Testing Common Ancestry vs. Separate Ancestry

[River Jordan]

An interesting new paper describes how scientists tested two different models for the history of humans, common ancestry with other primates versus separate ancestry (humans are separate and distinct from all primates). They looked at the genetic data among humans and primates and ran it through statistical analyses. Not only that, but they also took steps to account for sequence similarity being possibly explained by other means, e.g., functional constraint (where the sequences are the same simply because that's what works).

I'll let the researches describe their results....

We find overwhelmingly strong evidence against [separate ancestry] in favor of [common ancestry] in primates at both the subordinal and family levels. Additionally, we find common ancestry between primate orders and among primate families. We find very strong statistical evidence against a hypothesis of SA of humans from other primates, This supports the conventional view that humans are closely related to other primates rather than deriving from an independent origin event.

What's also interesting is how they built upon previous statistical tests that while they reached the same conclusion, had some flaws and/or possible alternative explanations. These researchers incorporated more data, addressed other possible explanations, and corrected flaws in the earlier research.

It's fascinating work. Anyone who's interested can read the paper here: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/01/10/036327

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Yes. Fascinating. I'm shocked. I really thought that they would come to just the opposite conclusion. I guess that settles it.

 

[River Jordan]

The sequence data is publicly available. If creationists think this is in error and the opposite is true, what's stopping them from doing their own tests? Oh, that's right....those danged Darwinists keep smashing up their labs, hacking their computers, and generally harassing them so much they barely have time to build theme parks and go on church group speaking tours. Pooooooooooor creationists.....

 

[Angelina]

Renowned Chemist Says Evolutionists Do Not Understand the Origin of Life
...If evolution cannot account for life’s existence, then how did life originate? Tour says the most reasonable answer is simple. “I believe fundamentally that God created us all,” he told the Houston Chronicle.
http://christiannews.net/2014/10/13/renowned-chemist-says-evolutionists-do-not-understand-the-origin-of-life/

 

[River Jordan]

Angelina,

First, I'm not sure what that article has to do with this thread. Can you explain why you posted it here rather than in a new thread?

 

[Angelina]

River Jordon...I do not understand your theology and how it fits in to being a believer...Please explain? :huh:

 

[River Jordan]

Angelina,

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what you're doing. You pretty much ignored my question and just posed a completely different one about my beliefs. Can you please answer the question I first asked you, i.e., what the article you posted has to do with this thread?

 

[Angelina]

River Jordon. I am not a scholar by any means...but I understand [please correct me if I have this wrong] that you do not believe the Genesis account of creation. Please explain why you believe in Darwins theory over the Genesis account and where, you believe, it places you as a born-again believer? :huh:

 

[River Jordan]

Help me out here....why do you keep asking me questions expecting me to answer them, while at the same time you completely ignore the questions I ask you? Does that seem fair to you?

 

[Angelina]

I thought that my article corresponded to this discussion since it speaks of evolution from a top scientists perspective. If I have not understood how that relates to the O/T please forgive. I thought that it did? :huh: Now please answer my questions.

 

[River Jordan]

I thought that my article corresponded to this discussion since it speaks of evolution from a top scientists perspective.

I don't see how, since the chemist in the article you linked to admitted...

Despite his experiences and expertise, Tour admits that he does not understand how evolution could account for life’s existence. “I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video.

That pretty much takes him out of the category of scientists who can speak authoritatively about evolution, doesn't it?

If I have not understood how that relates to the O/T please forgive. I thought that it did?

No, it really doesn't. The OP is about an article that describes a formal test of common ancestry of humans and primates versus separate ancestry for humans, and reaches the very strong conclusion that common ancestry far and away is the best explanation and most likely to be true. The article you linked to is a chemist who admits he doesn't understand evolution, saying he doesn't understand how evolution can explain the origin of life.

And now you're trying to turn this thread into yet another discussion about my faith. IOW, you're taking this thread completely off topic.

Now please answer my questions.

