Anti-evolutionists: please explain the fossil record

DNA isn't 100% reliable but most of the time it is a highly power and accurate tool used by law enforcement and scientists. As for determining timelines we have parts of the DNA whose structure has no effect on the body so no matter what mutations happen to when nothing changes. Because of this natural selection won't remove these mutations. Mutations happen at a certain background rate and if two people have a DNA difference of 200 mutations and there are 2 mutations per generation we can estimate they are 100 generations apart. It just an estimate but its a great way of double checking fossil record dates.

Must mutations aren't beneficial because they are neutral so natural selection lets them through. Natural selection weeds out bad mutations and will increase the frequency of a good mutation over time in successive generations. That is how a small number of good mutations can take over a population. Its because of natural selection.

 

Since Judaism doesn't exist to answer such questions, it doesn't evade anything. They have their own answer, 5,761 years, and that is all that is necessary; everything before is just not important and doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the people and their purpose.

 

huh? I didn't tell any jokes. I pointed out that evolution is fact, and it is the foundation of biology, and ties into several other sciences as well.

where are you getting lost?

 

Yes, but there are lots of different dating methods and these are used to cross check
If you want to debate carbon dating, or how we date the universe, or tree rings, or ice cores.... let’s go

I was not aware of this, could you provide a quote from a scientist

And yet many people propose that the Bible does just that

It seems we are again drifting into hyperbolic speculation
What I have repeatedly asked for is an alternative theory that is superior and avoids the defects that you identify

It is a fascinating premise. Perhaps this should be thought in schools as a credible alternative to evolution

Thx for elaborating what may have happened. I hope you realize that even the preponderance of creationists do not have this view, Actually, I suspect that more people support the flat earth than support your theories. Which raises the question of wheather god cares what we think on this topic... because so far, very few of us humans have figured this stuff out

You are correct that evolution has little basis if anything can be true

 

I think your thoughts well illustrates the approach of evo skeptics

 

Thank you for coming out of the closet and exposing your mockery. You might have had faith that the earth was the center of the Universe....I never did. There is nothing in the scriptures that implies that. Have you walked on Mars? How do you know it is not a plate hanging in the sky? You take it on faith....what someone else told you. I choose to believe there is a master Creator with a plan. We are not here by accident. The odds of me being right are far better than yours .....so spare me the mockery of Jesus riding on a dinosaur.

 

i enjoy prior to evolution the most. We had a lifeless Earth and not one living thing was on it. Not a fly nor a plant.

So, what converted a lifeless planet to having life?

Forget evolution. Evolution simply means change. nothing remains the same. So change is not the issue. Religion discusses not change, but how a lifeless planet gained life.

Religion does not offer much in the way of explanation since it starts with GOD.

So why do I accept GOD?

Primarily the issue of going from lifeless to the living. And of course Earth was not magic. God created the entire universe, including Earth.

 

lol still waiting for those facts. Apparently they disappear when anybody asks to see them. We understand why you need to attempt semantic legerdemain, so no need to embarrass yourself yet again.

 

It's merely acknowledging Judaism isn't bound to empiricism, it's a theology, not a lab science, that 'apples and oranges' thing; It's ethnocentric and relies on ontological premises, doesn't need courses in chemistry or physics to achieve its goals; it's far more sophisticated and intellectually complex. All the evolutionists need to do is much simpler and far easier: provide the chain of evidence.

 

I know how molecular clocks work, I've had to use them in my work. You posted speculative assumptions, not evidence. As this site shows, the uses are limited, and not very useful, or even used much as a methodology, much less as a proof.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating

Nobody is disputing adaption, which is what natural selection relies on for its speculative arguments. The capability already exists in the DNA chain in the first place; that's why they find them, after all. Controlled laboratory mutations and adaptations aren't 'natural selection', they're artificial. Mendeleev did that all the time, without modern labs.

One could go with the viruses arguments with better luck, but then we're still talking 'pre-loaded' DNA strings there as well,i.e. nothing entirely new is generated from nothing, all the components are already there to begin with, and it's just a function of deletion mutations or insertions, etc. As far as I know, this is only possible naturally via viruses in complex organisms, and then you have to account for the natural evolutionary developments of the viruses' unique characteristics themselves ... lol ... chicken, or egg ...

www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v99/n4/full/6801042a.html

In any case, while it's fun for bacteria and small organisms, it can't begin to justify macro-evolution, and certainly can't account for the glaring lack of transitional fossils for anything larger than bacterium.

Another favorite article of mine, wherein the authors seem to be totally oblivious to such concepts as confirmation biases and the differences between laboratories and natural occurrences, and also the blatantly obvious.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gene-genesis-scientists/

lollerz. Are they truly oblivious, or are they deliberately avoiding admitting some very unscientific influences, like peer pressure, ingroup 'logic', etc.? ....

