Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

"Genetic drift, may be between 2-7% between Chimpanzees and Humans, however the genetic drift between all mankind is no more that 0.03%. The most drastic of the differences is the division between populations in sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of humanity. Thus it is considered that modern humans originated in Africa and that the population from which the rest of humanity descended left Africa somewhat less than 300,000 years ago, ultimately replacing earlier humans, like the Pithecanthropines (Homo erectus, like Peking Man, etc.), who had also evolved in Africa but left many thousands of years earlier."



"Part of this research was the theory of "Eve," a single female in Africa, around 200,000 years ago, from whom every living human being is now descended. This does not mean that there were not other human females -- there were -- or that we are not descended from them too -- we are. The theory is based on the circumstance that some human genetic material is contained in the mitochondria, little organs in a cell outside the nucleus (where most genetic material is contained). Sperm cells do not pass on their mitochondria to a fertilzed egg and so all human mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother. If a woman has only sons (a highly desirable result in many traditional cultures), then her own mitochondrial DNA is actually lost. Over time, this seems to have happened to all lines of descent of mitochrondiral DNA, except one, the line from "Eve." Another interesting feature of the chart is the closeness of American Indians to modern population across Europe, the Middle East, and northern East Asia. Thus, curiously, Europeans are more closely related to American Indians than to Polynesians. Finally, it is noteworthy that skin color is not at all helpful is providing clues to genetic affinity. The darkest colored people on earth, in Africa, India, Melanesia, and Australia, are scattered between groups that are only distantly related. Dark skin color is certainly a function of living under the equatorial sun for many generations, but all human populations have the genetic wherewithal to make that adaptation."

"The March 29, 1999, Newsweek reports (p. 72) that population geneticist Jody Hey and anthropologist Eugene Harris, of Rutgers University, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that, using DNA techniques again, the African population split from the non-African about 189,000 years ago. The article presents this as well before the emergence of "modern" Homo sapiens and somewhat surprising, but it actually seems fairly consistent with the numbers presented above. If Home sapiens goes back 300,000 years and "Eve" is around 200,000 years ago, then it is not beyond the bounds of crediblity that we could get the basic split in the populations not too long after that. The margin of error is also probably pretty large."
(Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.)

From this article, much is gleaned, and fuel for the fire of evolution and creation is added. First off, man is not that old, in fact the youngest form of life to join planet earth. Second, it appears that man does have a common mother, based on micro biological evidence. We seem to all share traits coming from a single female. However, there is also evidence that before man (that is the garden of eden, man), there were prototypes, that did not make it, and they went back at least 100,000 years before the arrival of modern man (from a single mother). Now, some carry the traits of protoman, but all of us carry traits from a single modern man. Also note that Chimpanzees do not carry any of those unique markers that we all carry.

There is a huge chasm between a .03% varience in genetic drift and a 2-7% varience.

Seems to me that one could argue that evolution has occured all along, however, something happened about 189,000 years ago that set man apart from all other life forms, and that it was significant enough to not only cause a physical isolation from the rest of the animal kingdom, but isolation in every other way as well.

Genetic drift cannot be over come (by today's technology) to breed human with Chimp, but neither can it be over come to breed Chimp with Gorilla (Chimps are closer genetically to man than they are to Gorillas).

Indeed, as far as physical attributes, man has more in common with equines, and that is an impossible cross breed potential (unless one believes in centaurs).

Perhaps, 200 millenia ago sentience finally dawned in Man, and God smiled and said "Good morning, I've been waiting for you to awaken. We've got lots to do..."

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

Beautiful thoughts, Quahom.

And as for you, Bandit My Dear...

I didn't say that I don't believe the Genesis story. I just think it is a bit inadequate. If Genesis was to go about explaining the whole thing, well then the length of the entire Bible would be the story of the activities of those six days. In a sense, it is, but like I said I just don't think God rounded up the clay in the simple way that Genesis states it. I think it was meant in the way that man was made from the same stuff that everything else was made from. Now as Quahom's post states, something happened at some point that separated man from the other living beings. That was the breath of life that God breathed into man's nostrils. That is the breath that gives man will and hope and discernment, among other things that separates us from other species of living beings. If you can recall, man was created after the seventh day.

And I do believe that man was before woman. And man existed long before the need to reproduce, which was the necessity for woman.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Yep - the theory as it stands at present is incapable of describing specific mechanisms and processes of evolution.