I understand [please correct me if I have this wrong] that you do not believe the Genesis account of creation. Please explain why you believe in Darwins theory over the Genesis account and where, you believe, it places you as a born-again believer?

I've explained this in this forum multiple times. I do believe in the Genesis account of creation and I don't see it as incompatible with evolutionary theory.

 

[Angelina]

River Jordon. You are speaking to a bible believing born-again believer who has not really been involved in discussions about evolution vs creationism. I cannot get my head around the idea that you would believe in man's studies and research over the biblical version of creation which was handed down to us by men, inspired by God? What do you believe??? :huh:

Oh thanks for that...I just read the above post. Why do you not see the Genesis account of creation incompatible with the evolution theory? In Genesis 1, the bible tells us that God made everything according to it's kind. I understand that we classify Apes and gorillas as wild animals and God said that he made them according to their kind in Genesis 1:24-25. Each category of living things were made according to their kind...Then in Genesis 1:26, he made mankind in his own image. To say that Adam and Eve were made in the image of God would mean that God was an ape or gorilla? :blink: 1 Corinthians 15 says...

37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

If God gives each seed his own body, then why are they supposedly evolving???

 

[River Jordan]

River Jordon. You are speaking to a bible believing born-again believer who has not really been involved in discussions about evolution vs creationism. I cannot get my head around the idea that you would believe in man's studies and research over the biblical version of creation? What do you believe??? :huh:

I'm not "believing in man's studies over the biblical version". I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Both can be true.

Why do you not see the Genesis account of creation incompatible with the evolution theory?

Because the only reason to see them as incompatible is if you think Genesis was written as a scientific description of the history of life on earth.

In Genesis 1, the bible tells us that God made everything according to it's kind.

Yet scripture never once tells us what a "kind" is. If Genesis was meant as a scientific account of the history of life on earth, you'd think something as important as that would have been covered.

Each category of living things were made according to their kind..

And the only indication of how things were created is when we're told that God commanded the earth to "bring forth" all the organisms. In Genesis 1 we see God "letting" things happen rather than doing them Himself. That sounds entirely compatible with evolution, doesn't it?

Then in Genesis 1:26, he made mankind in his own image. To say that Adam and Eve were made in the image of God would mean that God was an ape or gorilla?

Do you think "in the image of God" refers to our physical anatomy? If so, what specific part of our anatomy makes us distinctly in the image of God?

If God gives each seed his own body, then why are they supposedly evolving???

You honestly think that scripture is about evolution? Really?

 

[Angelina]

The only place in the bible where I have found God changing a man into a wild animal is found in Daniel 4

28 All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 Twelve months later, as the king was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 he said, “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?”
31 Even as the words were on his lips, a voice came from heaven, “This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. 32 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like the ox. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes.”
33 Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like the ox. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.
34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored.

Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever.

His dominion is an eternal dominion;
his kingdom endures from generation to generation.
35 All the peoples of the earth
are regarded as nothing.
He does as he pleases
with the powers of heaven
and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
or say to him: “What have you done?”

36 At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble.

 

[River Jordan]

The only place in the bible where I have found God changing a man into a wild animal is found in Daniel 4

And? I can't find anywhere in scripture that plate tectonics, volcanism, or temperature gradients are mentioned, even though scripture also says God creates mountains and wind.

 

[Angelina]

I'm not "believing in man's studies over the biblical version". I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Both can be true.

How can they co-exist when God specifically gives a body according to their kind?

Because the only reason to see them as incompatible is if you think Genesis was written as a scientific description of the history of life on earth.

Well I would have to think this way in the first place but I don't. I believe the Genesis account based on the idea that God is sovereign and he can create anything out of nothing.

Yet scripture never once tells us what a "kind" is. If Genesis was meant as a scientific account of the history of life on earth, you'd think something as important as that would have been covered.

Yes it does...read Genesis 1 again. Each kind has a category. Wild animals, cattle, birds, fish, plants, mankind etc.

