Can the history of life on earth be proven to be the result of any natural process?

[Buzzard]

@RichardG

Perhaps this is being to simplistic or literal?

I’m not sure what you mean by “being too simplistic or literal”, but accepting that the history of life on earth is one of evolution shouldn’t threaten one’s belief in God and his creative powers.

I accept that life on earth has evolved, but I believe it could not have evolved the way it did without supernatural/divine assistance. Why God chose that path of creation is not for me to question. Ain’t none of my biz.

To suggest that a human was born from a creature that was not human is to suggest something that cannot be demonstrated.

On one hand, there’s no need for a Christian to believe that humans evolved somehow from a non-human creature, for when Jesus raised Lazarus from the death, he in effect created a living person from inanimate matter in an instant, which can be seen as a repetition of what’s described in Genesis 2:7.

But on the other hand, the physical similarities between humans and chimpanzees, for example, is hard to ignore and begs questions. I believe there’s some sort of ancestral relationship going on there, but I don’t know what it is (although I’m aware of the common-ancestry claim made by science).

If God literally created a human from dust (I’m not saying he didn’t), why does that created human so much resemble the lower apes?
God could have created humans so that they looked like no other creature on earth … but he didn’t.

I think those points are worth considering.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

You show me any progeny that is not the same species as its parents.

So you expect speciation to happen in a single generation?

There has to be a point where it happens.

That has always been the problem of “Random Deviations”, they are either too small to be significant or too big to exist.

And you cannot witness any of it.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

Why does that follow? Where does this hypothesis derive from?

It derives from the theory of evolution

@T_aquaticus

For the hypothesis I gave, the theory predicted that we would find fossils with a mixture of ape and human features before any such fossils were found.

You found because you were looking. That is not how Science works. There has to be a start before the hypothesis. Something to trigger it. The hypothesis is derived from the evidence, it does not dictate what evidence fits it.

Backwards, And you cannot see it.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

hat is not an experiment. That is investigation and cataloging.

That’s what an experiment is, investigation and cataloging.

It involves actions. it involves doing, not just observing. Observing is data not experiment. Observing an experiment requires you to be doing something to observe. You are deliberately being obtuse, and evasive, and misleading.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

You interpret the fossils. You reconstruct the creatures using know characteristics of living creatures.

There is no interpretation. They are objective facts.

Rubbish.

Reading is interpreting, observing and identifying is observing and understanding (interpreting) Stop trying to rewrite language!

@T_aquaticus

The Australopithecus pelvis is more similar to the human pelvis than it is to the pelvis of other apes.

You cannot just observe that. You have to compare and that is automatically subjective.

@T_aquaticus

It has a mixture of human and ape features. This is an objective fact.

No it is not. It is deduced at best. It is more than observation.

You are wriggling and squirming like a trapped animal.

Richard
Edit.
You are fooling yourself not me.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Buzzard

@RichardG

You are claiming that you do not need to know precisely how things evolved., but, because they are here, they must have!

I think there’s a lot of truth to that statement.

It goes kinda like, “We ‘know’ things evolved, so why bother with (the impossibility of) demonstrating how it happened.”

The train runs both directions. We observe that reproduction introduces variation, that limited resources will result in differentiate successful traits, that neutral drift is mathematically described by population genetics, that populations can become isolated by geography, breeding, and survival strategies, and that once independent, distinctive traits will accumulate. Given that, evolution is inevitable and inescapable. They are as much predictors of evolution as mechanisms of evolution.

[Buzzard]

@rsewell

Well, if poisonous snakes did not evolve, and God did not make creatures that kill and eat other creatures, there are none on Earth either. But here we are.

I didn’t claim that snakes didn’t evolve, neither did I claim that God didn’t make creatures that kill and eat each other.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@rsewell

We observe that reproduction introduces variation

But no where near the deviation needed to change a fish to a land creature. The variation is usually due to the combining of two slightly different parent. It is simple genetics and cannot do what evolutionists demand.

