ABO, I need to add that, the way the theory went with evidence it is possible that your species recognition system is detecting the one thing in our genome that apes sure don’t have. Is in range with the chromosome fusion and crafted stone tools of fully human built 1.75 mya Habilis where this one looks like a younger Fred Sanford, from the Sanford and Son show, with a bit of wrestling star look:


http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... mo-habilis

It's hard to say whether any of the individuals found are in our direct lineage but this one shows the visibly human frame that was around at the time, who might have been embarrassed to have a picture of them all naked like this but:


http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pag ... gpage1.htm

Exact skin color might have been regional due to that being dependant on how close to the equator ancestors lived, which could be a solar sensing adaptation that happened over long generations of staying in one place. Could be another cell sensing adaptation where here our skin is like sunglasses that darken when given enough high brightness sunlight, then over some time becomes clear where it gets almost no light at all. There might be more detail on that but that’s what I last had in regards to origin of skin color.

There is of course no telling whether the chromosome fusion is at that point in time or not but that’s within range of current estimates, not the around twice as old Lucy with right legs and pelvis but upper half seems somewhat not all there, like you most notice. The theory only needs the chromosome fusion at have happened for that to remain true so the theory remains coherent, no matter what date it was, so it’s all set.

At least for now, even though exact dates are disputable, what I now have to go from along with fossil evidence seems to be holding in your favor in regards to Lucy. I was thinking that the fusion might have been before then, but was prepared for it to not be that way. Theory does not even speculate on that one. And for the sake of all having fun winning every once in a while with science while in the process all getting on the same page together, I can be glad that (as long as evidence holds) you are winning on that one!

Any comments on my points/questions about the provisional nature of science, Mike?

Gary thanks for your thoughts.



Excellent observation, this is the same problem I have with the foundation of evolutionary theory, that being there is none.
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.
Dirt + water + time = living creatures.
There is something missing here.

Scraps of evednce can be assembled to portray almost anything ( Usama shot Lincoin }

Is this correct?
If that's the case then we may not be looking at a mistake, but a design.

Another problem I find is that we as a species are not improving but degenerating. To assume that our overall evolution has been collectively positive for millions of years and now just in the last 10,000 years or so we are degenerating sounds fishy. On this note the degenerating claim is somewhat consistent with human history in the Bible. It's believed originally there were no unfavorable mutations. The first people Adam and Eve would have had children who had children with each other. It wasn't until after the flood that the mounting accumulation of unfavorable mutation began to effect close family relationships with deformities and multiple diseases. Shorter life spans.
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/degen.html


I know it is ridiculously asinine to imagine being related to a potato, but that's common ancestor evolution.

And thanks for yours ABO, this is turning into a highly constructive conversation.


Ah yes, the taking of “evolutionary theory” into whole new areas that have nothing at all to do with biology. Anything that changes over time fits right into the paradigm. Now there is (among other things) chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, universal evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, geological evolution, abiotic evolution, social evolution, cultural evolution, cognitive evolution, language evolution, even evolution of the automobile, makeup, and other consumer products.

At one time I saw no harm in it, but at this point it has become a scientific sounding explain-all that has been taken to absurd levels. Being applicable to anything that changes over time can to others seem like the theory has tremendous explanatory power, but it’s a 1000+ year old observation that does get childish when developmental evolution inside of mommy’s tummy is used to explain where babies come from to a young child. First there is a tiny egg that grew a head, and arms and legs, and eyes, then popped out of mommy from somewhere.


Fusions have resulted in fruit flies, mosquitoes, and other highly successful organisms including humans. Here's how human chromosome fusion is explained on Wikipedia:


It’s the one thing we have that "the apes" do not have that makes us "human". It’s definitely a part of our origin story, that sets us apart from the rest.


That’s why it belonged in the Theory of Intelligent Design as a “good guess” mechanism. As in any good guess it is still possible to turn out to be a bad guess, but it’s not a mistake or an accident it’s part of how a system that is inherently intelligent “learns” something new.


That is what I expect would happen where random mutation/accidents were all there was.


I agree. The Evolutionary Synthesis paradigm makes it easy to imagine a biological doomsday scenario like this.


From what I learned on that, the Bible was compiled from a library worth of scriptures that would in no way all fit in one book, so they had to be summed up. One of the things that complicated matters is scripture that described other humans including a somewhat evil Lilith who Adam did not like at all. He would rather be lonely than be around her. Eve came later, and they were compatible.

The additional scriptures that were not included in the Bible suggest others for their children to have children with. I do not think there was the incest that is required to make sense of limited information found in Genesis.


