A Question which Atheists could not answer

[جوري]

You really don't get it, do you?

Go ahead make me get it instead of expressing your outrage in a manifesto of hot air !

best,

 

[Independent]

Go ahead make me get it instead of expressing your outrage in a manifesto of hot air

Just google 'ancient dna' and check through a few articles for a balanced report. You can start here http://www.livescience.com/42218-2013-human-origins-discoveries.html but don't just look at one.

 

[جوري]

Just google 'ancient dna' and check through a few articles for a balanced report. You can start here http://www.livescience.com/42218-2013-human-origins-discoveries.html but don't just look at one.

What is the matter you can't discuss content to match your outrage of what I don't get? Oh you're calling the big guns now to fight on your behalf because you've no idea what you're talking about?

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

What kind of God would deliberately create evidence for TOE, knowing full well it would deceive millions, and then hold it against the very people who were taken in by it? Why bother? This isn't a trial, it's a trick or a trap.

None of us have the knowledge or power to create the universe and life, so I am not sure how that gives anyone the right to say it should have been created in a different way

Such a God is not compatible with either the Muslim or Christian God. Not believing in TOE leads Christians and Muslims in an internal contradiction with their own religion.

No

Therefore, it makes logical sense from observable reality that TOE is correct, and continuous creation by divine fiat wrong]

No, because we are talking faith and trust in our creator.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

It's thought that only about 1% of creatures have left any trace in the fossil record. That record would be skewed against soft flesh creatures and certain habitats. So, it's like reading an immensely long book with 99 pages missing in every 100.

Had you said its like reading a book, with only one page missing out of every hundred, then I could understand why you are so confident about TOE. But you suggest in the early days, only one percent of the evidence might be accounted for, this leaves ninety nine percent of Toe based on the unknown.

Also, unlike in Darwin's day, we now know that there are many more confusing side branches which haven't necessarily survived (eg Neanderthals and Denisovans for humans). So although we can say, for instance, that a Neanderthal fossil is a human-like species, ]we couldn't be sure that we are descendants of Neanderthals specifically.

Ok

For this reason, although we can see very general changes (ie single cell creatures up to humans etc) we can't be sure if one individual species directly relates to the next

Ok, but where does that leave us.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[M.I.A.]

If something can't be proven, then it can't be disproven. The whole argument becomes nn scientific then.

Ok, back to the discussion.
In one of your [psts you stated that we share 97% of our DNA with fruit flies... The problem is that giving such arguments without proper explaination is worthless. There are genes whose only function is to trigger other genes, others may trigger more genes etc.. Second - there are various allelic variations of a given gene. So small differences in the genotype can cause huge differences in the phenotype. Dogs all have almost the same DNA but theiy come in different colors and sizes as we know.

Thrid - fruit flies have only about 15000 genes while humans have 20-25000 so if the similarity is 97% as yous ay, this accounts only for about 60% of common genes.

i read recently that dna contains a second code below the most apparent code.. it is understood or implied that the second code is for development of proteins or for specificity of proteins.

its laymens terms and you should check it out if interested.

but id be surprised if it is still comparable to fruit fly's, maybe it might change that percentage.. or i could be completely wrong again..

either way i dont think they are that far with the research yet.. no connections made yet.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

 

[Karl]

They manifestly have been. Even recently (in evolutionary terms) if we look at Neanderthals and Denisovans (who I guess now have to be considered 'human' by creationists) have become extinct because they were not clever enough to change their behaviour to cope with new challenges, whether climactic or otherwise.

Neanderthals did not go extinct, they hybridized with other human species. Studies have shown Neanderthal genes in some whites and some Arabs and other races near Europe but dies out further east and south. Scientists have also found fossils similar to the ones in Africa in Asia in the same time lines, so there goes the out of Africa theory. With gene map technology it is only at the beginning stages now. It will take time to analyse all the species of humans and hybrids on this planet. Conjecture can only be eradicated with total and complete data.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

(It remains the case that everything we have discovered in all fields of science is consistent with TOE, although there is much still to be done. It is perverse to focus on the incomplete parts and ignore the massive accumulation of evidence in the other direction. It would be like refusing to accept the logic of 1-100, just because 20 of the numbers hadn't been 'discovered' yet.)

