Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[marke]

Rejecting science submitted by Christians does not refute the facts that undermine popular evolutionist assumptions and narratives.

There are YE creationists who are knowledgeable about the science...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

In December 1981, Coffin and Ariel Roth, also employed by GRI, served as expert witnesses on behalf of the defense during the Arkansas Creation trial (McLean et al. vs State Board of Education). They referred to things like rapid fossilization and massive depth of coal beds as bases for believing in a worldwide flood. Under cross-examination, however, Coffin noted that his belief in a young earth was based on the Bible; he said the scientific evidence alone would lead him to believe the earth was very old.16 He testified that his reading of the Bible and the results of his scientific studies convinced him that the Genesis Flood had taken place five to seven thousand years ago.17 He believed the Bible’s “assertions are historically and scientifically true with the exception of minor problems.”18
Frederick Edwords, “Victory in Arkansas: The Trial, Decision, and Aftermath,” Creation/Evolution 3, no. 1 (Winter, 1982): 33–45.

Concluding that genetic silmilarities might support evolutionist assumptions is a far cry from scientific proof that genetic similarities cannot be explained by common design.

[Clownboat]

Rejecting science submitted by Christians

Please show where this happened or admit that you offer nothing but distractions in place of debate.

does not refute the facts that undermine popular evolutionist assumptions and narratives.

Do you even know what popular evolutionists assumptions and narratives are? If you do, please supply them so I can fight against them. I say this, because if a scientist is just going to assume things, they might as well use 'faith' and faith is required in order to believe in things that are false. Scientists (I assume that is what you mean by evolutionist) are not doing science if they are using faith and assuming things and need to be brought to task. I thank you in advance for bringing these terrible acts to our attention.

[The Barbarian]

It's not just structural homologies. The wings of bats are formed by the same genes that form the flippers of whales and the arms of humans. As you learned, these homologies are not conclusions; they are documented facts, showing that tetrapods have a common ancestor.

Let's take note that there may indeed be similar genes in bats, humans, and whales. So what?

Marks common ancestry. And we know it does, because we can check the genes of organisms of known descent.

Does science demand that whales descended from humans or bats? No, of course not. That would be silly.

It's always surprising to be reminded how YE creationists think. If you and your cousin share a lot of genes, does that mean that science demands you descended from your cousin? It's things like this that have many Christians thinking that YE creationists are dishonest. Truth is, most of them aren't. They really don't understand how it all works. The similarities in genes between you and your cousin are due to common descent, not one of you being the ancestor of the other. Do you understand that much?

I am amazed at the secularist insistence that because humans and plants share similar genes they must be related to a common ancestor, which is a ridiculous assumption.

We can test that prediction by looking at organisms of known descent. Genetic relatedness always happens with common ancestry.

AI Overview
Learn more
Humans and watermelons share a very small percentage of DNA similarity, with the vast majority of their genetic code being completely different; while both organisms share some basic cellular functions, their evolutionary paths are so far apart that their DNA is mostly distinct, with only a minuscule portion showing any significant similarity at the genetic level.
Key points to remember:

Animals (including humans) and plants share a lot of genes. Sometimes, the genes are remarkably alike:


As you see, the differences sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies determined long ago on anatomical and fossil evidence. Ironically, you've stumbled on yet another proof that living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

[marke]

Rejecting science submitted by Christians

Please show where this happened or admit that you offer nothing but distractions in place of debate.

does not refute the facts that undermine popular evolutionist assumptions and narratives.

Do you even know what popular evolutionists assumptions and narratives are? If you do, please supply them so I can fight against them. I say this, because if a scientist is just going to assume things, they might as well use 'faith' and faith is required in order to believe in things that are false. Scientists (I assume that is what you mean by evolutionist) are not doing science if they are using faith and assuming things and need to be brought to task. I thank you in advance for bringing these terrible acts to our attention.

Until recently secularists refused to believe soft tissues could be found in dinosaur remains because everyone knows soft tissues cannot survive millions of years.

[marke]

It's not just structural homologies. The wings of bats are formed by the same genes that form the flippers of whales and the arms of humans. As you learned, these homologies are not conclusions; they are documented facts, showing that tetrapods have a common ancestor.

Let's take note that there may indeed be similar genes in bats, humans, and whales. So what?

Marks common ancestry. And we know it does, because we can check the genes of organisms of known descent.

Does science demand that whales descended from humans or bats? No, of course not. That would be silly.

It's always surprising to be reminded how YE creationists think. If you and your cousin share a lot of genes, does that mean that science demands you descended from your cousin? It's things like this that have many Christians thinking that YE creationists are dishonest. Truth is, most of them aren't. They really don't understand how it all works. The similarities in genes between you and your cousin are due to common descent, not one of you being the ancestor of the other. Do you understand that much?

I am amazed at the secularist insistence that because humans and plants share similar genes they must be related to a common ancestor, which is a ridiculous assumption.

We can test that prediction by looking at organisms of known descent. Genetic relatedness always happens with common ancestry.

