Monkeys become people?

[dharma-bum]

Name one mutation that generated an increase in (not duplication of) genetic information - which is a requirement for new functionality and macro-evolution.

Any duplication of genetic material can be imperfect and introduce new genetic codes. This is one way mutations occur: from mistakes made while copying DNA or RNA. Therefore, any increase in the genetic code (even if it originates as a duplication) allows for the possibility of new genes to mutate within the increased genetic code.

For example, people with down syndrome have extra genetic material, a duplicate chromosome 21. This is not generally considered a beneficial mutation (most aren't), but it is an increase in genetic information that can itself mutate. There are almost certainly people with DS who have mutated or partial copies of C21, so, to answer your question: that would be an example of a mutation that generated an increase in new genetic information.

 

[Miri]

Hi d-harma

Sorry didn't mean to be condecending, apologise if it came across that way.

The thing is I see lots of people on here - Christians- who seem almost to play the part
of devil's advocate and argue the point for evolution or at least argue that God started off
the evolution process.

Honestly either the bible and God's word is the truth or it's not. There is no in between position.
The bible is littered with creation versus outside of Genesis. It's no coincidence that time and time
again each part of creation mentions one day. Not 1000 years, or one million years.

God knew just how much the creation account would be warped and twisted.

There is so much teaching and links to other teaching to be found in Genesis,
it sets the foundation for the entire bible, why we were made, God's intention to
have a relationship with mankind, how sin came into the world, the plan set in
motion to redeem mankind etc.

I'm not blinkered to the theories about evolution and I can understand why you say
that in order to give reasoned answers we must understand the evolution position.
There are Christians out there who do a good job of this and reach out to the
scientists and cosmologists, and all the other gists. Maybe you might become one
of them once you have decided on where you stand. I note your status is unsure
at the current time.

But my concern is that whether reaching out to the "gists" or to the every
day joe blogs like me. That first and foremost we need to know where we stand
and what our foundation is.

Incidentally often when replying I am keenly aware that many come to this site
searching for answers and read the forums even if they are not members and so
regarding the comment that scientists simply believe the best description, I would add
the following little dialogue.


Christian - I believe all cars are white.
Scientist - no that's so yesterday, all cars are blue all the evidence points to this.
Christian - how do you know cars are blue were you there?
Scientist - no but you were not there either when cars were made.
Christian - no but I know someone who was and all cars are white.
Scientist - oh you mean the God thing, well I don't believe in God but all cars are blue.
Christian - but yesterday you thought they were pink.
Scientist - oh yes but today we have new theories and blue is definately the right colour
Christian - and the day before you thought they were green.
Scientist - yes but that was then and this is now and they are defiantly blue
Christian - and last week you thought they were purple, so why can't they be white?
Scientist - because the colour white doesn't exist, so they could have been pink or green,
now we know they are blue but they will never be white. They might be orange tomorrow,
but they will never ever be white.

The point is evolution is just as much a "religion" as creation but evolutionist will never admit
to that. They wrap all the theories up in scientific jargon, but it is just a belief system like any
other.

 

[PeterJens]

The point is there is no evidence for evolution

Christians are very poor at arguing about origins in an informed way.
There is evidence of selective advantage of mutations which result is change in animals over generations.
It is quite easy to project this processes into infinite change.

The problem in the argument is about origins. What makes the first living organism based on DNA?
500,000 base pairs. Get any of this wrong and no life. Now anyway you cut it this is impossible to create by chance.

When biologists look at life it is unbelievably involved, complex and adaptable. The creative principle of life seems to be adaption within limitations.

Once you accept there is a created starting point, you have creation.

 

[Mitspa]

Christians are very poor at arguing about origins in an informed way.
There is evidence of selective advantage of mutations which result is change in animals over generations.
It is quite easy to project this processes into infinite change.

The problem in the argument is about origins. What makes the first living organism based on DNA?
500,000 base pairs. Get any of this wrong and no life. Now anyway you cut it this is impossible to create by chance.

When biologists look at life it is unbelievably involved, complex and adaptable. The creative principle of life seems to be adaption within limitations.

Once you accept there is a created starting point, you have creation.

"poor" by who's standards? The idea is not to make a argument in the complexities of terms ...that's how the deception works. Im simplicity and honesty one defeats the lies of this world... The truth is when you remove all the terms..evolution believes men came from monkeys...which is just stupid to any rational person, The truth is that under no known laws of science can nothing blow up and make everything...its just beyond dumb. That's why you see all these side issues like different branches of development etc... by the same people who would tell and cover any lie to defend evolution ...these are the same people who got caught putting ape teeth with a human skull .. You want to win some debate with these wicked people...you have already lost the debate.

