Religion Creation vs. Darwin's MacroEvolution Myth

[NeutralZone]

The claim by Charles Darwin and his modern-day disciples, including those in academia, is that all organic beings throughout history were the descendants of a single common organic ancestor. When asked how this common ancestor came to life by itself, they have no credible answer.

The Genesis Creation account speaks about the creation of living things by Jehovah, each uniquely different and each created as-is, but with the ability to produce variations of themselves--up to a set point.

Science unintentionally supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin's macroevolution myth.

QUESTION 1: How did the supposed common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?

QUESTION 2: "Survival of the fittest" is supposedly a feature of macroevolution; so why is the ape still here, co-existing along with humans, after humans supposedly evolved from apes?

QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?

NeutralZone

 

[Fire]

With all due respect, your tone and the questions you have brought forward telegraph that you are prothelysising rather than seeking. If you truly wished to find the answers you are seeking, you could do so in a single afternoon. They have been asked and answered a million times before.

1. 'We don't yet know' is a credible answer. Anyone can make up an answer up to fill this gap, but scientists are exploring possibilities and theories using naturalistic methods to try and find the real one. As they always have.

2. There are several things wrong with this question. Humans are still apes. We didn't come from modern apes, rather we all share the same ancestor. But still the question is asinine. Australia came from England then how can England still exist?

3. Why would you expect the fossil record would prove abiogenisis? What would you expect to find? The fossil record and DNA prove that evolution exists, and it suggests that we all originated from a single source. But evolution itself does not even attempt to answer abiogenisis, as it does not rely on it. They may be linked, as everything in physics is, But abiogenisis is a different theory to evolution. You may as well demand someone find proof for molecular theory using Newton's second law.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Science is full of we don't know yet. That's science.

 

[RupieDupie]

Here's a thought, if God created everything I could be more closely related to the OP than the OP is to their parents, even though the OP more closely resembles their parents. From the OP's perspective there is nothing that could prove otherwise...

 

[Roylion]

The claim by Charles Darwin and his modern-day disciples, including those in academia, is that all organic beings throughout history were the descendants of a single common organic ancestor. When asked how this common ancestor came to life by itself, they have no credible answer.

And the three Abrahamic religions have?

The Genesis Creation account speaks about the creation of living things by Jehovah, each uniquely different and each created as-is, but with the ability to produce variations of themselves--up to a set point.

Science unintentionally supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin's macroevolution myth.

No it doesn't. You are either proselytising or trolling.

QUESTION 1: How did the supposed common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?

We don't know exactly. However what we do know is that in the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of proteins, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth.

In 2001 Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."

A 2015 paper from a a team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK, published in the journal Nature Chemistry, showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light.

In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space.

A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents. These experiments have for the first time demonstrated that RNA molecules can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys.

And while none of the above is conclusive, empirical evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis existing does exist.

Certainly I'm prepared to wait for more evidence of abiogenesis rather than adopting your clear belief system of "Scientists can't explain the origin of life yet, therefore it must have been God and specifically, the version of God I believe in."

QUESTION 2: "Survival of the fittest" is supposedly a feature of macroevolution; so why is the ape still here, co-existing along with humans, after humans supposedly evolved from apes?

All the above statement really shows is that you don't understand what evolution is. Humans did not evolve from apes.

Macro-evolution is basically 'common descent' and has been tested (and is continuing to be tested). For example (and this only ONE example by the way), comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms, (including humans) has revealed that organisms that are phytogenitically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Basically 'common descent' of organisms, particularly that man and other modern ape species have a common ancestor is also scientific fact.

So on the empirical evidence gathered so far, geneticists believe that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor about between 7 and 13 million years ago. Because chimps and humans share a matrilineal ancestor, the mutation rates of mtDNA, taken from both species, can be used to establish when they last had a common ancestor. By determining the mutation rates of both species, which serve as evolutionary clocks, it is possible to determine when they last shared a common ancestor. The fossil record, such as that of Australopithecus afarensis also supports intermediatory species.

The closeness of the relations between various life forms on the planet is measured by similar DNA. A complete set of human DNA has a total of 3.3 billion letters. You are different from me because every now and then, you have a different letter from me at a certain spot. So maybe at position 17, 456, 327 I have an A and you have a G.

A dog’s complete set of DNA is a bit smaller with only 2.8 billion letters. Only 25% of the DNA sequence in the dog genome exactly matches the human sequence. When the tiny changes in the other 75% of the DNA are piled up across 25,000 genes and across trillions of cells in the body, the results are two very different organisms. What is does show is that at sometime in the past every human in the world and every dog in the world had a common ancestor.

Fruit flies and humans have 36% of the same DNA. Zebra Fish and humans share 85% of the same DNA while chimpanzees and humans share 98% of the same DNA.

