Linking a Man to an animal, is a sin - how much a slave to "linking with an animal" are Evolutionists (if sinning makes you a slave)?

[VictoryinJesus]

Yes.

Beast prominently means…a literal Animal.

However there IS something called “PRECEPTS”… which means “BEHAVIOR”.

An Angel can “BEHAVE” like a Beast, be called a Beast…yet is still an Angel-Kind of Being.
(As well an Angel can Change it’s Looks, Look like a man, be called a man…yet is still an Angel-Kind of Being.)

A man can “BEHAVE” like a Beast, be called a Beast…yet is still a Man-Kind of Being.
(As well men / wo-man, can Change it’s Looks to Look like a man, woman, animal, an Angel, a beast, a monster…Be Called such things … yet it is still what it was ORIGINALLY Created, Formed, Made and Born.

Glory to God,
Taken

Agree as that is what I meant as behaving like.
I don’t think when Jesus referred to the religious leaders as serpent…he meant they were literal serpents. Or literal beast. Or even Jesus Christ said to the the Lamb. I’m not taking that literally.

Although I don’t know which is worse our literally evolving from little actual apes, beast, snakes… or evolving to behave like them.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Agree as that is what I meant as behaving like.
I don’t think when Jesus referred to the religious leaders as serpent…he meant they were literal serpents. Or literal beast. Or even Jesus Christ said to the the Lamb. I’m not taking that literally.

Although I don’t know which is worse our literally evolving from little actual apes, beast, snakes… or evolving to behave like them.

An additional thought is animals (literal) only do what is in their nature to do. They don’t know any difference. We should know the difference in what it means to not kill, steal and destroy.

 

[Taken]

Someone was building things in Jericho over 12,000 years ago.

I do not believe any structures / things from supposed measurements of man…
We’re built by man, 12.000 years ago.

But we don't actually know when Adam and Eve were given living souls.

Sure we do…
Immediately after they were completely individually formed.

For all that are human, same… after formed and born individual.

Forming is the works of Gods Hand called CREATION.

Giving a Formed Being a Soul is Gods works of MAKING that Forms Ability to communicate…
Eyes…….See
Nose……Smells
Ears…….Hear
Tongue..Taste
Mouth….Utter Sound
Flesh……Feel touch

That does not occur in the womb, rather after the individuals birth

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

An additional thought is animals (literal) only do what is in their nature to do. They don’t know any difference. We should know the difference in what it means to not kill, steal and destroy.

Yes agree. Instinct.

God bless you.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Angels were created as immaterial spirits. They don't reproduce at all. They are neither male nor female.

Disagree.
Angels in Scripture are only spoken of in masculine Verbiage.

God may give them a temporary material body to interact with us, but that is not what they are.

God has given Angels great power, to themselves appear in Human Form as they choose.

There will be a mortal human, declared, elected, appointed, (whatever the case)… as “Thee” World Leader.

He shall be Killed… and his Body Appear rising up back to life…
It is a hoax… it will be a Satanic Angel … Appearing in “that dead man’s”… Likeness…
Declaring “himself” to be God.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Armour of God]

Observed speciation is indeed evidence for it. If by "evidence" you mean specific mutations, yes, there is the evolution of O. gigas from O. lamarckana by a specific polyploidy mutation.

A PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE CHROMOSOMES OF OEligNOTHERA LAMARCKIANA AND ONE OF ITS MUTANTS, O. GIGAS - PubMed

A PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE CHROMOSOMES OF OEligNOTHERA LAMARCKIANA AND ONE OF ITS MUTANTS, O. GIGAS

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Because O. gigas cannot reproduce with O. lamarckana, they are, by definition, two species.

So observed speciation by random mutation is an observed fact.
As I pointed out, such evolution is not controversial for most young Earth creationists. Indeed, some of them deny that it's evolution at all, since it doesn't produce a new family or class of organisms.

As you know, even Darwin saw speciation as evolution. Speciation is now differentiated as "macroevolution", the evolution of new species, while change in allele frequencies that does not result in speciation is termed "microevolution."