The principle of evolution is different...

However, it's also worth reminding that evolution does not relate to the "creation" of life, but the development and diversity.

So perhaps the black and white answers that may seem immediately applicable, are in fact not...

I would agree. Science and Faith are co-equals to understanding Creation. They are our right and left eyes. If we blind one eye, does it improve our understanding? Of course not.

Evolution is a model, it is not a perfect model, nor is any model likely to acheive perfection in picturing creation.

As to Genesis - well, there are TWO creation stories there - but neither one is meant to be a scientific explanation of the creation. To demand that one accept it as so, is superstition. To demand that it is entirely false, is crass and destructive materialism.

To ignore either to adhere to ONE, is self-imposed ignorance at best.

Regards,

Scott

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

And as for you, Bandit My Dear...

I didn't say that I don't believe the Genesis story. I just think it is a bit inadequate. If Genesis was to go about explaining the whole thing, well then the length of the entire Bible would be the story of the activities of those six days. In a sense, it is, but like I said I just don't think God rounded up the clay in the simple way that Genesis states it.
And I do believe that man was before woman. And man existed long before the need to reproduce, which was the necessity for woman.

so you mean it was not like a bunch of balls of colorful play dough with a rolling pin & cookie cutter that formed a bunch of different humans.
it is tough when science meets up with God & theories are still inadequate.
i know what you are saying my lovely Truthseeker & we are in agreement. i am just teasing with you.

[Silverbackman]

Why is it when we talk about evolution vs creationism we always bring the the creation story in Genesis? What about the creation story of Eastern Faiths? Namelly in the Rig Veda?

Oh wait, now I know why. Because the Rig Veda can go hand in hand with evolution, maybe because it is the TRUTH! At least the creation story of the Rig Veda does not have any superstition claims, nor does it try to solve anything that we ourselves need to find out for themselves.

Creation and evolution are BOTH right. End of story. Why couldn't God us evolution to sustain the universe once he created it billions of years ago?

[taijasi]

It always amazes me that when speaking of G_d starting things off (presumably with the Big Bang long, long ago), so many Christian/evolutionists - and perhaps others - assume that this means G_d cannot have been intimately involved with the process (of His mechanism, evolution) ... until the events we notice in the Bible, scattered here & there, but mostly occurring in the past few thousand years with the exception of the allegorical Garden of Eden. And why the latter should be taken literally by anyone is beyond me.

No offense is intended. If the only way this makes sense is to read the bible in its original plain-English version, then by all means, have at it! Why, though, doesn't it occur as common sense that the seven `Days' of Genesis are indeed meant symbolically ... and that questions like, "Were Adam and Eve actual human beings?" dissolve into absurdity in the light of recent scientific discoveries? (Again, these so-named figures are presented for a reason, but to decipher the meaning would require at least some cursory knowledge of the Adam Kadmon of the Jewish Kabbalists, and this is more effort than the average reader is willing to expend.)

The fact is, Eastern traditions have dealt with these sort of mysteries quite neatly for many thousands of years, certainly long before their more recent presentation in Western traditions. If the latter teachings are more popular to us here in the West, let us not overlook the fact that - as Silverbackman says - works such as the Rig Veda, Popul Vuh, Stanzas of Dzyan, et al have dealt with the Creation story quite succinctly. Students familiar with Edgar Cayce might find this article interesting (very relevant to this thread).

Clearly, if one consults these various works for parallels between the Eastern presentation and the much newer Western renditions s/he will find them, but to accentuate the differences and gloss over the similarities ... is a disservice to Those Who originated these various traditions to begin with.

If we only agree upon one thing (and even that may not occur), let us at least consider that there is but one Essential Truth ... with many, many Pontius Pilates to quibble with her (Truth's) Prophets and Defenders. Those who resist (fear) the Spirit of Ecumenism (Christ's Friend if ever he had one) are like those who would stand at the ocean and strike out at the infinitude of tributaries which reach her safe waters at long last. Pity the man who stands neck-deep against the current, defiant to the last of Christ's promise to bring all men unto Him ... if He be lifted up (which is to say, emulated!).
~-~-~-~-~

Again, why is it that when we approach this false-dichotomy of an issue, we use an obvious anthropomorphism, picture William Blake's Ancient of Days (wonderfully suggestive as this may be to Masons, et al), and go on to assume - with the Deists - that everything has literally run like clockwork until ... oh, a couple thousand years ago or so. Hmmm.

