Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not sure why you think we believe that a fully grown adult human can form from a couple of cells over less than 20 years...??? That is your scenario, not ours. When have we ever suggested such a thing?

It's called pregnancy and childbirth.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is observational science, logic, anecdotal, and observed phenomena.

Where we can actually see what caused change in species it was sudden and normally caused by population bottleneck caused by behavior or mutation. Indeed, EVERYTHING that concerns life appears to occur with swiftness. Life at all levels doesn't evolve into or out of existence. One moment it exists and then without warning it ends or there is nothing and then a life, massive infection, or a new species.

It appears even life on earth likely was seeded here from debris in space. This is based on the huge amount of similarity between plant and animal genomes as well as the tremendous unnecessary complexity of the genomes. The simplest explanation is that when the earth was ready to support life the regular bombardment of biological organisms from space simply took root.

The point though is still that what we see and what makes sense is that natural bottlenecks or human imposed bottlenecks each based on behavior creates species. This is seen in agriculture and in domestication of the dog. It only makes sense that the first dog had wolves for parents. The question we should be asking is what made these wolves so different that their offspring were dogs. The obvious answer is that they were the tamest wolves around.

There was another new species created just recently from minks. A mink farmer wanted animals that were tamer so that they'd be easier to raise and healthier. When he bred the tamest minks he got a new species.

Mutation and behavior are simply observed to cause species change and "theory" based not on experiment or modern metaphysics may simply be irrelevant. "Survival of the fittest" is likely a quaint 19th century notion to justify oppression of people and an unfair label to tar real evolutionary "theory".

So far as I know all the real observation and logic supports only sudden change in all life. There is no experiment to show significant gradual change other than where it is engineered to simply kill parts of populations less adaptive to toxins. Nature can work this way but most conditions on the face of the earth oscillate within relatively narrow ranges and animals have a tendency to migrate when conditions become intolerable. I wouldn't deny that survival of the fittest drives change in species, merely that it is primary in the real world.

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

"It only makes sense that the first dog had wolves for parents"

It makes sense, superficially, and through a Darwinian lens, but intuition can be misleading. Form follows function in life; shared traits do not show that one accidentally morphed from the other

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

"It only makes sense that the first dog had wolves for parents"

It makes sense, superficially, and through a Darwinian lens, but intuition can be misleading. Form follows function in life; shared traits do not show that one accidentally morphed from the other

So where did the first dogs come from?

Also, I find it very telling that - of that entire post containing several explanatory paragraphs - you can only refute one, out-of-context sentence with an appeal to uncertainty.

 

[Deeje]

It's called pregnancy and childbirth.

Yes, another miracle of creation passed off as a fluke of nature.

The two cells that form a human embryo need a womb and a placenta to host the developing fetus.
Living creatures on this planet all reproduce replicas of their own kind. When and how did those two cells that fused to become another living creature, learn how to follow the programmed coding of their DNA? Who wrote the code that humans have taken all this time to learn?

Scientists have described the genetic chemical code as being like a dictionary filled with words made up of the letters of an alphabet. The words form the genetic instructions. Based on these instructions, the embryo’s parts—such as the brain, heart, lungs, and limbs—develop in precise sequence and with perfect timing. Fittingly, the genome has been described by scientists as “the book of life.”

Tell us what dictionary or instruction manual could write itself? Tell us if ink could just fall from the sky and form the words that make up our extensive vocabulary?....and then form itself into a book?

It's what you you evolutionists ignore that astounds me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, another miracle of creation passed off as a fluke of nature.

If that's what you wish to believe, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an observed instance of a large, complex organism forming over time from only a few cells - in real time, no less.

The two cells that form a human embryo need a womb and a placenta to host the developing fetus.
Living creatures on this planet all reproduce replicas of their own kind. When and how did those two cells that fused to become another living creature, learn how to follow the programmed coding of their DNA? Who wrote the code that humans have taken all this time to learn?

Were you unaware that all living things reproduce? A womb and placenta are only utilized in a specific method of reproduction. Even the simplest life forms on earth reproduce, and they all do it with variation. The process of evolution is a natural result of this.

Scientists have described the genetic chemical code as being like a dictionary filled with words made up of the letters of an alphabet. The words form the genetic instructions. Based on these instructions, the embryo’s parts—such as the brain, heart, lungs, and limbs—develop in precise sequence and with perfect timing. Fittingly, the genome has been described by scientists as “the book of life.”

Tell us what dictionary or instruction manual could write itself? Tell us if ink could just fall from the sky and form the words that make up our extensive vocabulary?....and then form itself into a book?

This is merely a fallacy of equivocation. DNA is not a book, it is an acid. We witness it forming naturally literally every single time an organism reproduces.

It's what you you evolutionists ignore that astounds me.

For all your rudeness, you haven't actually answered my question.

 

[ArtieE]

From the tone of your posts it sometimes appears as if you are angry with God for not making himself more visible in some way so that you can believe in him. But the fact is, no human can see God because we would not survive the experience as mere earth-bound mortals.