Reading through this thread again, you seem to suggest here that TOE has eighty percent of the evidence in all fields of science, yet later you suggest we might only have one percent of fossil evidence, what are we to believe?

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

But that's exactly what this dna evidence does prove. We are related to at least 3 extinct species, which are otherwise known to us only by their fossilised remains. Right now I can't think of another possible explanation.

You are not God, so I am not sure how you can think of another possible explanation?

Of course, it could still be the case that God created each species individually and simply decided to give us all related dna just to make us think TOE was true. But why would He do that?

God created life, man created a theory, why would man do that?

It makes more sense to me to assume that God, if He exists, has set the evolution mechanism is place, the same as other physical laws etc are in place. Why would He treat evolution differently? it's not logical.

You don't seem to believe in God, it seems your logic; is trying to work out how a make believe god, might fit in with your logic, and create life in the way you suggest.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Independent]

Reading through this thread again, you seem to suggest here that TOE has eighty percent of the evidence in all fields of science, yet later you suggest we might only have one percent of fossil evidence, what are we to believe?

The fossil evidence, by which we can compare one species with another, is only one part of the evidence. It's the consistent order and distribution of the evidence that's arguably more important.

We have vastly more fossils than in Darwin's day and many of the so-called 'transitional' species have been filled. We also now understand that the story is complicated by many sub branches and dead ends, so there's no point in trying to trace a single definitive line. But that's not so important. We have more than enough to show the broad trend from simple to complex, in the correct places, in the correct chronology, to match TOE. That's why I call it a TOE lookalike world - which leaves aside the question of whether TOE is actually the cause, or a God.

You don't seem to believe in God, it seems your logic; is trying to work out how a make believe god, might fit in with your logic, and create life in the way you suggest.

Firstly, I am asked to believe that Creationism is a better explanation than TOE and one that is worthy of being taught in schools to replace it. That means I have every right to examine it and ask questions.

There are two obvious defences for Creationism against the observable evidence. One is to attack each part of that evidence (as Young Earthers too) but even guys like Dr Mullan have written in Christian publications denouncing that as 'fundamentalism'. The second defence is the one you choose here - that God is inscrutable and we can't ask or expect to understand why He does what He does.

I object to that defence, because Creationism is being put forward as a science, and a science you're not allowed to ask questions about is no science.

It is most certainly not unreasonable for me to ask to examine and understand a theory (Creationism) that is presented as science.

When I try to understand why God would create a TOE lookalike world, but make it almost a test of faith for me not to be taken into by it, that does not make sense, except by imagining a kind of God you would not agree with, Therefore, I believe that belief in TOE is more consistent with the kind of God we find in scripture.

 

[Independent]

Neanderthals did not go extinct, they hybridized with other human species

No, they went extinct. A little of their dna has survived in us with a few consequences (it's been suggested that red hair comes from them) but without significant impact.

Scientists have also found fossils similar to the ones in Africa in Asia in the same time lines, so there goes the out of Africa theory.

Don't know where you're getting that from. The only significant dissension I'm aware of against out of Africa is in China, where racist Chinese anthropologists have been trying for years to prove a separate evolution for Chinese people. No one else in the world gives it the time of day.

It seems there was not one but several migrations out of Africa. You might also google 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'y-chromosomal Adam' (by which all of us are descended from one man, and one woman, but not living at the same time - not because they were the first man and woman but because no other descendents from other men and women have survived to the present day) and consider how that fits with the scriptural account of early man.

 

[greenhill]

I am trying to get to the crux, and I believe it is in this paragraph. The unfair feeling that God is misleading people...

It remains the case that no one has offered a rationale for Creationism in terms of: why does the world have all the appearances and characteristics of a TOE world, unless it is actually produced by TOE? How can this fit with the idea of a God who is just, fair and logical? I can't find an answer to this

If this is to be it, then I am using your words (carefully chosen, I believe) to reflect on why you choose to be 'other' as opposed to being in with 'faith'. The word is 'appearance' ..... of a TOE world'. Appearance does not necessarily mean actual. It only means we can accept the distinct possibility. But as you said, there is still 99 pages of the 100 missing. So the 'appearance' is very thin. Another possible glaring fact is that the Creationists have not forwarded anything to counter. But absence does not necessarily mean non existence. It is just knowledge, as Allah has decreed, is His. We only get what He decides to give us.