If you've never read the Flower Sermon, this will take about 15 seconds.

Is the Cosmos G_d's Flower?

andrew

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by taijasi

It always amazes me that when speaking of G_d starting things off (presumably with the Big Bang long, long ago), so many Christian/evolutionists - and perhaps others - assume that this means G_d cannot have been intimately involved with the process (of His mechanism, evolution) ... until the events we notice in the Bible, scattered here & there, but mostly occurring in the past few thousand years with the exception of the allegorical Garden of Eden. And why the latter should be taken literally by anyone is beyond me.

No offense is intended. If the only way this makes sense is to read the bible in its original plain-English version, then by all means, have at it! Why, though, doesn't it occur as common sense that the seven `Days' of Genesis are indeed meant symbolically ... and that questions like, "Were Adam and Eve actual human beings?" dissolve into absurdity in the light of recent scientific discoveries? (Again, these so-named figures are presented for a reason, but to decipher the meaning would require at least some cursory knowledge of the Adam Kadmon of the Jewish Kabbalists, and this is more effort than the average reader is willing to expend.)

The fact is, Eastern traditions have dealt with these sort of mysteries quite neatly for many thousands of years, certainly long before their more recent presentation in Western traditions. If the latter teachings are more popular to us here in the West, let us not overlook the fact that - as Silverbackman says - works such as the Rig Veda, Popul Vuh, Stanzas of Dzyan, et al have dealt with the Creation story quite succinctly. Students familiar with Edgar Cayce might find this article interesting (very relevant to this thread).

Clearly, if one consults these various works for parallels between the Eastern presentation and the much newer Western renditions s/he will find them, but to accentuate the differences and gloss over the similarities ... is a disservice to Those Who originated these various traditions to begin with.

If we only agree upon one thing (and even that may not occur), let us at least consider that there is but one Essential Truth ... with many, many Pontius Pilates to quibble with her (Truth's) Prophets and Defenders. Those who resist (fear) the Spirit of Ecumenism (Christ's Friend if ever he had one) are like those who would stand at the ocean and strike out at the infinitude of tributaries which reach her safe waters at long last. Pity the man who stands neck-deep against the current, defiant to the last of Christ's promise to bring all men unto Him ... if He be lifted up (which is to say, emulated!).
~-~-~-~-~

Again, why is it that when we approach this false-dichotomy of an issue, we use an obvious anthropomorphism, picture William Blake's Ancient of Days (wonderfully suggestive as this may be to Masons, et al), and go on to assume - with the Deists - that everything has literally run like clockwork until ... oh, a couple thousand years ago or so. Hmmm.

If you've never read the Flower Sermon, this will take about 15 seconds.

Is the Cosmos G_d's Flower?

andrew

Taijasi, I read that article aboutEdgar Cayce's creation article, and I'm impressed! Great article! To be honest it seems far more divine that the Genesis creation story. Although it mentions Judeo-Christianity mainly, most the concepts are Hindu concepts. The Brahman is very similar to the God in the article, so is reincarnation. I'm surpised it did not mentioned where it got most of its info from.

So was this Edgar Cayce start out as a Christian that developed different beliefs that make more sense (of course using Eastern Wisdom.

[Jaiket]

What strikes me as curious is this; evolution, specifically Darwinism, has obiterated all comers since conception and explains an incredible amount of data with minimal entities. Yet creationists attack it like it was pulled from the rear of an orangutang last week, brushed down, and pegged up as 'Science' with a capital 'S'.

To objectively examine the masses of evidence and state that the ToE is not the best explanation we have leaves me incredulous.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

What strikes me as curious is this; evolution, specifically Darwinism, has obiterated all comers since conception and explains an incredible amount of data with minimal entities. Yet creationists attack it like it was pulled from the rear of an orangutang last week, brushed down, and pegged up as 'Science' with a capital 'S'.

To objectively examine the masses of evidence and state that the ToE is not the best explanation we have leaves me incredulous.

It is, the problem is that creationist don't want to admit it. And by creationist I mean judeo-christo-islamic creationist. I can't believe anyone would believe such a primitive creation myth! I mean the Rig Veda's creation story at least makes a little more sense!

What is even more suprising is that many people believe the universe is 6,000 years old, when not only do evolutionists believe this is impossible but the cosmologist are even more stunned on how someone could believe such a metaphor of the beginning!

