Heresy within Christianity

[Yehren]

So, if you say you are not good, on what basis do you make that evaluation?

Because I believe God. You should, too.

 

[Yehren]

But genetic studies have shown that apes have so many differences in their genetic code from humans that there is no way they could mutate into humans through genetic means.

Well, let's take a look...

Notice human and chimpanzee chromosomes are more similar to each other than either species is similar to other apes. That's close. Because chimpanzees had a common ancestor that diverged from other apes before gorillas and orangutans evolved. Notice that humans have a chromosome fusion that looks almost identical to two chimpanzee chromosomes.

The odds of that happening by chance are so tiny as to be effectively impossible. But there's more. Researchers have found, in human chromosome 2, remains of telomers (ends of chromomes) precisely where they would be if there was a fusion. You were really misled on this one.

Actually, the fruit fly has more similarities in its genetic code to humans

That's hilariously wrong:

Evolutionary Relationships | BioNinja

Let's see your evidence for that claim. Checkable source, with evidence.

it it would be more likely that a fruit fly, with simple changes in genetics could transform into a human being, than apes could.

See above. You've been lied to.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Sounds unlikely. Even YE creationists admit the fact of speciation:

It is interesting that you are not prepared to accept that the top evolutionists can't provide any scientific proof that can be observed that one species can change to another through evolution.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

So, God creating each species after its own kind is wrong then?

...
Nine out of ten species alive today have arisen in the last 200,000 years, according to a genetic study looking at select portions of DNA from 100,000 species.
Speciation

Has the formation of these species been observed or tested? or do evolution scientists believe that the species formed this way?

Top of my head? Let's see...

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
https://www.genetics.org/content/genetics/20/4/377.full.pdf

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Vries, H.D., 1905. Ueber die Dauer der Mutations-periode bei Oenothera Lamarckiana. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft, 23, p.382.

This was a genetic mutation of the same basic plant through his interbreeding, and not a total change to a totally different plant. Not evolution.

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
Genetics. 2015 Sep; 201(1): 213–228.

Genetics of Rapid and Extreme Size Evolution in Island Mice
Melissa M. Gray,* Michelle D. Parmenter,* Caley A. Hogan,* Irene Ford,* Richard J. Cuthbert,† Peter G. Ryan,‡ Karl W. Broman,§ and Bret A. Payseur*,1
Abstract
Organisms on islands provide a revealing window into the process of adaptation. Populations that colonize islands often evolve substantial differences in body size from their mainland relatives. Although the ecological drivers of this phenomenon have received considerable attention, its genetic basis remains poorly understood. We use house mice (subspecies: Mus musculus domesticus) from remote Gough Island to provide a genetic portrait of rapid and extreme size evolution. In just a few hundred generations, Gough Island mice evolved the largest body size among wild house mice from around the world. Through comparisons with a smaller-bodied wild-derived strain from the same subspecies (WSB/EiJ), we demonstrate that Gough Island mice achieve their exceptional body weight primarily by growing faster during the 6 weeks after birth. We use genetic mapping in large F2 intercrosses between Gough Island mice and WSB/EiJ to identify 19 quantitative trait loci (QTL) responsible for the evolution of 16-week weight trajectories: 8 QTL for body weight and 11 QTL for growth rate. QTL exhibit modest effects that are mostly additive.

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Britton-Davidian collected hundreds of mice from about 40 locations around the island and found six distinct populations. The common brown house mouse of Europe, presumably the ancestor of the Madeira mice, has 40 chromosomes, but the six families of Madeiran mice have between 22 and 30.


The current families of Madeiran mice are not short of genetic material. They have not lost any DNA. What happened is this: over time, some of the chromosomes fused together, packing more DNA into some chromosomes. Each of the six unique populations of mice on Madeira has its own special assembly of fused chromosomes.
Island mice may evolve faster: From one species to six

It's very unlikely that these different species can now interbreed; different chromosome numbers will usually prevent that, although there are exceptions.

Whatever took place, the creature still remained a mouse. It did not change into any other kind of rodent such as a rat or a hamster. It remained a different variation of a mouse. This may be called evolution, but it does not fit within the criteria. If the mouse had transformed into a rat or another totally different kind of rodent then it would have fitted into the criteria required of evolution.

Sorry, no cigar this time! :-)

 

[Paul Christensen]

He wasn't immortal. In fact, God expresses concern that he might become so, and takes steps to prevent it:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. [23] And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken.

I think you are trapped between a rock and a hard place. If you say God speaks the truth, and admit that He told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, you'll have to deny God's words if you insist it was a physical death. Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter.



Show us where it says both human and animal death came into the world with Adam's transgression. Your unwillingness to address what God said is because you've argued yourself into a corner. Either the death God spoke of is spiritual, or God did not tell Adam the truth. You're caught either way.

I have already quoted three verses of Scripture that clearly shows that physical death came into the world through Adam's sin. You are demonstrating that you don't believe what those verses clearly state, so you are not convincing me that you actually believe the Bible at all. So you can try and worm your way out of your dilemma, but to accept evolution you have to say that Paul was lying when he wrote those three verses. In actual fact, because, as the Bible says, the Holy Spirit was speaking through Paul and those verses are what the Holy Spirit is saying, then you have to say that the Holy Spirit is not telling the truth.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Because I believe God. You should, too.