Blithering nonsense. He showed Moses his backparts and he could moon us too if he wanted. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+33:17-23&version=KJV

 

[ArtieE]

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

"It only makes sense that the first dog had wolves for parents"

It makes sense, superficially, and through a Darwinian lens, but intuition can be misleading. Form follows function in life; shared traits do not show that one accidentally morphed from the other

Interesting. So wolves and the animals we domesticated and turned into dogs were different but had a common ancestor. An example how we constantly learn new things.

 

[ArtieE]

So where did the first dogs come from?

From an animal who had a common ancestor with wolves.

 

[ArtieE]

Scientists have described the genetic chemical code as being like a dictionary filled with words made up of the letters of an alphabet.

Heh... four letters, A T C and G and 64 words consisting of 3 letters each. Your dictionary only consists of 64 words. DNA words are three letters long :: DNA from the Beginning

Tell us what dictionary or instruction manual could write itself?

Put in a dictionary containing 64 words in a cell. Have the cell duplicate. Now you have two cells with one dictionary each. But opps, the duplication process went wrong and you got two dictionaries in the second cell. The dictionary got copied twice by a mistake. Now duplicate that cell. Opps, a mistake is made. Some letters in one of the dictionaries got rearranged and you have duplicate words and words in different order. Keep going until you have an untold number of different cells with different numbers of dictionaries with different numbers of different words in them. And you got the genomes of every organism. And I haven't even mentioned all the other ways of changing genes. Such as horisontal gene transfer etc.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

"It only makes sense that the first dog had wolves for parents"

It makes sense, superficially, and through a Darwinian lens, but intuition can be misleading. Form follows function in life; shared traits do not show that one accidentally morphed from the other

So, they had a common ancestor, as mentioned by another. What is so unusual about that? The Great Apes and humans apparently did much the same. The dog line obviously had more sociability, less aggression, or whatever to become so bonded with humans. The wolves just didn't. Although apparently they can live with humans according to what we see in the news. Can't see a problem frankly.

 

[Audie]

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

"It only makes sense that the first dog had wolves for parents"

It makes sense, superficially, and through a Darwinian lens, but intuition can be misleading. Form follows function in life; shared traits do not show that one accidentally morphed from the other

"Accidentally"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Accidentally"?

by random mutation, as the theory goes

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, they had a common ancestor, as mentioned by another. What is so unusual about that? The Great Apes and humans apparently did much the same. The dog line obviously had more sociability, less aggression, or whatever to become so bonded with humans. The wolves just didn't. Although apparently they can live with humans according to what we see in the news. Can't see a problem frankly.

Point being ; it was long assumed since Victorian times that dogs descended from (grey) wolves, based pretty much on them both being furry, with a leg at each corner and teeth at one end

Similarly with many other assumed connections/ branches- they were not substantiated by DNA, we see separate lines disappearing into the murky past. Of course we can still speculate on some hypothetical common ancestor lost in time, Darwinism of the gaps? but 'the dog ate my homework' does not earn an A+!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

by random mutation, as the theory goes

"Random" doesn't mean "accidental", and the mutations only result in evolution of a population which there is a selective pressure applied - so the process isn't actually "random", it is selective.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Point being ; it was long assumed since Victorian times that dogs descended from (grey) wolves, based pretty much on them both being furry, with a leg at each corner and teeth at one end

Similarly with many other assumed connections/ branches- they were not substantiated by DNA, we see separate lines disappearing into the murky past. Of course we can still speculate on some hypothetical common ancestor lost in time, Darwinism of the gaps? but 'the dog ate my homework' does not earn an A+!

Can you name a single example of a species whose DNA demonstrates that they popped into existence fully formed with no genetic ancestors?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Interesting. So wolves and the animals we domesticated and turned into dogs were different but had a common ancestor. An example how we constantly learn new things.

Yes, that what was once presented as a direct example of a Darwinian transition, turns out to be yet another false assumption

The dog's ancestor has gone from 'definitely the grey wolf' to some unknown speculative creature. From the tangible to the imaginary- existing purely because the theory demands that it must, not the empirical evidence

 

[Mock Turtle]

Point being ; it was long assumed since Victorian times that dogs descended from (grey) wolves, based pretty much on them both being furry, with a leg at each corner and teeth at one end

Similarly with many other assumed connections/ branches- they were not substantiated by DNA, we see separate lines disappearing into the murky past. Of course we can still speculate on some hypothetical common ancestor lost in time, Darwinism of the gaps? but 'the dog ate my homework' does not earn an A+!

Science advances by improving the knowledge by the new evidence that comes to light. It's still not a big deal though. We are constantly adding bits to our human ancestry too. Cor! Who would have expected this!

 

[Audie]

by random mutation, as the theory goes

That is a piece of a theory. That is not "how they theory goes".

You know the difference?

 

[ArtieE]

The dog's ancestor has gone from 'definitely the grey wolf' to some unknown speculative creature. From the tangible to the imaginary- existing purely because the theory demands that it must, not the empirical evidence

So your theory is that at some point in the past the dog was created by a god? What empirical evidence do you have to support this theory?

 

[Audie]

So your theory is that at some point in the past the dog was created by a god? What empirical evidence do you have to support this theory?

It is what genesis says. The domestic animals were created at the same time as the wild ones.