Was the universe created? Of course it was, by what and to what extent we don't. Could God have used evolution to create life? Of course he/she could have!

When people stop confusing myths for religion, then religion would be much better off. Follow the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed, don't give a crap on whether the was born in a manger or whether the rainbow is really there because of a promise.

The new global religion if it ever comes should make sure they concentrate more on the teachings for religious ceremonies more than the stories. They stories are great but we need to distinguish stories from spirituality.

[E99]

Creation.

Evolution has a certain amount of back up to its theory but I tend to think of it as incomplete because of insufficient answers regarding abiogenesis, biological life from the formation of chemical molecules. Which is improbable if not impossible within the given amount of time that our universe has existed. Although many state that abiogenesis is not evolution, which is true to an extent, as the processes of progressive formation are different, abiogenesis still results in a biological functioning cell. They are intrinsically linked. In essence, evolution needs abiogenesis to be substantiated, as it is the base on which evolution is founded. Otherwise it is like saying that we believe that we know how the house has been built, but it is not built on a foundation.... Like Jesus's parable...A house built on sandy soil will eventually collapse in a storm. (Matthew 7:26, 27)



Genesis is clearly a basic account of creation. It was intended to be known as a real event. Why would God have Moses write a confusing tale ? All scripture comes from (inspired ) by God. (2 Timothy 3:16) and God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2)
It is also believed that there were writings handed down to Moses from the pre-flood generations that gave a clearer account of the creation which have now been lost in time. . . This is based on the Dutch scholar Campegius Vitringa who made his conclusion upon the frequent occurrence in Genesis (ten times) of the expression (in KJ) "these are the generations of," and once "this is the book of the generations of." (Ge 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2) In this expression the Hebrew word for "generations" is toh·le·dhohth´, and it is better rendered "histories" or "origins."
This theory is not wholey substantiated, but it does seem to point to the fact that Moses may have had written documentation of pre-flood existance and the creation. More than likely The account was transmitted orally, by written records and more importantly, by divine inspiration.



The full understanding of Genesis is a little lost once its taken from the original Hebrew wording. The Hebrews would have had a clearer understanding of the account. The confusion comes from the Hebrew language having around 30,000 words with varying and loose meanings, to our language with around 300,000 words that have more specific meaning with each word.
The word day (yohm) is a good example, meaning a 24 hour day when used in context with its surrounding words, or it can mean any period of time. It has to be defined by the verse it is in and sometimes verses well before or after it. Its debatable if the 'days' in genesis are 24 hours, or wether they mean undefined periods of time.
More specific is the concept that is bandied about that there is two creation accounts in Genesis etc. Here again the actual original Hebrew can help to bury this false idea about the so called duo creation account in Genesis.

[Silverbackman]

E99, it maybe seems like a great explanation but look at the creation myths of the Native Americans, Native Africans, Norse Creation Myth, ect. ect. It doesn't seem like such a big story when you look at the broader picture.

Exactly what do you mean by there is not enough time for evolution? The universe is around 15 billion years old! Evolutionists are not the ones who made this number, cosmologists did! 6,000 years is just too impossible, heck most civilizations date back further! Hinduism is about 6,000 year old, much older than Judaism.

I have heard that the words used to describe day could mean era, but then why did God use day and night? That clearly shows it cannot be eras! Unless the days and nights are much longer, this is a possibility.

The world however cannot be 6,000 years old, that is far too young for our universe. Evolutionists, Cosmologists, Zoologists and even Historians would strongly disagree with you. If Genesis has any validity, then it must be a metaphor more than anything !

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

What is even more suprising is that many people believe the universe is 6,000 years old,

i have never met anyone in my life who believes that.
like you know exactly how old the earth is?

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

When people stop confusing myths for religion, then religion would be much better off. Follow the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed, don't give a crap on whether the was born in a manger or whether the rainbow is really there because of a promise.

The new global religion if it ever comes should make sure they concentrate more on the teachings for religious ceremonies more than the stories. They stories are great but we need to distinguish stories from spirituality.

still on the all new global religion kick. certainly, as long as it matches up with your doctrine.
When people stop confusing myths & theories for scientific proof, then science would be much better off.

[Bandit]

What strikes me as curious is this; creation, specifically the God of the bible, has obliterated all comers since conception and explains an incredible amount of data with ONE ENTITY -the bible-( that would be God). Yet evolutionists attack it like it was pulled from the rear of an orangutan last week, brushed down, and pegged up as Religion with a capital R.