I don't think you do, because you don't believe the three verses I quoted to you from Romans and 2 Corinthians.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Well, let's take a look...

Notice human and chimpanzee chromosomes are more similar to each other than either species is similar to other apes. That's close. Because chimpanzees had a common ancestor that diverged from other apes before gorillas and orangutans evolved. Notice that humans have a chromosome fusion that looks almost identical to two chimpanzee chromosomes.

The odds of that happening by chance are so tiny as to be effectively impossible. But there's more. Researchers have found, in human chromosome 2, remains of telomers (ends of chromomes) precisely where they would be if there was a fusion. You were really misled on this one.



That's hilariously wrong:

Evolutionary Relationships | BioNinja

Let's see your evidence for that claim. Checkable source, with evidence.



See above. You've been lied to.

It probably was the mouse! :-)
But there is no fusion, and the 5% difference might as well be 100% in terms of evolutionary change. The fact that chimps are very close genetically to humans shows in its appearance, sharing many genetic traits with humans (two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, etc.), but there are major genetic differences in its skin, feet, level of intelligence, and overall structure. A chimp is a chimp and a human is a human and even though there are almost similar genes, a miss is as good as a mile.

 

[aspen]

I think there is mucho heresy in what you believe and post on this forum full of heresy..

really?

 

[Yehren]

It probably was the mouse! :)

Nope. As you see, the mouse is much more distantly related to humans than apes are. Apes, as you now realize, are very, very closely related to humans.

But there is no fusion

Sorry, that won't work for you. Not only are the two sections almost identical to two ape chromosomes (which would be so unlikely to have occurred by chance that it's essentially impossible) but scientists have found the remnants of telomeres (sequences found only at the ends of chromosomes) right where they would be in such a fusion. No point in denying the facts.

but there are major genetic differences in its skin, feet, level of intelligence, and overall structure.

Show us those genetic sequences. You seem to have made that up. Perhaps you don't know what "genetic" means. I think you were thinking of "phenotype", not genetics. The very close genetic relationship indicates very close evolutionary connection. And we can test that idea by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent. It works.

A chimpanzee is a chimpanzee and a human is a human. But they are more closely related to each other than either is to any other organism. And that's what counts.

 

[Yehren]

Yehren says:
Because I believe God. You should, too.

I don't think you do,

Probably because you don't believe what God says and have revised His words in Romans and 2 Corinthians. You're not God. Let God be God, accept it His way and it will cease to trouble you.

 

[mjrhealth]

I have a further question to ask you:
Did death, suffering, and disease exist before Adam's fall?
Oh definitely. The dirt you stand on is the remanence of the cycle of life and death over billions of years. The planet started out as a rock and now it is carpeted with dirt.

Now this is stupidity, Corruption came in because of the fall of man, because of Adams disobedience, it was why Adam was cast out of the Garden so that after His fall He could not live forever in His sinful / fallen state. God created the world in light, it was man who reigned in the darkness.

 

[Yehren]

I have already quoted three verses of Scripture that clearly shows that physical death came into the world through Adam's sin.

"Physical" is your addition to scripture. That's not in the verses you cited. And you still haven't shown me were it says animal death came into the world because of Adam's sin. When do you think you'll be able to show us that? You are demonstrating that you don't believe what those verses clearly state, so you are not convincing me that you actually believe the Bible at all.

I believe what Paul said. I don't believe what you claim he said. And that's the crux of our disagreement. Where is that verse that says animal death came into the world because of Adam's sin?

 

[Yehren]

It is interesting that you are not prepared to accept that the top evolutionists can't provide any scientific proof that can be observed that one species can change to another through evolution.

I just showed you several cases where they pointed out examples of one species evolving to another. As you now realize, even many creationists admit the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you again?

From the Institute for Creation Research:
There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described
Speciation and the Animals on the Ark

From Answers in Genesis:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time.
...
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
Speciation

 

[Paul Christensen]

Nope. As you see, the mouse is much more distantly related to humans than apes are. Apes, as you now realize, are very, very closely related to humans.



Sorry, that won't work for you. Not only are the two sections almost identical to two ape chromosomes (which would be so unlikely to have occurred by chance that it's essentially impossible) but scientists have found the remnants of telomeres (sequences found only at the ends of chromosomes) right where they would be in such a fusion. No point in denying the facts.



Show us those genetic sequences. You seem to have made that up. Perhaps you don't know what "genetic" means. I think you were thinking of "phenotype", not genetics. The very close genetic relationship indicates very close evolutionary connection. And we can test that idea by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent. It works.

A chimpanzee is a chimpanzee and a human is a human. But they are more closely related to each other than either is to any other organism. And that's what counts.

But there is a gap in the genetic code of the chimp which makes it different enough to totally prevent it from being anything like a human being. Two prominent evolutionists state that we are related to the banana! Does that make it that we are evolved from bananas! Anyone who believes that has to be bananas!! :-)

 

[mjrhealth]

I just showed you several cases where they pointed out examples of one species evolving to another. As you now realize, even many creationists admit the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you again?