The thing is, Allah is not out to fool anybody. It is the people that fool themselves (this is in no way directed at you. I am guilty of it myself often thinking that I can be excused for certain acts that I do). For me, TOE is not a real issue as it is man's inference from a possible flawed observation coming to a monumentally attractively wrong explanation. My issue was more to do with burn in hell for unbelievers. But that is another topic.

I have another point to make but I have to get the quote in order to address the matter. So I will continue this on another post..

 

[greenhill]

This is the quote. Took me a while to find it.... buried somewhere in the beginning...:exhausted

But it relates with regard to the 'dissatisfaction' I detect with regard to Allah again 'fooling' us and messing with our heads.

Of course, it could still be the case that God created each species individually and simply decided to give us all related dna just to make us think TOE was true. But why would He do that?

There are many 'why's?' I could ask. But let us look, in layman's terms, as I am one

Allah created all living things out of water. Already there, all living things share something in common. A basic ingredient. It follows then every other building blocks would share many things in common however how diverse they are in shape or form as an end product - a living thing. And they all have a time and place to exist.

We invented 'science' and came up with all the terminology. Allah gave us a guide through the Books and in the Qur'an there are snippets of descriptions/ like formation of the fetus, orbits of the sun, moon, whether we want to classify them as science or what makes no real difference. With regard to living things, Allah has made some references, like in pairs, etc. He describes the smallest thing, some say the atom. But for when it was revealed, 1400 years ago, there were no words for these things He was stating.

If we can 'accept' the generalisation of the descriptions and say that none have been wrong, why is it when we progress in that knowledge, from accepting that YES! all life forms are made essentially with water, and the related DNA is the natural progression to things. It was hard already, I am sure, at that time to accept the fact that ALL living things were made of water. Let alone if Allah tried to explain the DNA.

The 'why' question can only be answered from faith at the end of the day, and I don't mean blind faith. It is in the story of Syaitan. How he misleads.

I'm still not fully satisfied with what I am saying but I'll post it anyway.


Peace :shade:

 

[Independent]

I am trying to get to the crux, and I believe it is in this paragraph. The unfair feeling that God is misleading people...

Yes, this is one of the key problems with Creationism. It does not make sense UNLESS you posit another kind of God than can be found in the scriptures (either Islamic or Christian).

The word is 'appearance' ..... of a TOE world'. Appearance does not necessarily mean actual.

I am using the phrase 'TOE lookalike world' - a world which appears to be consistent with what you would expect to see if TOE were correct - as a neutral phrase which neither assumes nor rejects TOE as an explanation.

What Creationists are doing is rejecting TOE based on some particular criteria. For Eric, bone formation seems to be particularly hard to stomach. More generally, people have difficulties with the suggested mechanism of mutation as a means of TOE.

TOE is not a random theory, it is an attempt to explain a wide variety of phenomena (especially the 100% consistent placing of all species in the appropriate order and place you would expect from TOE). If TOE isn't the explanation, then why is it in that order? This leads to the question: why has God chosen to create in exactly the same way you would expect from TOE?

Of course, it's not acceptable to assume that God/Allah is doing this to deceive.

For this reason I think another answer has to be given, which is that TOE really is the correct explanation. It's perfectly possible to believe that God created evolution as a universal law in the same way as other laws, such as in physics. And in fact it is more logical, for a logical God, to include evolution as part of His overall design.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

Firstly, I am asked to believe that Creationism is a better explanation than TOE and one that is worthy of being taught in schools to replace it. That means I have every right to examine it and ask questions.

I don’t believe that creationism should be taught as a science in schools, it is a subject of faith. I also struggle with much of the reasoning behind TOE, as a school science subject.

The evolution of the eye, is pretty much a done and dusted subject with TOE, but I believe it is dishonest in its claims. The necessity for nerves, brain, muscles, tendons, jaw, etc to react to what the eye perceives, is seemingly dismissed as of little consequence. Without all these things evolving alongside the eye, the eye becomes a heap of junk serving no purpose.

