Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > DAVID: [i]Of course I don't know the daily habits of the monkey, but I do know that slight changes in one vertebrae didn't change the animal. It demonstrates god's pre-planning for future evolution and demonstrates God's tight control using His chosen method of creation[/i]. 
> > 
> > dhw:  So 21 million years ago your always-in-total-control God, whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens, went to all the trouble of specially changing one vertebra, which was of no use whatsoever to the monkey concerned, but this demonstrates his chosen method of designing the only thing he wanted to design. No wonder you have no idea why he chose such a method!
> 
> The definition of evolution is a change from one form to another, or have you forgotten? Progress has to be designed in my view , and in the fossil record are small changes and large gaps. Most species changes are after large gaps in form or physiology but obviously some are small. And as before, its not that I have 'no idea', I don't question God's choice to evolve all forms.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]That I don't question God's choices is your problem, not mine.[/i]
> 
> > dhw:  Once more: my problem is that you don’t question your INTERPRETATION of his choice of purpose and method!
> 
> Why should I? You are the one who has trouble with it, because it doesn't humanize God as much as you wish.
> > 
> > Under “[b]Human evolution[/b]”: [i]According to archaeologist Dr. Eleanor Scerri and geneticists Dr. Lounès Chikhi and Professor Mark Thomas, the quest for a single original location for modern humans is a wild goose chase.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Which means there were multiple locations, […] and it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that variations would have been the response to different conditions.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The point was 90% were in Africa, not scattered all over. And you are correct, there were different conditions in all part of Africa.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw:  And so, I repeat, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the variations would have been the [b]response[/b] to different conditions, as opposed to your God specially designing all of them in [b]anticipation[/b] of different conditions and as steps along the way to specially designing the only species he wanted to create.
> 
> See the website below to understand that Neanderthal genes affect our skin and immunity and are beneficial to us. A wise God would let various homo types to contribute to the final sapiens product by developing different appropriate responses to a variety of environmental issues:
> 
> https://www.the-scientist.com/features/neanderthal-dna-in-modern-human-genomes-is-not-silent-66299?utm_campaign=TS_DAILY%20NEWSLETTER_2019&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=77269679&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-94uWJOrQ90a0bVIu2vaL0aN_yfGYthvU4npN2kvXh7vtYBvLOMCES6gNEbmeA4A6SX7JLzktiFp7Kbx1zxjJFFr_kRTA&_hsmi=77269679
> 
> "In the past five years, a flurry of research has sought to answer that question. Genomic analyses have associated Neanderthal variants with differences in the expression levels of diverse genes and of phenotypes ranging from skin and hair color to immune function and neuropsychiatric disease. But researchers cannot yet say how these archaic sequences affect people today, much less the humans who acquired them some 50,000–55,000 years ago."
> 
> > DAVID: [i]"Free rein" in no way supports a purposeful God who knows what He wants to evolve. Still humanizing God.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Free rein supports the idea that a purposeful God’s purpose was the higgledy-piggledy bush which constitutes the history of life on Earth. The higgledy-piggledy bush ”in no way” supports the idea that from the very beginning God only wanted one species and yet was in total control of every branch! 
> 
> Of course it does! The bush supplies energy for evolution to continue under God's guidance.
> > 
> > DAVID: (under “[b]early fossils[/b]”) [i]No wonder H. sapiens ancestry is so confusing. Expect many more specimens before it clears up.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: No wonder you have no idea why your always-in-control God would specially design all these confusingly different specimens when all he wanted was just one.
> 
> Note the website above and what it explains  about interbreeding results.