@rsewell

that neutral drift is mathematically described by population genetics, that populations can become isolated by geography, breeding, and survival strategies, and that once independent, distinctive traits will accumulate

every time? for every single species or beyond? how many environmental changes are we talking here? Neutral drift only works in gregarious groups, it does not work with solitary creatures. i wonder what ration there is between solitary and communal?
(I asked Google but it could not understand the question)

@rsewell

evolution is inevitable and inescapable.

Now there is an empty assertion.

How long has homo sapiens remained as homo sapiens? Where is the inevitable evolution?

Richard

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@RichardG

The variation is usually due to the combining of two slightly different parent.

It is not just combination. You inherited germ line mutations, in all likelihood neutral, from your parents. All of your somatic cells will then carry some sequences that match neither of your parents somatic cells.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@rsewell

@RichardG

The variation is usually due to the combining of two slightly different parent.

It is not just combination.

That is just knit picking. You know perfectly well that evolution involves more than simple parent and sibling genetics

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

There has to be a point where it happens.

But why do you think it should happen in a single generation?

@RichardG

That has always been the problem of “Random Deviations”, they are either too small to be significant or too big to exist.

You never considered the possibility that small mutations accumulate into big changes?

The differences between the human and chimp genomes is about 10-12 times more than the difference between two humans (who aren’t closely related). The types of differences between the human and chimp genomes are exactly the same as the types of differences between two human genomes, just 10 to 12 times more of them.

@RichardG

You found because you were looking. That is not how Science works.

So you are saying that if the theory of evolution never existed the Australopithecine fossils wouldn’t exist? Please explain.

@RichardG

It involves actions. it involves doing, not just observing.

Observing is doing. Looking for fossils is doing. Comparing fossils to other fossils and to living species is doing.

@RichardG

Reading is interpreting, observing and identifying is observing and understanding (interpreting) Stop trying to rewrite language!

#1 P. troglodytes (i.e. chimp)
#2 A. afarensis (i.e. Lucy’s species)
#3 H. sapiens (us)

You are just in denial.

@RichardG

You cannot just observe that. You have to compare and that is automatically subjective.

So if we measured the shapes of the bones, you don’t think #2 would be more like #3 than #1?

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

But no where near the deviation needed to change a fish to a land creature. The variation is usually due to the combining of two slightly different parent. It is simple genetics and cannot do what evolutionists demand.

We observe that each human is born with about 70 substitution mutations, mutations that are not found in either of their parents. When we compare the two human genomes, there are about 4 million substitution mutations that separate them. When we compare the human and chimp genome there are about 35 million substitution mutations that separate them.

Through neutral mutation, we would expect the neutral fixation rate to be about the same as the mutation rate, so about 70 mutations will reach fixation in each generation. Let’s do the math.

Humans and chimps are separated by 5 million years of evolution. With a generation time of 25 years, that’s 200,000 generations. 70 mutations fixed per generation for 200,000 generations is 14 million accumulated mutations per lineage for a total of 28 million substitution mutations. Add in the observed variation of about 4 million substitution mutations and we are at 32 million substitution mutations.

That’s pretty close to what we observe. If it’s been 6 million years since shared ancestry, then we are even closer to the observation. So why do you think the observed mechanisms are not enough to produce the differences we see between species?

@RichardG

How long has homo sapiens remained as homo sapiens?

Due to evolution, there was never a single generation where we were H. sapiens one generation but not H. sapiens the previous generation.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@RichardG

But no where near the deviation needed to change a fish to a land creature.

Not in one generation, no. Why is it so hard to accept that things can and do happen gradually? Asking for identification of one clear point of transition is like asking someone to identify the day and hour that a baby became a toddler. Or that an adolescent became an adult. By your logic, children cannot become adults because nobody has captured the actual transition itself happening in a single photograph.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

I am going to ask you one more time to read properly what I write, and answer me, and not just spout evolution dogma, or repeat pictures and diagrams you have tried before.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

There has to be a point where it happens.