 

[Mitspa]

Regardless of the validity of evolution, i think it is important to have a proper understanding of its assertions before discussing and refuting it. So i will reiterate: "evolutionists" do not claim that people came from monkeys. If this is how you view evolution, then you are building your counter-arguments on a very weak foundation. Here is a simple analogy that may give you a better understanding of the theory: Monkeys are said to be more like our distant cousins than our ancestors. Humans do not have any monkeys as ancestors.

If you say that "monkeys did not evolve into people," Evolutionists will tell you "You are correct!" They will allege that "millions of years ago, before monkeys ever existed, great apes (the 'homo' genus to which humans belong) split from the 'pan' genus, and followed an entirely different evolutionary course (from which we have many fossils to show as evidence). Monkeys split from the 'pan' genus long after hominids, and although we share a common ancestor (probably never to be found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor ), humans have no monkey ancestors."

If you do not understand this distinction, then you will be poorly equipped to discuss human origins with a well informed "evolutionist." There are many holes in the theory. But this is not one. Evolutionary theory does not claim that "monkeys become people."

Dude your just lying and trying to cover that lie with terms ...its a monkey type animal...now you can change the name a thousand times ..but its still basically the same moneys we have today. The pan genus is a monkey ... Before monkeys we had great apes that evolved from monkeys ...do you even hear how dumb what your saying is?

 

[Mitspa]

You have to get rid of any common sense to believe that a great ape was before monkeys ...now they tell you that's their argument...but really they believe that "great ape" evolved from a monkey..they will say "oh its not a monkey its a poop duper" ...No its a monkey and anyone that knows what a the term monkey means ..knows its a monkey .

Now at least some evolutionist are honest enough to admit they think the monkey evolved ..but didn't really change

 

[Mitspa]

I think I just understood what post # 81 was saying ..that monkeys evolved into great apes (all monkeys gone) and then great apes evolved into people and into monkeys again? Wow ..science is so amazing

 

[crossnote]

• • There are more living organisms in a teaspoonful of soil than there are people alive on Earth.
• http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/humans-share-50-dna-bananas-2482139

Gee, I had better watch my steps or I'll tromp on the little critters...microbe rights!!!

 

[Babylonisfalling]

I believe an evolutionist would tell you that the reason we don't see current evolution taking place is because it's too slow a process. Evolution would be a millions of years process and we've been watching for changes for how long? Our civilization is only a few thousand years old, the theory of evolution is how old...decades?

Regarding the credibility of evolution, God could have created us using evolution. He also could have reverse-evolved us from higher creatures into lower creatures. God could have created us any way he wised. The real evidence for evolution is too scant for me. But like so many other things we argue about, a person can be totally wrong about evolution and still be totally saved by God.

Social and moral evolution seems more interesting to me anyway. It also seems undeniable and God-driven.

 

[Sirk]

I believe an evolutionist would tell you that the reason we don't see current evolution taking place is because it's too slow a process. Evolution would be a millions of years process and we've been watching for changes for how long? Our civilization is only a few thousand years old, the theory of evolution is how old...decades?

Regarding the credibility of evolution, God could have created us using evolution. He also could have reverse-evolved us from higher creatures into lower creatures. God could have created us any way he wised. The real evidence for evolution is too scant for me. But like so many other things we argue about, a person can be totally wrong about evolution and still be totally saved by God.

Social and moral evolution seems more interesting to me anyway. It also seems undeniable and God-driven.

there are no transitional species....none, nada, zilch. There should be countless examples in the fossil record. But there is not a one.

 

[Mitspa]

I believe an evolutionist would tell you that the reason we don't see current evolution taking place is because it's too slow a process. Evolution would be a millions of years process and we've been watching for changes for how long? Our civilization is only a few thousand years old, the theory of evolution is how old...decades?

Regarding the credibility of evolution, God could have created us using evolution. He also could have reverse-evolved us from higher creatures into lower creatures. God could have created us any way he wised. The real evidence for evolution is too scant for me. But like so many other things we argue about, a person can be totally wrong about evolution and still be totally saved by God.

Social and moral evolution seems more interesting to me anyway. It also seems undeniable and God-driven.

Wow ..so what parts of the bible is true? Do you believe God created Adam and Eve , just as it is written?

 

[biblicalsandy]

I don't know about others, but I do not understand evolution, and the fascination with it. Except with maybe the study of it, to help those of today with enviromental issues that affect our bodies. But to use it to find out where something originated from in species, open your bible and read. To me, for to study out origin, is the same as saying "I do not believe God when he said he created, so I will do these things to disprove/prove him in his words!" I have a question though "Is Halloween a favorite day for evolutionist?" I see a lot of evolving going on that day!

 

[Pilkington]

One of the biggest issues I have with evolution is that the mast majority of mutations are harmful. In fact I can't think of any beneficial mutations. My husband has a genetic condition which is the result of a single point mutation in a gene, and the consequences are definitely not good. His condition is a spontaneous mutation, so no-one else in his family have it or are a carrier.