The one example you've given me has nothing on the link you provided.
Great example. LoL
Give me a link with something on it at least.
Other examples would strengthen your argument too. LoL

PS. Are they flowers. Haha please. You have to be kidding me. You better show some animal examples or I'm just going to laugh at you mate

 

[Armour of God]

@The Barbarian

I found info on these flowers myself. My first thought is that it's a great assumption to compare plants to animals. But here is what I found



So these flowers were found way back in 1901. This guy Hugo in trying to develop his mutation theory simply finds one plant then finds another then just assumes that one came from the other. Claiming that it happened over one generation.
Hahaha
It's ridiculous to say the least. One has double the amount of chromosomes so their not even genetically similar whatsoever. This is confirmation bias to the maximum. Just another example of an assumption. A massive assumption

Is that all you have in regards to species evolving from genetic mutation?

 

[The Barbarian]

The one example you've given me has nothing on the link you provided.

Ah, you wouldn't have access to the journals cited. My bad. Let's see...

Here's a source you won't need to have journal access. And the note even has a drawing of the actual original chromosomes along with a drawing of the polyploid mutation that produced the new species.

Are they flowers. Haha please. You have to be kidding me. You better show some animal examples or I'm just going to laugh at you mate

I suppose one could argue that God made plants about to speciate by mutation, but not animals. But seeing as even YEC groups like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation research freely admit the fact of speciation, it's not a very defensible argument.

Here's a case where there are now two incipient reproductively-isolated populations of insect, occurring in less than 300 years.

We report finding genetic differentiation between co-occurring hawthorn and apple populations of R. pomonella at a field site near Grant, Michigan. The result confirms that hawthorn and apple flies represent partially reproductively isolated 'host races' and is consistent with a sympatric mode of divergence for these flies.

Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella - Nature

It has been proposed that true fruit flies in the Rhagoletis pomonella species group speciate sympatrically (that is, in the absence of geographic isolation) as a consequence of shifts to previously unexploited host plants1,2. Because Rhagoletis larvae are host-specific fruit parasites and mate...

www.nature.com

Here's a case of animal speciation by chromosomal mutation:

http://www.drosophila.jp/jdd/class/070101/07010155.pdf

These and other cases are why most creationists no longer deny the fact of speciation by genetic mutations.

 

[The Barbarian]

So these flowers were found way back in 1901. This guy Hugo in trying to develop his mutation theory simply finds one plant then finds another then just assumes that one came from the other. Claiming that it happened over one generation.
Hahaha

That's because polyploidy happens in one generation. And in many cases, it results in reproductive isolation. Complete or almost complete isolation generally happens with diploid/tetraploid cases, while isolation is less with triploid/hexaploid mutations.

 

[Armour of God]

That's because polyploidy happens in one generation. And in many cases, it results in reproductive isolation. Complete or almost complete isolation generally happens with diploid/tetraploid cases, while isolation is less with triploid/hexaploid mutations.

It's an assumption. One has the double the chromosomes. It's not even close

 

[The Barbarian]

So these flowers were found way back in 1901. This guy Hugo in trying to develop his mutation theory simply finds one plant then finds another then just assumes that one came from the other. Claiming that it happened over one generation.
Hahaha

Yeah, genetic analyses showed that to be the case. The mechanism was shown. There was a failure for chromosomes to separate, leading to tetraploid cells. The offspring turned out to be reproductively isolated from the parent species.

 

[Armour of God]

Yeah, genetic analyses showed that to be the case. The mechanism was shown. There was a failure for chromosomes to separate, leading to tetraploid cells. The offspring turned out to be reproductively isolated from the parent species.

Hahaha you crack me up with your assumptions
Im going back to sleep.
I expect to see better examples when I wake up. Animal examples would be nice

 

[The Barbarian]

It's an assumption.

Observed polyploidy

One has the double the chromosomes. It's not even close

Two copies of the genome. Happens fairly commonly in plants. Even creationist groups like Answers in Genesis now admit the fact of speciation. They just redefined the term to mean "evolution that produces new familes or classes."