If you choose to reject macro-evolution as a scientific fact, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence in favour, then so be it.

QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?

There's plenty of scientific evidence. Do some reading beyond what's in the Bible.

 

[M Malice]

Attention, NeutralZone , Already a thread that discusses much of what you ask including abiogenesis.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/explaining-evolution-and-natural-selection.1136456/

 

[Snake_Baker]

QUESTION 1: How did the supposed common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?

We don't know.

QUESTION 2: "Survival of the fittest" is supposedly a feature of macroevolution; so why is the ape still here, co-existing along with humans, after humans supposedly evolved from apes?

The greater and lesser apes are two separate branches of the super-family "Hominoidea". Homo Sapiens are a species of the Hominoidae family.

QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?

There is a multitude of evidence to support this claim. Read some books.

 

[Long Live HFC]

QUESTION 2: "Survival of the fittest" is supposedly a feature of macroevolution; so why is the ape still here, co-existing along with humans, after humans supposedly evolved from apes?

i get that you're probably just a lame troll account, but the fact you think humans evolved from apes just shows how pig-ignorant you are.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Science is full of we don't know yet. That's science.

Agree.

Not subject this thread necessarily but I wonder whether the medical fraternity actively put their hand up on some matters and admit they don't know.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Strong inverse relationship between newbie OP's choice of username and stance taken.

 

[Bennett.]

This is going to end well

 

[Total Power]

Yes another evolution thread from religious fundies is what we need. Read some books ffs.

 

[Lethality]

There's plenty of scientific evidence. Do some reading beyond what's in the Bible.

I liked your post but I have to disagree with your stance here. All the relevant information might very well be in the bible, excluding the finer details, of course. It's a bit dismissive to wave off the Bible as though it's not an authority on the origin of the universe. I say this as an atheist myself.

 

[Roylion]

I liked your post but I have to disagree with your stance here. All the relevant information might very well be in the bible, excluding the finer details, of course. It's a bit dismissive to wave off the Bible as though it's not an authority on the origin of the universe. I say this as an atheist myself.

Where did I mention the origin of the universe in this regard? My comment was in direct response to this question about common ancestry.

"QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?"

 

[Snake_Baker]

I liked your post but I have to disagree with your stance here. All the relevant information might very well be in the bible, excluding the finer details, of course. It's a bit dismissive to wave off the Bible as though it's not an authority on the origin of the universe. I say this as an atheist myself.

Are you contending that the bible is a science book of sorts for its time?

 

[Lethality]

Are you contending that the bible is a science book of sorts for its time?

It's not a science book. But it might contain key answers, such as the creation of the universe by a sentient being.

 

[Seeds]

These are the threads you get when incredibly stupid people get an internet connection.

 

[Lethality]

These are the threads you get when incredibly stupid people get an internet connection.

Who judges stupidity? You?

 

[Seeds]

Who judges stupidity? You?

Reason

 

[Seeds]

It's not a science book. But it might contain key answers, such as the creation of the universe by a sentient being.

No it doesnt

 

[Lethality]

No it doesnt

Are you an expert on the beginning of the universe?

 

[Lethality]

Reason

Reason brings people to creationism too.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The claim by Charles Darwin and his modern-day disciples, including those in academia, is that all organic beings throughout history were the descendants of a single common organic ancestor. When asked how this common ancestor came to life by itself, they have no credible answer.

The Genesis Creation account speaks about the creation of living things by Jehovah, each uniquely different and each created as-is, but with the ability to produce variations of themselves--up to a set point.

Science unintentionally supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin's macroevolution myth.

QUESTION 1: How did the supposed common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?

QUESTION 2: "Survival of the fittest" is supposedly a feature of macroevolution; so why is the ape still here, co-existing along with humans, after humans supposedly evolved from apes?

QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?

NeutralZone

Q1 amino acids combining to reproduce themselves, leading to microscopic life. Potentially space borne.

Q2 apes live in areas where humans don't want to expend the effort to live (hostile jungle)

Q3 fossils incomplete due to tectonic activity, also need bones to form fossils (hence little record of invertebrates)

Now how do you know that the god you postulate is jehovah? Would it not be equally possible it is Zeus, or Krishna, or allah

 

[Crankyhawk]

It's not a science book. But it might contain key answers, such as the creation of the universe by a sentient being.

Contains the basis of a coherent code of laws and a reason to obey that primitive people would understand (ooga booga fear based) now we have better reasons to follow laws than a sky fairy.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Agree.

Not subject this thread necessarily but I wonder whether the medical fraternity actively put their hand up on some matters and admit they don't know.

I often tell patients that I don't know, or that the tests can't tell what is going on. And from what I've seen patients seem to appreciate and understand the honesty when you talk about the limitations of tests and of medicine.