It is nice to see so many of God's Children so highly adapted to defend their positions.
Posted on 10/04/2018 6:59:49 AM PDT by fishtank
New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D.
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018
The more DNA sequencing technologies improve, the worse it gets for the evolutionary paradigm. Such is the case with the newest version of the chimpanzee genome.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I would argue humans are devolving. The most intelligent barely bread, the stupid breed like rabbits.
Note my response in post #31 above.
The results you get depend on the assumptions & methods you used.
If you count every difference, no matter how small or inconsequential, as a "no match" then you'll get a lower number.
But if you focus instead on just "coding DNA" and count close similarities as a "match", then the number is much higher.
What's important is using the same assumptions to count up "average rate of change" as you do to measure the differences among various species DNA.
winslow: "80% is nowhere near close enough"
80% is plenty close-enough if you use the same methodology to measure "average rate of change" as you do to count up differences among various species.
winslow: "(and let’s face it there are huge problems with the accuracy of dating methods)"
Potentially a valid critique if there were only one or two dating methods, but in fact there are dozens and when several methods agree for the same site, that becomes pretty strong evidence.
And when thousands upon thousands of different sites produce answers which correspond to evolutionary timelines, it's hard to legitimately say they're all wrong.
winslow: "I’m sure this will have little effect in causing most evolutionists to doubt their faith, although it should."
It's not a matter of "faith", it's the evidence: billions upon billions of fossils representing hundreds of thousands of different species discovered over the past ~150 years.
And every one, without confirmed exception, supports basic evolution theory.
winslow: "For me the biggest problems for them by far are the fossil record not showing what it should if evolution was true..."
The fossil record, including many "transitional forms" shows exactly what it should to confirm evolution theory.
winslow: "I’ve watched a few creation/evolution debates on the fossil record and the evolutionists never seem to make a convincing case at all."
I watched Ham vs. Nye and Ham admitted there is no scientific evidence which could convince him his understanding of the Bible is wrong.
Nye seemed clueless as to what issues really concerned the religious followers of Ken Ham.
He seemed to speak past them rather than to them.
Sorry, but science itself has no problems defining basic evolution:
Not complicated, really.
Of course metaphorically, "evolution" can mean pretty much anything -- "evolution of styles", etc.
But basic Darwinian theory is still what it always was.
That's my take on it as well. See my tagline. In my worldview, God actualizes the cosmos, sapient man evolves from it, and God uses man as His eyes and ears to move within His own creation.
Not at all, because it involves genotypes, not phenotypes. In fact, there doesn't need to be any adaptation at all. The opposite of evolution is stasis, and I challenge you to give me an example of any population in which genetic stasis occurs.
Just a couple of quick observations. Many transitional fossils do not show huge leaps and certainly do not prove that fish became land amphibians or that mammals became whales. There are known issues with the timelines such as evidence that there were already creatures crawling around on the land when tiktaalik and other fishopods were around. Even in the mammal to whale transitional fossils, there are huge problems. Have you ever watched Dr Marc Surtees critique of this? Sorry for the rushed reply, I have some classes to attend.
I’m thankful that God opened my eyes to the truth of His creation.
The 20th century was a time of tremendous stress on the human genome.
In Europe, tens of millions of the finest were killed. We are concerned about the deaths of one or two of our troops in Afghanistan. On several different occasions in WW II battles tens of thousands were killed on one day.
As time progressed, the bottom of the various national barrels were dredged up to draft troops go fight in WW I. The death toll among German and Russians on the eastern front in WW II is incomprehensible.
The USA was largely exempt from this loss of genes. While there were very substantial losses, proportionally compared to Europe, they were very small.
In Europe today, there is a strong political desire to permit immigration. There can be two results. Hybridization or Replacement. In standard survival of the fittist terms, replacement is the method whereby there is change within a species that can result over time in a new species altogether. The outcome in Europe is presently unclear. However, the remaining gene pool apparently lacks the wherwithal to prevent it’s own elimination.
The basic fact to remember here is that until relatively very recent times most babies never survived into adulthood.
Because of harsh conditions, any small imperfections got quickly selected out and not passed onto the next generations.
So harmful mutations did not accumulate at dizzying rates like we might find today.
Further, it's still not clear if or how much average rates of mutation change over time -- short term & long term.
And what exactly might cause two chromosomes to combine into one?
Point is: there's enough we don't know, it should advise us not to put too much, ahem, faith in your author's speculations.
You conflate “detest” and “hate.” I chose that word specifically.
I forgive you.
There is not ONE example of species to species mutation ever. Changing from brown eyes to blue is NOT evolution.