AI Overview
Learn more
Humans and watermelons share a very small percentage of DNA similarity, with the vast majority of their genetic code being completely different; while both organisms share some basic cellular functions, their evolutionary paths are so far apart that their DNA is mostly distinct, with only a minuscule portion showing any significant similarity at the genetic level.
Key points to remember:

Animals (including humans) and plants share a lot of genes. Sometimes, the genes are remarkably alike:


As you see, the differences sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies determined long ago on anatomical and fossil evidence. Ironically, you've stumbled on yet another proof that living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

Fossil remains as well as evidence from living creatures prove all life forms have a common designer, not common ancestor.

[Clownboat]

Rejecting science submitted by Christians

Please show where this happened or admit that you offer nothing but distractions in place of debate.

does not refute the facts that undermine popular evolutionist assumptions and narratives.

Do you even know what popular evolutionists assumptions and narratives are? If you do, please supply them so I can fight against them. I say this, because if a scientist is just going to assume things, they might as well use 'faith' and faith is required in order to believe in things that are false. Scientists (I assume that is what you mean by evolutionist) are not doing science if they are using faith and assuming things and need to be brought to task. I thank you in advance for bringing these terrible acts to our attention.

Until recently secularists refused to believe soft tissues could be found in dinosaur remains because everyone knows soft tissues cannot survive millions of years.

Why did you take the time to type these words? What should they mean to the rest of us and why did you once again quote a post of mine without addressing it. It's rude.

[The Barbarian]

Fossil remains as well as evidence from living creatures prove all life forms have a common designer, not common ancestor.

No, vestigial organs and homology prove that God is no mere "designer." He is the Creator, and uses nature to produce new taxa. As you just learned, even knowledgeable and honest YE creationists admit that the evidence shows evolution.

YE creationists are unwilling to accept a God that wise and powerful.

[The Barbarian]

Until recently secularists refused to believe soft tissues could be found in dinosaur remains because everyone knows soft tissues cannot survive millions of years.

So far, that's what we see. Not even any intact cells, although there were fossils of tissues and cells. What she found was some organic molecules of heme. Heme is a part of a hemoglobin molecule. Some other finds included some other organic materials. Which isn't surprising; chemists say that organic molecules can last millions of years if stabilized by iron. Which, is what you find in blood.

Something else interesting, though; when the heme was checked, it was more like that of birds than it is like other reptiles, once again confirmed what Huxley predicted over 150 years ago; birds evolved from other dinosaurs.

Schweitzer extracted proteins from MOR 555 T. rex, collected from Hell Creek F in 1990, raised antibodies to these proteins in a couple of rats and then tested the rat serum against various known haemoglobins. Positive reactions from pigeon, turkey and rabbit, negative with snake.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC21042/

Once again, you've stumbled onto convincing evidence for evolution. Congratulations.

[The Barbarian]

Rejecting science submitted by Christians does not refute the facts that undermine popular evolutionist assumptions and narratives.

There are YE creationists who are knowledgeable about the science...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

In December 1981, Coffin and Ariel Roth, also employed by GRI, served as expert witnesses on behalf of the defense during the Arkansas Creation trial (McLean et al. vs State Board of Education). They referred to things like rapid fossilization and massive depth of coal beds as bases for believing in a worldwide flood. Under cross-examination, however, Coffin noted that his belief in a young earth was based on the Bible; he said the scientific evidence alone would lead him to believe the earth was very old.16 He testified that his reading of the Bible and the results of his scientific studies convinced him that the Genesis Flood had taken place five to seven thousand years ago.17 He believed the Bible’s “assertions are historically and scientifically true with the exception of minor problems.”18
Frederick Edwords, “Victory in Arkansas: The Trial, Decision, and Aftermath,” Creation/Evolution 3, no. 1 (Winter, 1982): 33–45.

Concluding that genetic silmilarities might support evolutionist assumptions is a far cry from scientific proof that genetic similarities cannot be explained by common design.

As you now realize, even honest YE creationists admit that the evidence shows evolution and an ancient Earth. Here's another one...

Gerald Aardsma is a physicist with special qualifications in radiometrics. His "virtual history" is the most recently developed theory of the biblical creation alternatives.34 Aardsma appears to be the first scientist since Gosse to expand upon the omphalos argument in a serious attempt to reconcile the evidence from fossils and long age measurements with the six days of Genesis. As Gosse, he classifies all historical evidence into two categories – that which is not real but appears to have happened before the creation events and that which is actual, happening after the creation.

Aardsma uses the terms "proleptic time" and "virtual history" to explain his theory. Proleptic time – credited to Joseph Scaliger by Aardsma for its first use is very similar to Gosse's "prochronic time" and simply means imaginary time.35 Aardsma states "Proleptic time is the mathematical projection of real historic time back behind Creation. Real historic time only begins at Creation, as the "In the beginning God created" of Genesis 1:1 teaches."36 Virtual history is a term coined by Aardsma to extend history in a way that "time appears to emanate" from it, "when in fact time does not emanate from it at all."37 In optics, for example, a virtual focus is a point from which light rays appear to emanate when actually no light emanates from that point at all. When one looks in a mirror that person is looking at a virtual image. The image of "you" appears real and coming from in the mirror, when actually the light rays emanated from the real you and bounced off the mirror into your eyes.
https://www.arn.org/docs/booher/biblica ... tives.html

Pretty clever. it's an honest attempt to explain why the evidence is inconsistent with YE assumptions.

[Rxlx]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

But why worry about chromosomes - the muntjac's don't?