 

Yep, I would be one of those.

There is no reason to believe God used magic on everything, he probably used the science we know today.

That would include evolution.

And look at how he explains the creation of man. Adam coming from earth, Eve coming from Adam. That sounds like Adam evolved from whatever cosmic dust there was and his cells splitting creating another version of himself to procreate.

It all fits rather nicely.

People assume Adam and Eve were human looking creatures like we are today but we don't know that, hell, they were talking to snakes which may mean they were some very early beginning of the human race.

 

According to the Hebrews its only been 4777 years since the world was created last October.. since Adam and Eve. Not enough time for any evolution.

 

Wrong. 'Evolutionists' invented the 'punctuated equilibrium' handwave to explain stuff like that. They can't deny use of it by creationists if they use it themselves, after all.

 

We are talking about the Biblical age of the earth since creation.. Less than 5,000 years.. Hard to fathom?

Yeah.. The White Cliffs of Dover are just fossils.

DISCOVERING FOSSILS | Dover (Kent)

www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/dover_kent_fossils.htm
At this time the Dover area lay beneath a relatively shallow sea, over a hundred miles from the nearest land. Fossils reveal the prehistoric sea was home to a variety of organisms, in particular sedimentburrowing echinoids, bivalves, sponges and other marine organisms including crustaceans and sharks.

 

I have wondered why it seems that homo sapiens as they evolved from another ape, only happened in africa. What would explain this? Would it have something to do with the environment of the times we are speaking of? That for some reason the climate of africa in that time was friendly for evolution to happen, whereas the climate of other parts of the world, north of africa was not?

And one would think that there would have been a movement of an earlier, preceding hominid, a travel, unless of course they were confined primarily to trees, and such long distance travel would have been limited by large areas of no trees.

We do know that relatively speaking, there was a tremendous change in the hominids that evolved into man, like the changes in bone structure which gave us a bipedal, as well as a tremendous expansion of brain size. What environmental response would have resulted in a large increase in brain size?

It does seem, unless something has changed since I attended school, that it was only homo sapiens that appears to be a traveling hominid, that man's ancestors seem to have stayed put more or less until homo sapien appeared. And from the appearance of homo sapiens, what the stop in evolution? And why does homo sapiens seem to appear rather suddenly? Is this simply due to a lack of sufficient fossils to track the evolutionary changes?

You know, the appearance of homo sapiens, featured a species which was just as intelligent as you are. The only difference seems to be in technology, an accumulation of knowledge. So there has been no evolution in the ability of the brain to exercise intelligence. And, there has been no evolution at all in the psychological aspect of man.

So I have questions too, and if anyone wants to take a stab at it, have at it.

Does anyone know of the age of the oldest homo sapien sapiens fossil? I have heard some say we go back at least a million years but were definetly here 50,000 ago.

Of course much would be explained if you buy into this ancient alien hypothesis, where what ancient man called the gods were actually interdimensional or ETs who were highly advanced and basically genetically engineered us, taking a hominid, some species of ape, and engineering it into a modern human. And experimented until they got it right, as they were needing an easily enslaved being to do the labor for them, that they did not want to do or could not do. This was represented in ancient myths, like the one you see in the bible, where the angels came down and had their way with human females, who in turn had children which were the men of renown, a hybrid with a higher intelligence. Now, I know this seems far fetched, but not any more so than the stories we get from the bible in regards to man and his creation.

 

I think that according to Mr. Google it's later than that - but one thing we can all agree on is that all Abrahamic faith's version of the age of the earth has been taking a dump on science since it's beginning.

 

If you believe the time scale in the bible then you are admitting that humans lived to be 600 years old also.

Since that isn't possible then we can assume we don't understand the time frame being used.

And since we have fossils far older than that of humans that is more evidence that the literal translation of time in the bible is not accurate.

 

Fossils? Hell, let's see them explain the much more substantial evidence we have available, e.g. from genetics, embryology and morphology. But first, let's see them actually study the facts and understand them before trying to comment! Otherwise you might as well ask a janitor (or any other layman) to explain some aspect of computer science.

 

That comes from a website dedicated to bible studies!

https://www.studylight.org/site-info/about.html

 

it's a trick by the devil I tell ya

 

maybe were just aliens that moved from Mars to Earth when Mars lost it's atmosphere

 

The fossil evidence is corroborated with the DNA evidence. We share the same genes as the other great apes ergo we have a common ancestor.

As far as genetic mutations go they are all adaptions of one sort or another. The environment here on earth is not constant. It changes over time and that alters the available food sources so unless species can adapt they will die out. The genetic mutations are the means by which these adaptions occur.

`

 

The origin of life has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

Creation is a myth based upon the fallacy that there was a "beginning".

 

You cannot explain ERVs.