These issues are very much a sideline,

Going back a billion years, there might have been worms, sponges, with no bones. In a time span of less than seven hundred million years, there are complete skeletal systems.

The following video, is an attempt to ‘mechanize reason’ or possibly to mechanize a simple brain, truly remarkable feat of design and engineering, considering it was done 240 years ago with six thousand working parts.

http://www.chonday.com/Videos/the-writer-automaton

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[greenhill]

It's perfectly possible to believe that God created evolution as a universal law in the same way as other laws, such as in physics. And in fact it is more logical, for a logical God, to include evolution as part of His overall design.

And why not? "Be! And it is!"

The evolution of the eye, is pretty much a done and dusted subject with TOE, but I believe it is dishonest in its claims. The necessity for nerves, brain, muscles, tendons, jaw, etc to react to what the eye perceives, is seemingly dismissed as of little consequence. Without all these things evolving alongside the eye, the eye becomes a heap of junk serving no purpose.

Eric, this made me laugh out loud ;D

Peace :shade:

 

[جوري]

And why not? "Be! And it is!"

If they know how God did it, let em bring back the dead!

 

[CosmicPathos]

So, how do you explain our dna-proven relationship with Neanderthals, Denisovans and the third unidentified species (supposed to be homo erectus)?

Where is this proof that you so confidently speak of?

 

[Independent]

Where is this proof that you so confidently speak of?

This has been in the news very recently. The capacity to extract ancient DNA answers some questions which may otherwise have always remained unanswerable. Exactly how closely are Neanderthals and Denisovans related to us, or are they completely different species - non man, apes? The answer is 'close enough to breed successfully at least some of the time'. The dna evidence shows a small amount of interbreeding, mostly likely between a relatively small number of individuals at an early stage, when populations were smaller.

'Though Denisovans and Neanderthals eventually died out, they left behind bits of their genetic heritage because they occasionally interbred with modern humans. The research team estimates that between 1.5 and 2.1 percent of the genomes of modern non-Africans can be traced to Neanderthals.

Denisovans also left genetic traces in modern humans, though only in some Oceanic and Asian populations.
About 6% of the genomes of Aboriginal Australians, New Guineans and some Pacific Islanders can be traced to Denisovans, studies suggest.
The new analysis finds that the genomes of Han Chinese and other mainland Asian populations, as well as of Native Americans, contain about 0.2% Denisovan genes.'

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a...a+bbc&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10

More here and on many other sites if you google:

http://www.livescience.com/42218-2013-human-origins-discoveries.html

This presents creationists with a dilemma. Most now choose to redefine Neanderthals, Denisovans and the third unknown species (possibily homo erectus) as 'human'. However, they diverge in dna more considerably than any human yet analysed. They don't look the same, and they don't seem to have behaved the same (which is why they are extinct and we are not). It makes creationism look very awkward, trying to explain them. And because this is human descent, it's far more significant than an animal.

 

[Independent]

The evolution of the eye, is pretty much a done and dusted subject with TOE, but I believe it is dishonest in its claims.

i understand your objections and I don't think the issue is done and dusted either. But for me, the evidence that TOE has happened is beyond doubt. How it happened still needs working on. What it does not need is the extraordinary hostility and aggression deployed against it.

To use an analogy: imagine we are looking for a thief who has robbed a million buildings. We have circumstantial evidence that connects him to the scene of the crime in every single case. But, we don't have definitive proof that shows him making the theft.

This is circumstantial evidence....but a million times over with no exceptions. Every discovery is another opportunity to prove the theory wrong. But always, there he is at the scene of the crime.

At some point you surely have to say, even circumstantial evidence can be overwhelming. (And that's not the only evidence.)

There are different types of evidence which are more or less complete. But in one respect it's 100% complete. Every single species we have discovered follows the consistent order explained by TOE in terms of location, chronology and attributes (development of individual characteristics). This cannot be chance.

If God is responsible for this, then He has created each species in the exact way to mimic TOE, which is a very odd thing to do.

And even if He did...so what? If it looks and behaves like TOE, what's the difference? It's like saying we know there is gravity, but having created it, God doesn't use gravity to hold the planets in place, He intervenes instead. How does that make sense?