From the Institute for Creation Research:
There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described
Speciation and the Animals on the Ark

From Answers in Genesis:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time.
...
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
Speciation

I truly would love to see a fish change into a human, that would be a site to see, are men so ignorant, an animal can only produce after its kind anything else is mans making. A dog cannot birth a cat., nor a sparrow an elephant. Men so ignorant.

 

[Yehren]

But there is a gap in the genetic code of the chimp which makes it different enough to totally prevent it from being anything like a human being.

All closely related species have "gaps", which as you learned, are caused by evolutionary changes.

Two prominent evolutionists state that we are related to the banana!

All living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

• Humans and bananas are more closely related to each other than either is related to prokaryotes.
  
• Humans and other animals are more closely related to each other than any related to plants.
• Humans and mammals are more closely related to each other than any are related to other animals.
• Humans and primates are more closely related to each other than any are related to other mammals.
• Humans and apes are more closely related to each other than any are related to other primates.
• Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to other apes.

Someone lied to you by telling you half of the truth.

Does that make it that we are evolved from bananas!

Nope. the last common ancestor of humans and plants diverged into three kingdoms:

• Fungi
• Plants
• Animals

So none of these are the ancestors of the others.

 

[Yehren]

I truly would love to see a fish change into a human, that would be a site to see,

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Humans evolved from other apes, not from fish.

are men so ignorant, an animal can only produce after its kind

Not according to the Bible.

A dog cannot birth a cat., nor a sparrow an elephant.

It's astonishing that anyone today would imagine that's what evolutionary theory says.

Men so ignorant.

Some of them,obviously.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I just showed you several cases where they pointed out examples of one species evolving to another. As you now realize, even many creationists admit the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you again?

But the examples you showed did not show change from one species of plant to another, nor of one species of rodent to another. All you showed was mutation and adaptation within the same individual species of plant and rodent. If the evening primrose had changed into a rose, I would be more likely to believe you. Furthermore, the mule is the offspring of a horse and a donkey, and is also sterile and cannot be bred from, but it is still a type of horse and did not evolve from a horse to a mule. But there is no evidence that interbreeding of a cow and a horse has ever happened because of the difference in genetics.

My father could graft a delicious apple branch onto to a cox's orange base and get both delicious and cox's orange apples from the same tree, but that was not evolution, but combination of genetic characteristics in the same apple tree. But he would not have been able to graft a branch from his apricot tree to the apple tree base because the genetics would be too different and the branch would die.

If the genetics were so similar between chimps and humans, then one could mate with the other and produce a hybrid chimp/human. But no one has ever succeeded if they have even tried to implant human sperm into a female chimp. But a lion has mated with a tiger and has produced a hybrid cat species but this is genetic adaptation through interbreeding resulting in another type of cat, and not something from another animal family.

So, whatever mutations or genetic changes that happen in a plant or animal species causing different characteristics, if the plant has changed into a totally different plant, like an evening primrose turning into a banana tree, or a mouse has turned into a rat, then evolution has not occurred.

Also, evolution has to happen by chance and not from any kind of human manipulation. Both examples you have given have resulted in some kind of human involvement and not by chance, and therefore, for that reason also, is outside of the evolutionary criteria.

Keep firing the arrows. You might get one into the bullseye yet!!

 

[Paul Christensen]

All closely related species have "gaps", which as you learned, are caused by evolutionary changes.



All living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

• Humans and bananas are more closely related to each other than either is related to prokaryotes.
  
• Humans and other animals are more closely related to each other than any related to plants.
• Humans and mammals are more closely related to each other than any are related to other animals.
• Humans and primates are more closely related to each other than any are related to other mammals.
• Humans and apes are more closely related to each other than any are related to other primates.
• Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to other apes.

Someone lied to you by telling you half of the truth.



Nope. the last common ancestor of humans and plants diverged into three kingdoms:

• Fungi
• Plants
• Animals

So none of these are the ancestors of the others.

Half the truth? The top half or the bottom half?

I guess the guy saying, "I'll be a monkey's uncle!" might be telling the truth! I told a friend once who was eating a banana, that observing him makes me more willing to believe in evolution! :-)

 

[Marymog]

You are a pagan Catholic believing a vast number of errors.

Hi Troll,

Thank you!;)

 

[Grailhunter]

Now this is stupidity, Corruption came in because of the fall of man, because of Adams disobedience, it was why Adam was cast out of the Garden so that after His fall He could not live forever in His sinful / fallen state. God created the world in light, it was man who reigned in the darkness.

You have so many denominations because of the interpretation of the scripture that vases.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
But this one is really not a creation debate scripture. Adam and Eve walked out into a fully living world. Adam's son went to the land of Nod and found himself a wife among the people there. The dirt is merely an example of how many billions of years it took for the cycle of the living then dying, living and dying thing to carpet the planet with dirt. Dirt and oil and other remenence of living things are the standing proof of this cycle and how it got there.