To objectively examine the masses of evidence and state that Almighty God is not the best explanation we have leaves me incredulous.



All the dead bones on the planet have not proven evolution.

The fact that someone can significantly alter the body plan of species does not prove macro-evolution and it does not refute the God of creation.

It seems to me that macro-evolution requires LOTS of NEW information and NEW genes that make NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs, systems & blah blah blah.

The evolution theories lacks severe evidence.

When a lobster gives birth to a mouse, let me know.

[I am free]

I see creation around me every single day. A single cell grows into a perfect little baby. A tiny seed grows into a massive tree (with time ). I see creation in each chirping bird and each blooming bud.

I see creation in evolution. Evolution and Creation are not seperate. They are one and the same. Evolution does not disprove creation or existence of God.

Having said this, I also cannot comprehend the idea that there was one moment when "everything came into being". For me God has always been. There was never a point in time (if there is such a thing as time) that God was not. So then I cannot comprehend why there was no creation when there was God. I would say creation also has always been.

I would say there are many universes now and have been. Universes are born and they die. Just as stars and planets are born and die.

Humanity would be just one of Gods many creations. I also believe that there are beings in other worlds probably at a higher plane of consciousness and sentience and probably closer to God than we are.

Just my thoughts.
Regards.

P.S. There should be an option in the poll to vote for "both".

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by Bandit

When a lobster gives birth to a mouse, let me know.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the above idea is as much a misunderstanding - or a deliberate misstatement - of what the theory of evolution says as is the idea that it teaches that humans evolved from apes.

I really wish that people who want to refute evolution would have at least a passing understanding of what that theory actually says.

I'm sorry if that sounds intolerant, but I've taken the time to read all the sides of the argument and I really don't have the inclination to try to have a serious discussion with someone who obviously hasn't taken the time to do so.

And that's one (and only one of many) of the reasons why I cannot take creationsim seriously. Many, if not most, of the advocates of creationism that I have read either have not studied evolution enough to know what they are arguing against, or else they deliberately misstate what the theory teaches and take information out of context in order to bolster their own arguments. If they had serious and valid arguments against evolution, they wouldn't have to do that.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I am free

I see creation around me every single day. A single cell grows into a perfect little baby. A tiny seed grows into a massive tree (with time ). I see creation in each chirping bird and each blooming bud.

I see creation in evolution. Evolution and Creation are not seperate. They are one and the same. Evolution does not disprove creation or existence of God.

Having said this, I also cannot comprehend the idea that there was one moment when "everything came into being". For me God has always been. There was never a point in time (if there is such a thing as time) that God was not. So then I cannot comprehend why there was no creation when there was God. I would say creation also has always been.

I would say there are many universes now and have been. Universes are born and they die. Just as stars and planets are born and die.

Humanity would be just one of Gods many creations. I also believe that there are beings in other worlds probably at a higher plane of consciousness and sentience and probably closer to God than we are.

Just my thoughts.
Regards.

P.S. There should be an option in the poll to vote for "both".

Hmmm, according to scripture, there are at least eleven orders of beings higher than Human, that are closer to God. They are definitely not of the same plane of existence as Man.

I also find it interesting that the universe, with its supposed expansion outward, is not showing galaxies moving farther apart from eachother with time. Though all is moving through space (in an apparent spiral), nothing is moving away from eachother. In fact some galaxies it is reported are colliding with eachother, which means some are over taking others? If all started at once, then the speed of expansion should be relative to that original BANG.

If smaller galaxies were moving faster than larger ones, that would make sense, but when larger galaxies are overtaking smaller ones, and all are moving courtesy of a big Bang of energy release, that is contradictory in the laws of physics.

Also, if the Big BANG occured from one focal point, then all should be expanding outward. None should be coming from the opposite direction or at right angles to the reference point. Unless one wishes to look at the universe like a solar system. Then that would make sense. Except there is no super sun at the beginning of time.

(Sun ignites and spits gasses and dust out. Sun spins causing that around it to spin with it, gasses and dust collect into clumps and become planet bodies orbiting the sun. Solar system is created).

Or is there? Galaxies show the same signature as Solar systems...Why can't we see the universe showing the same signature as the galaxies and solar systems? Maybe we're too far away to see the reality of the universe.

In otherwords...we just don't know.

my thoughts

v/r

Q