you - We have evidence that does answer those questions.
Scientist have the evidence, not “we” . Unless you are digging it up and conducting the experiments yourself, but even if you were, that isn’t where I am coming from. Maybe you understand me, maybe you don’t. My position is personal verification of those answers, if I can’t have that then it’s accepting and believing, this will usually be based on trust of the scientist. Fact is I don’t know them or anything about them apart from what job they do, so there is a huge leap in trust required here.
I take you trust the mainstream scientist and the scientific method. Is that a fair assumption of you on my part.
you - Hasn’t changed at all. Neanderthals were first considered to be a separate species, and subsequent DNA sequence confirmed this fact.
It has changed from what I was originally taught from them being a dumb, brutish half man half ape evolving in a lineal line that grunted to now having evidence they buried their dead, wore jewelry and maybe spoke a language and upgrading their classification to being human.
quote
“In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them, Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you will,” says Fred H. Smith, a physical anthropologist at LoyolaUniversity in Chicago who has been studying Neanderthal DNA. “They were believed to be scavengers who made primitive tools and were incapable of language or symbolic thought.”Now, he says, researchers believe that Neanderthals “were highly intelligent, able to adapt to a wide variety of ecologicalzones, and capable of developing highly functional tools to help them do so. They were quite accomplished.” Smithsonian magazine.
Under the biblical paradigm, they were human’s, not a different species of human., same with denisovens and same with home erectus. It’s the Australopithecus going backwards in evolotionary time are simply apes, that could do a few human abilities such as walking, as we see chimps and gorillas do today, but basically the same.
you - So how does this fit in with the evidence mainstream science is using? For example, why do we find a correlation between the observed spectrum of mutations, the spectrum of mutations that separate modern humans, and the spectrum of mutations that separate chimps and humans?
This is where the creation paradigm has a different explanation for what scientist observe and consider to be true… I can understand to a degree both sides as they are explained.
I know you don’t believe this story and that is fine. I’m simply giving the basics of what I have understood about it. Take it as you wish.
The creation paradigm has the fall of man being the beginnings of the mutations accumulating once they had no access to the tree of life and this continuing through the generations through to today.
We have to consider pre flood and post flood people as there was a dramatic change in the 2 different people and what was happening to them based on the changed physical conditions of the earth and how much radiations there was now hitting the planet and the change in the oxygen levels etc etc etc
Some studies have found that their were eg higher mutation rates with the dramatic decrease in ages directly after the flood. There are plenty of explanations from creation scientist that give their take on it. It is a bit beyond me to give a in-depth explanation. I only have a basic understanding of it.
you - the link you sent me.
Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - BioLogos
On the other hand, if humans and chimpanzees appeared by special creation, we would not expect their genetic differences to bear the distinctive signature of descent from a common ancestor.
Why would such a question be asked that way. What would be expected under a creation model?
Under the creation model based on the bible, apes and human’s were made from the same materials and basically the same design. They were made to fit and live in their respective environments. The only difference between the 2 is God breathed into Adam and not an ape. This is the only significant difference there is to consider. Similar features be it homology, genes or dna isn’t that significant at all, not for me anyway. You would expect that apes and humans will have roughly the same genes and dna make up as they have basically the same features. That is easy to understand.
After the fall, we were all affected, so human’s and all animals including apes were affected in their own respective ways. This is what scientist study, but there are 2 different conclusions to this.
From a different perspective, If you look at human’s compared to animals in the wild. We do not fit in with any of them. We haven’t followed any normal observable increasing intellectual pattern’s in the wild. We are very different. Under the creation paradigm, God gave man the ability to think far beyond that of any animal in the wild, including dominion over them all and we were given the physical requirement to meet those intellectual abilities… Let me know when a chimp evolves enough so it can figure out how to tie 2 sticks together. They have apparently had the same amount of time as us to evolve to be able to do something like that.
you - We don’t see that in biology either. We share a common ancestor with baboons, and we are both still primates. We share a common ancestor with bears, and we are both still mammals. We share a common ancestor with lizards, an we are both still amniotes. We share a common ancestor with fish, and we are both still vertebrates. That’s what we should see if evolution is true.
Yes that is the claim and that is what is unverifiable to me. What we all do share is, we all came from the earth and have basically the same materials in us and physical features for our respective environments. You accept and believe life started from non living material beyond verification and evolved from this beginning through to today, and I accept and believe it was a creator that is still living, also beyond verification, but the bible states it as a belief.
you - Then you will find the same transitional features that other scientists are finding.
I can only find them, it then requires an interpretation to link one finding with another.
you - What we are saying is that they have transitional features. What I rarely see from creationists is actual interpretation of the fossils. Instead, what we see is a lot like what is found in your posts, a lot of complaints about other peoples’ interpretations and wanting to see fossils that haven’t been found.
Creationist will argue different interpretation of the fossils and is available to watch if you want to. What you may struggle with is it as it won’t fit in with an evolutionary explanation that you are accustomed to. If you are able to stand outside the 2 explanations and understand them both from their respective pov you can see it from both sides. Under the creation paradigm, There is no transitional fossils. These will be considered a different creation all together. Pakicetus and ambulocetus are 2 different animals. They may have some similar features which is no different to what we see in today’s animals.
The sigmoid process I showed in the 2 pics I sent shows they are different. The gray area is if the plate like sigmoid process of ambulocetus evolved to a finger like sigmoid process like that of a modern day dolphin through the different animals over a x amount of time. I don’t know if they have any other fossilised sigmoid process post ambulocetus.
You have missed my main complaint, because I don’t argue against eg whale evo, what I say is I can only accept and believe it to be true. I accept it as a possibility, that is the only position from where I currently sit that is available to me. I cannot verify a lineal line, sister taxa or a different branch from a main lineage.
The reason I accept the bible’s position, is that it states it is a belief and that is all that is required of me.
The evolutionary model has no verification process for the laymen.
you - Then you should have no problem accepting humans sharing common ancestry with whales since we are both mammals, as was our common ancestor.
I accept we are both mammals, but I accept and believe we have separate ancestry, but I also accept I could be wrong. I have no issue with that.
you - Gingerich based his conclusions on features that were in the fossil. The same for Thewissen.
Thewissen placed the opening nasal cavity 1/4 away from the tip of the snout towards the top of the head. What reasons would he put it there if he didn’t think it was evolving towards the top of the head. He didn’t have that piece of information, so he made an assumption as their was no fossil to verify his conclusion with…
Pakicetus opening was at the tip of the snout and Kutchicetus was also tip of the snout. I’ll make the assumption Kutchicetus was found after ambulocetus. This then adding weight to the opening for ambulocetus being at the tip of the snout as well as he later admitted to.
This doesn’t disprove evolution though, but as I’ve mentioned before it highlights that it isn’t the fossils they always find or don’t find that directs them sometimes towards their conclusions. We can see that clearly in this eg.
Anyway I think we have both said the same things repeatably a few times now. I’m not sure if you understand my pov on this, but feel free to continue if you like. My main objective is not to prove creation or disprove evo as I can’t do either. It is to show that both respective claims cannot be verified by me, so I can only accept and believe… That is my position The difference is the creation model says it is a belief and that I understand and can do.