All you need to know is a man having sex with a chimp will NOT produce a chimera. Man to sheep, man to donkey, man to horse, on and on, doesn't work. God made it that way in Genesis 1-2. "He said multiply after their kind."
Demonic activity, OTOH, is able to edit DNA. That is found in Genesis 6:1. The Fallen angels mated with human women and produced freaks. These giants, or Nephilim were evil and corrupted the image of God. Genesis 1 says God said it was good after all of His Creation, but these Nephilim were not good.
Most people have heard of David and Goliath, but there were many more sons of Anack, Raphaim, Amorite, and many others. Og was the king of Bashan and was a Giant. To emphasize these were demonic, we have Scripture.
Psa_22:12 Many bulls have surrounded Me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
This is a picture of Jesus on the cross seeing demons encircling Him.
Eze 39:17 "And as for you, son of man, thus says the Lord God, 'Speak to every sort of bird and to every beast of the field: "Assemble yourselves and come; Gather together from all sides to My sacrificial meal Which I am sacrificing for you, A great sacrificial meal on the mountains of Israel, That you may eat flesh and drink blood.
Eze 39:18 You shall eat the flesh of the mighty, Drink the blood of the princes of the earth, Of rams and lambs, Of goats and bulls, All of them fatlings of Bashan.
Eze 39:19 You shall eat fat till you are full, And drink blood till you are drunk, At My sacrificial meal Which I am sacrificing for you.
This speaks of God killing these demonic giants. Birds of the air and beasts of the field also refers to demons in Scripture. Who are the princes of the earth? Fallen angels.
Nimrod was the first giant after the Flood according to LXX. He came from the cursed line of Ham and Canaan. The 12 spies sent to Canaan said they were grasshoppers in their eyes. One thing to notice was 2 men took one cluster of grapes back on a stick between the 2 men. Somehow, they had manipulated the DNA of grapes to make them huge. If they could do that, could they not make dinosaurs or other freakish animals? This is why Saul and Joshua were ordered by God to kill all with breath in certain areas. Women, children, dogs, cats, horses, donkeys, everything that breathed was to be killed. Amos 2:9 says they were as tall as cedars and strong as oaks. Og's bed dimensions are given along with Goliath's height.
There is a book of Enoch you can read on this subject also. It speaks of the women learning witchcraft and spells from the Fallen ones. Many don't give it weight, but Jude did in his book. Another book with angel details is Jasher.
Today, what do we find men doing? The big thing today is gene editing. Russians have manufactured a monkey-man Chimera, but had to kill it shortly after birth due to extreme violence. Science is working on bringing back extinct animals by combining them with others and planting them in a host. People are designing a new soldier that runs faster, needs less food and water, and can stop his own bleeding. We are literally corrupting God's Creation into what we want it to be. Some might call this "playing god".
Going back to where we started,..having sex out of species produces no offspring. A mutation would most likely die shortly after birth. There are certain markers in DNA that must be close enough to combine or their is no offspring. God designed it that way. That way, unless there was outside influence, each kind would multiply its own kind. Getting shorter, taller, different color eyes or hair, is NOT evolution. There has NEVER been species to species changes. Only an extinction of a certain species, being what you would expect with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in effect.
"Muddled or wrong," according to Coyne and Orr in their book, Speciation
ML/NJ
How bout the list without all the disproven frauds in it?
Common ancestor 3-6 million years ago? Never heard that in anthropology. Australopithecus was pretty far removed from the great apes, by the.
I'd say the Bible explains that perfectly well -- God took one of Adam's "ribs" to make Eve.
That reduced their chromosome "ribs" from 24 to 23 and made impossible further interbreeding with evolutionary cousins.
Truly, so far as I know science has no better explanation, and I, for one, don't need one.
ml/nj: "...which is sort of a bummer for anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution as you seem to."
Technically speaking, one does not "believe" or have "faith" in science.
Instead, at most we accept science's methodology and conclusions tentatively until, if ever, better explanations come along.
But the fact is there are other examples in nature of chromosomes splitting or combining.
So far as I know science has no solid explanation for it.
My religious-philosophical belief is called "theistic evolutionism".
I have no doubt that God could act miraculously in His Creation, but could not say in paleontology where that happened.
What does God NEED with 4 to 6 million years?
Hydrological sorting can make rock layers geologists misinterpret to be millions of years old.
Intense pressures and temperatures can make things appear to be old when they were affected for just a few hours, or a mere couple of years. Petrification, for example.
Hmmm . a really smart and scientific guy who, in his knee jerk, anti-Christ reaction, can’t spell ad hominem. Where did you get YOUR degree, O Dumb One?
but an ocean going iguana, is still an iguana.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.