I am now going to explain this very badly. When cells are replicating there are mechanisms that stop the process till the DNA is repaired and if it can't be repaired the cells go into a pathway of programmed cell death. Cancer is a process where these systems are over ridden.

 

[dharma-bum]

One of the biggest issues I have with evolution is that the vast majority of mutations are harmful. In fact I can't think of any beneficial mutations. My husband has a genetic condition which is the result of a single point mutation in a gene, and the consequences are definitely not good. His condition is a spontaneous mutation, so no-one else in his family have it or are a carrier.

I am now going to explain this very badly. When cells are replicating there are mechanisms that stop the process till the DNA is repaired and if it can't be repaired the cells go into a pathway of programmed cell death. Cancer is a process where these systems are over ridden.

A textbook example would be the mutation of our genome to allow for lactase persistence (and inhibit lactose intolerance) that has been spreading through human populations recently (starting about 10k years ago, and still to this day). There are two single point gene mutations that cause lactase persistence: mutations at T−13910 and A−22018. Over the past 10,000 years, these mutations (which are beneficial if you live in an agricultural society and drink milk past infancy) have spread through most of the world's agrarian societies. Their drift can be tracked by simply analyzing the tremendous amount of DNA evidence we have from the last 10,000 years of our human fossil record, and it has a strong correlation with the simultaneous spread of domesticated cattle.

You are absolutely correct. The majority of mutations are harmful, and do not end up spreading through populations. But all it takes is one person on the earth (1 in 7,100,000,000 people) to "win the lotto" with a beneficial mutation, and it could spread to the rest of the population (through generations of progeny), giving us another tiny upgrade, like lactase persistence.

 

[dharma-bum]

I think I just understood what post # 81 was saying ..that monkeys evolved into great apes (all monkeys gone) and then great apes evolved into people and into monkeys again?

Sorry for the confusion. Post #81 was my convoluted answer to Budman's question. I was trying to explain that people with down syndrome have extra genetic material, and that this extra material could mutate. They have 47 chromosomes, but usually people have 46.

Wow ..science is so amazing

Agreed. God's creations usually are. I'm extremely thankful that we have the mental capacity for science, reason, logic, epistemology, etc.

 

[oldthennew]

yes, we all have a common-esse, for this we cannot deny...
from dust we have come and to dust we shall go....

all who breath and acknowledge this essence of life= a common bond we share...
in this, know what Life is about and eventually, for the chosen,
we will come into our our Saviour's grace and precious, eternal home....................

 

[Mitspa]

Sorry for the confusion. Post #81 was my convoluted answer to Budman's question. I was trying to explain that people with down syndrome have extra genetic material, and that this extra material could mutate. They have 47 chromosomes, but usually people have 46.



Agreed. God's creations usually are. I'm extremely thankful that we have the mental capacity for science, reason, logic, epistemology, etc.

Ok I can be reasonable but not based on lies...we know that the evolutionist have lied time and time again to try and make this theory work...we know every time someone punches a whole in their so-called science ..they just change the terms and add some other false argument to cloud the issue...the truth is they don't know what they believe and have almost nothing they can prove ... the fact also remains that they believe monkey type animals evolved in to men. The fact is they believe nothing blew-up and made everything ... this is not science...this is a religion with some science that they use to make some points that agree with their theory ...but there is far more science that agrees with creation that they will not acknowledge...because they must defeat the concept of the God of the bible ...that's what all this evolution is about....nothing more.

 

[Mitspa]

A textbook example would be the mutation of our genome to allow for lactase persistence (and inhibit lactose intolerance) that has been spreading through human populations recently (starting about 10k years ago, and still to this day). There are two single point gene mutations that cause lactase persistence: mutations at T−13910 and A−22018. Over the past 10,000 years, these mutations (which are beneficial if you live in an agricultural society and drink milk past infancy) have spread through most of the world's agrarian societies. Their drift can be tracked by simply analyzing the tremendous amount of DNA evidence we have from the last 10,000 years of our human fossil record, and it has a strong correlation with the simultaneous spread of domesticated cattle.

You are absolutely correct. The majority of mutations are harmful, and do not end up spreading through populations. But all it takes is one person on the earth (1 in 7,100,000,000 people) to "win the lotto" with a beneficial mutation, and it could spread to the rest of the population (through generations of progeny), giving us another tiny upgrade, like lactase persistence.

Do you really think this is evidence that monkeys become men? You have to want to believe that as a matter of faith...not provable science.

 

[Babylonisfalling]

I do believe God created Adam and Eve, I'm not an evolutionist.

 

[Magenta]

.
To Babylonisfalling and dharma-bum:



Welcome to CC!