produce more offspring because of their mutation.

Malaria does not or ever did kill everyone that ever had it.

Sickle cell shortens the life of those who have it. "Life expectancy is shortened. In 1994, in the US, the average life expectancy of persons with this condition was estimated to be 42 years in males and 48 years in females, but today, thanks to better management of the disease, patients can live into their 70s or beyond"--Wiki

If the malaria did not get you, the sickle cell that saved you killed you in the end.

In any event sickle cell gives no advantage in the number of offspring those with it can produce. Sickle cell is not a mutation that any one in their right mind would say is another step in the evolution of man.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

GC... your examples are the opposite of what you want.

You have provided several examples of a mutation that has a beneficial outcome but through a loss of information.

For example Lactose intolerance is the 'normal' condition. Humans have a gene that switches off the ability to metabolize milk in childhood. So, your example is really if a broken switch.

We could compare it to a broken electrical switch ... it may be a benefit to some to leave the light on all the time, but nothing new was created.

In God's Word... there is nothing about consuming milk products, until after the flood. Then consuming milk products becomes quite common.

The ability to digest milk can be handy, but its not an example that supports ToE....And its not an example that answers Dave's question. Can you demonstrate that people who don't digest milk produce less offspring?


Sickle cell anaemia... I think I would agree with you this mutation likely has resulted in the ability to produce more offspring. Being a carrier of sickle cell is certainly better than catching malaria. But the example again is downhill evolution... a loss of information. A mutation corrupts pre-existing coding directions for producing hemoglobin. ToE needs a mechanism that provide huge gains of new information, but the examples you provide fail... its loss of info.

As Dave said, your example does nothing to show humans evolved from a common ancestor. Loss of information mutations will never turn a frog into a handsome prince.

Yes, it's a step backwards, the demolition not the evolution of man.

--Dave

 

[Tyrathca]

None of the examples are reasons why anyone in that group with the mutations mentioned are, any more or less, said to be able to produce more offspring because of their mutation.

Malaria does not or ever did kill everyone that ever had it.

Sickle cell shortens the life of those who have it. "Life expectancy is shortened. In 1994, in the US, the average life expectancy of persons with this condition was estimated to be 42 years in males and 48 years in females, but today, thanks to better management of the disease, patients can live into their 70s or beyond"--Wiki

If the malaria did not get you, the sickle cell that saved you killed you in the end.

In any event sickle cell gives no advantage in the number of offspring those with it can produce. Sickle cell is not a mutation that any one in their right mind would say is another step in the evolution of man.

--Dave

On what basis do you make this specific claim? How did you determine that it does not give advantage in the number of offspring? Did you compare morbidity and mortality rates during childhood and prime reproductive years? Life expectancy is a poor substitute for measuring this given 48 year old females are well past prime reproductive time and even post prime child rearing time (for poor-modern society).

 

[DFT_Dave]

It is evidence that a particular gene results in more offspring that survive in a given situation.
Clearly nevertheless it is a practical trade-off simply because in practice it works, despite the anaemia, and thus imo rather more a sign of an example of mindless evolution in progress rather than any divine intent.
Since we have returned to common descent (rather than specific beneficial traits) then I am already personally convinced by Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) doing that on their own, regardless of say fossil based evidence, either rigorously or doubtfully concluded. Do I have to be convinced of it separately by each source of evidence rather than combining any or all of them Dave?

And what good are ERV's if they have no support from the fossil record?

--Dave

 

[Tyrathca]

Yes, it's a step backwards, the demolition not the evolution of man.

--Dave

How is the useful ability to tolerate lactose the "demolition of man"? Are we defying god by eating sinful cheese which he perfectly designed us to digest imperfectly but we have circumvented by "demolishing" his restrictions with our mutations?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Evolution is the changing frequency of alleles in the gene pool, not the increase of information. Can you find any research paper that describes the essential increase in information, 6days?

You are setting up an Aunt Sally to knock the head off, but you are committing the sort of fallacy you are always banging on about. Time to abandon fallacies yourself, I think.

The point is so far that there has been no fossil evidence for the evolution of man from a primitive common ancestor with apes.

What does primitive mean to you?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

On what basis do you make this specific claim? How did you determine that it does not give advantage in the number of offspring? Did you compare morbidity and mortality rates during childhood and prime reproductive years? Life expectancy is a poor substitute for measuring this given 48 year old females are well past prime reproductive time and even post prime child rearing time (for poor-modern society).

Those with sickle cell are not out populating the rest of the human populating that does not have it. That's what it means to produce more offspring.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

If the malaria did not get you, the sickle cell that saved you killed you in the end.

You have grabbed the wrong end of the stick here, Dave.

Sickle cell anaemia is caused by having two copies of the allele, while having one allele protects you against both the anaemia and malaria.

So, in populations where malaria is endemic, there is a population reproducting advantage to having the sickle cell allele reasonably common, enough to give lots of people one copy but not too many two copies. The sickle cell disease is recessive, but the protection against malaria is dominant.

In a similar way the cystic fibrosis gene, which kills 1 in 2500 caucasians, may offer protection against typhoid fever (15% fatality), which has prevented the gene from being removed from the gene pool.