My thoughts on that is there having been more than one way to measure age. Without a calendar or at least all living in a latitude where winter/summer extremes made it easy to count seasonal cycles, the cycles of the Moon would be better. So if we take the ages given here:

http://bibleq.info/answer/2879/

Then divide by the number of moons per year we have:

Adam lived to 71 years old. Noah 73, and his grandfather 74. All are now within normal human life expectancy. With Adam not having lived as long as Noah and his grandfather the trend is what science indicates, our life expectancy has been increasing over time.

The flood may have been caused by a giant lowland area where our ancestors once lived having become what is now an entire ocean, when the earthen dam holding back the water gave way in heavy rains. Islamic scriptures suggest Noah built a giant raft that saved mostly domesticated animals, not all species, which would require a vessel at least as large as a good sized island.


Sometimes even the greatest of scientists get overly passionate with their work and what they say comes out sounding silly to others. And where we connect biological evolution to cosmic evolution it can be said that we are related to the planet Jupiter and it’s many sibling moons. Might make sense to a passionate cosmologist but I see no point in it either, just confuses people. Have to draw a line somewhere or at least try to use more precise terminology, or better yet find a more precise theory that has enough specifics to explain just one process.

You guys are too cute. Its like watching a couple of eight year olds trying build a flying car with some lumber and AA-batteries they found in the garage. And such manners! If you weren't grown men, I might sit back and smile at your bottomless naivete and unwavering optimism.

Oh Hell, I'll do it anyways. Go get 'em Sluggers!

Yes, I too was amused by that remark.

So, Oh Henry did potatoes come before of after mutated ape like creatures ?

Potatoes evolved via the process of domestication about 7,000 - 10,00 years ago. Here's what the Cambridge World History of Food says:



Of course humans evolved much, much earlier than this.

However, the last common ancestor of humans and potatoes would have been hundreds of millions of years ago. Obviously, potatoes are not in a direct line of descent with humans, any more than monkeys and humans are - they have, instead (in both cases), a common ancestor from which for each there is an lineage of evolved creatures leading to the modern species.

I'm certain ABO wanted a serious answer, so I thought I'd offer one.

Gary

There's no mention of Lilith in the Torah and only one reference if made in the entire Old Testament Isa. 34:14 The King James translate Lilth as screech owl. It would be safe to say the story of Lilith is just folklore. But the inclusion of the lilith tale in scripture conflicts with not only content of Genesis but the intire purpose of scripture. Having folklore which conflicts with scripture takes nothing from the validity of the book.



The information in Genesis may be limited but it cannot be inaccurate. Just like the evolution's monkey story ether there were two human individuals who first began to populated the earth or there wasn't. To consider a preexisting people or population of mutated ape like creatures as the source of humanity one would need to discard the Bible in it's entirety along with a 71 year old Adam.

Ya, thanks. It's a shame millions of years of hunting and gathering transitional humanity had no potatoes.

To what area of human knowledge would you give credit to, for any education (a.k.a indoctrination by some) that you might have any awareness at all, of processes such as "mutation" or anything to do with genetics?



I "believe" in the scientific method. How is it flawed? Should I be also praying in the name of Jesus as well?



And yes, my wife does claim to be a Christian, and I have no problem at all with it.

The original source is definitely unknown. Only thing for certain is she became relatively popular in folklore. Wikipedia had this on possible origin of the story:


Following the scientific evidence led to the possibility that there might be some truth to the folklore.


In this case though, it's not the information that exists that is in question, it's the detail that is not there, that needs figuring out. And assuming incest can be disturbing, especially in a Sunday School class explaining that to the kids. Can in this case start with what is in scripture then fill in the detail with science. End up with an account that is supported by scientific evidence and is no longer disturbing to others.


I wouldn't consider them "mutated ape like creatures" or expect anyone to discard the Bible, it's the search for evidence that there is truth to the account of Adam and Eve. You're otherwise stuck with science being interpreted as unarguably ruling out all of Genesis.

Also, how do you reconcile, not just the evolutionary evidence, but the geological evidence against a 6000yr old earth (the approximate time lines starting from Genesis)?

Good question. With the belief that millions and millions of the dead in Christ will rise alive from the graves within the twinkling of an eye, how does your wife reconcile your belief in the necessity of millions of years to form a bug.

The main thing that is not taken into consideration with the 6000 year age is the fact there was a creator who can make anything any way he wants it. The billions of years proposed by evolution are necessary to justify theory With the whole concept being completely impossible adding the incomprehensible billions of years of chance produces that slim possibility in the minds of those who choose to believe it.

I see your quote I don't think he's rolling dice, you are.

You seem confused with this question. No one has obtained knowledge or learned anything with out the brain they was previously equipped to use. No one has ever made anything out of nothing, it alway takes something that was already here.

You say you believe in the scientific method, then use it.