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

The Institute for Creation Research claims that all living animals came from a few basic "kinds" from Noahs Ark. To fit everything into the Biblical stated size of the Ark, they concluded that (for example) all cat species developed from a single pair of cats over the last few thousand years. This means new species, genera, and sub-families of cats evolved in maybe the last 5000 years.

Dr. Wise applied this criterion to mammals and determined that only 100-300 mammal kinds were present on the Ark. Ironically, many of the species commonly portrayed as Ark passengers would not exist at the time. Zebras don’t appear until just before the post-Flood Ice Age, which Wise estimates occurred hundreds of years after the Flood. This makes sense because zebras diversified from earlier members of the horse kind. Hippopotamus would not have been aboard Noah’s Ark either. They seem to belong to the same ark kind as a now-extinct family of pig-like mammals called the anthracotheres.

How many Kinds of Mammals were on the Ark?

An “ark kind” is a group of animals belonging to the same created kind that were represented on Noah’s Ark during the global Flood.

newcreation.blog

 

[The Barbarian]

Angels in Scripture are only spoken of in masculine Verbiage

Sort of like "mankind." But that doesn't mean humans are all males.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hahaha you crack me up with your assumptions

It's just genetic analysis. Data is not assumption.

 

[Armour of God]

@The Barbarian

I can't get to sleep now laughing about that.

In 1901 they didn't even know about DNA and knew very little about cells.

This Hugo guy, finds two plants.

Desperate to prove his theory he declares that one evolved from the other.

No proof. Nothing. We're just supposed to believe him. No confirmation bias from Hugo not at all, we can trust him

Then decades later they realize that these two plants aren't even close. One has double the chromosones.

Hahaha. It sounds like someone telling a joke

Then we're supposed to apply that same joke to animals. LoL. Yea right.
The multiple assumptions being made are just funny at this point

 

[Jericho]

Genesis 6:3 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

Gen 6:3 seems to be a foreshadow of things to come, not indictive of lifespans prior to the flood. There is some debate if the 120 years refers to lifespans at all. Some interpret the 120 years as a countdown until the flood occurred. Although, it's certainly possible it also implies that lifespans would be shorted after the flood. Living to 120 is technically possible but very rare.

And yet: Gen 9:29 So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

Noah was also born prior to the flood and lived most of his life before that event. Whatever environmental changes occurred would not have affected him nearly as much as someone born after the flood.

About 8 times the limit God set before the flood. Exceptions God made for some people are not the same as His plan for most people.

What we see is the 11 generations born prior to the flood, from Adam to Shem, had exceptionally long lifespans. Shem's lifespan was a couple hundred years shorter than his forebearers, presumably because he lived most of his life after the flood. We should assume this was the norm and not the exception because earth conditions were different, and there are explanations why that was. Those born immediately after the flood had significantly shorter lifespans but still longer than what we see today. Then it gradually leveled off to what it is now.

 

[Taken]

Sort of like "mankind." But that doesn't mean humans are all males.

Terrestrial KIND of Beings applies to Humans and Animals which specifically means Earthly. And expressly has male and females.

 

[The Barbarian]

In 1901 they didn't even know about DNA and knew very little about cells.

Actually, they did. It was discovered in the 19th century. It wasn't until the 1940s that it was known to be involved in inheritance.

But they did know about chromosomes and their role in inheritance.

This Hugo guy, finds two plants.

Desperate to prove his theory he declares that one evolved from the other.

Well, since one of them was the offspring of the other, it wasn't hard to figure out.

We're just supposed to believe him. No confirmation bias from Hugo not at all, we can trust him

There's this thing in science called reproducibility. Others looked at the plants and confirmed his findings.

Then decades later they realize that these two plants aren't even close. One has double the chromosones.

No, that was the mutation they discovered. It's called "polyploidy." It's why the plant with the mutation could no longer interbreed with other plants of the old species. Do you see why?

Hahaha. It sounds like someone telling a joke

I suppose if one doesn't know anything about biology. What do you know about sexual reproduction on a cellular level?
Edit: Not much to add after the facts. But denial is still an option, I guess. It's a take-it-or-leave-it thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

Terrestrial KIND of Beings applies to Humans and Animals which specifically means Earthly. And expressly has male and females.

Not all animals are sexually reproducing.