But why do you think it should happen in a single generation?

I said there has to be a point of change. That will be a single generation regardless of what changes have gone before. At some point the changes will be enough to change the species or animal type.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

hat has always been the problem of “Random Deviations”, they are either too small to be significant or too big to exist.

You never considered the possibility that small mutations accumulate into big changes?

Stop That!
Stop treating me like an imbecile and read what I write!

You are not specifying the amount of change for one change.

And you assume that any change can be done slowly/ Thee has to be enough changes to make the thing different (to evolve)!

One change or 50, the result is the same.

@T_aquaticus

The differences between the human and chimp genomes is

Don’
.t give a tinker’s cuss how big (precisely) the differrence between humans and chimps is (We have been there hundreds of times before)

It is not answering me. You are just spurting out dogma.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

You found because you were looking. That is not how Science works.

So you are saying that if the theory of evolution never existed the Australopithecine fossils wouldn’t exist?

How do you get that from what i said? I did’;t say it. You are just reading what you want to answer.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

It involves actions. it involves doing, not just observing.

Observing is doing. Looking for fossils is doing.

Do want to continue arguing language and definition>

You are just claiming what you do is legit. And it may be. But it is not observing any change. It is not experimenting. And the observation is of a single specimen that you have no control over.

You show me a picture but do not understand what I am saying.

Those are thre bones. That is rhe observation.

Identifying is not observation

cataloging is not observation

comparing is not experimenting.
Comparing involves identification and asumption. It is not a simple observation.

You have three similar but different pelvises and all you can do is name them?

What change in the environment cause the fidderence? What factors caused the difference? How doe Nature know what shape fits the limb formation? Why is bipedal considered an advance? Cheetahs, go much faster, as do horses, gazelles and so on. Why is bipedal and advance, or even an advantage?

You do not even apply your own criteria to the observations

It is not me that is in denial. You just fail to see past you learned examples.

I have yet to see evidence of this great knowledge you and others claim.

You have more examples but that is no different from learning a list or a catalogue. Without the application it is worthless.

Go, describe the reason for the differences you have shown.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

I said there has to be a point of change. That will be a single generation regardless of what changes have gone before.

Why a single generation?

@RichardG

Stop That!
Stop treating me like an imbecile and read what I write!

You are not specifying the amount of change for one change.

And you assume that any change can be done slowly/ Thee has to be enough changes to make the thing different (to evolve)!

One change or 50, the result is the same.

Using substitution mutations as our model . . .

4 million changes, you get the differences between two humans.

35 million changes, you get the differences between humans and chimps.

How can you say the result is the same?

Added in edit: If people are curious about the differences between humans, I am pulling this from the 1,000 genomes paper, especially this table.

@RichardG

Don’
.t give a tinker’s cuss how big (precisely) the differrence between humans and chimps is (We have been there hundreds of times before)

It is not answering me. You are just spurting out dogma.

The differences between the human and chimp genome is an empirical measurement, not a dogma.

@RichardG

Comparing involves identification and asumption. It is not a simple observation.

What assumptions???

What do I have to assume in order to see that the Australopithecine pelvis is much more like the H. sapiens pelvis than the chimp pelvis?

@RichardG

What change in the environment cause the fidderence? What factors caused the difference? How doe Nature know what shape fits the limb formation? Why is bipedal considered an advance? Cheetahs, go much faster, as do horses, gazelles and so on. Why is bipedal and advance, or even an advantage?

That’s what we are using the fossils to test for. If humans evolved from an ancestor shared with chimps then there should have been species in the past that had a mixture of human and ape features. The mixture of human and ape features in Australopithecines is confirmation of that theory.

The physical differences between chimps and humans is due to the sequence differences between our genomes. As I have shown you many times now, the evidence clearly indicates that those differences are due to the very same processes that produce differences from one generation to the next, and the same processes that are responsible for the differences between humans.

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Article - BioLogos

The same evidence can be found here:

Human Genetics Confirms Mutations as the Drivers of Diversity and Evolution