And the only indication of how things were created is when we're told that God commanded the earth to "bring forth" all the organisms. In Genesis 1 we see God "letting" things happen rather than doing them Himself. That sounds entirely compatible with evolution, doesn't it?

He didn't let things happen as you say. He created kinds specifically and categorized them. Mankind however, he made in his own image.

Do you think "in the image of God" refers to our physical anatomy? If so, what specific part of our anatomy makes us distinctly in the image of God?

No...If he says that we were made in his image, I believe it since God is Spirit and we his workmanship made in his image.

You honestly think that scripture is about evolution? Really?

Well you obviously do??? :huh:

 

[Angelina]

And? I can't find anywhere in scripture that plate tectonics, volcanism, or temperature gradients are mentioned, even though scripture also says God creates mountains and wind.

The difference here is that God changed a man into a wild animal and changed him back. How does that fit into the evolution theory?

 

[River Jordan]

How can they co-exist when God specifically gives a body according to their kind?

Again, Genesis 1 says God created by commanding the earth to bring forth things. It doesn't say "God gave them bodies".

I believe the Genesis account based on the idea that God is sovereign and he can create anything out of nothing.

But it doesn't say God created organisms out of nothing. Instead it says He created by commanding the earth to bring them forth.

Yes it does...read Genesis 1 again. Each kind has a category. Wild animals, cattle, birds, fish, plants, mankind etc.

I don't see how you get that from the text. I mean, if "wild animal" was a "kind", then you'd have to believe that God only created one pair of them and they later gave rise to all the "wild animals" that existed afterwards....lions, bears, whales, snakes, dinosaurs, spiders, butterflies, and everything else. Is that what you believe, because that requires quite a lot of evolution!

He didn't let things happen as you say.

That's exactly what scripture says.

No...If he says that we were made in his image, I believe it since God is Spirit and we his workmanship made in his image.

So we agree that "in the image of God" refers to our spiritual nature. That means "in the image of God" does not preclude the evolution of our physical forms.

Well you obviously do??? :huh:

No, I don't at all, so I really don't know why you posted it.

The difference here is that God changed a man into a wild animal and changed him back. How does that fit into the evolution theory?

It doesn't. It was a direct, supernatural act of God.

 

[Angelina]

Your theory is weak to say the least River Jordon...

Again, Genesis 1 says God created by commanding the earth to bring forth things. It doesn't say "God gave them bodies".

Genesis 2
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But it doesn't say God created organisms out of nothing. Instead it says He created by commanding the earth to bring them forth.

Please read the above scripture...

I don't see how you get that from the text. I mean, if "wild animal" was a "kind", then you'd have to believe that God only created one pair of them and they later gave rise to all the "wild animals" that existed afterwards....lions, bears, whales, snakes, dinosaurs, spiders, butterflies, and everything else. Is that what you believe, because that requires quite a lot of evolution!

I don't understand what you are getting at. If God created a male and female wild beast, then they would be multiplying just as God commanded Adam in Genesis 1:28. Do you think that the living creatures were not multiplying while Adam was waiting on a helper in Genesis2:20-22?

That's exactly what scripture says.

no...it isn't. God had his hand in everything right up to giving Adam and Eve ruler status in Genesis 1:28 [pre-fall]

So we agree that "in the image of God" refers to our spiritual nature. That means "in the image of God" does not preclude the evolution of our physical forms.

There would be no purpose for such a thing... :huh:

1 Corinthians 15
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable


The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. John 6:63

No, I don't at all, so I really don't know why you posted it

...interesting...

It doesn't. It was a direct, supernatural act of God.

So you are going to write it off as a supernatural act of God yet you agree that mankind is evolving without him???

 

[Dcopymope]

Your theory is weak to say the least River Jordon...


Genesis 2
19Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.


Please read the above scripture...


I don't understand what you are getting at. If God created a male and female wild beast, then they would be multiplying just as God commanded Adam in Genesis 1:28. Do you think that the living creatures were not multiplying while Adam was waiting on a helper in Genesis2:20-22?


no...it isn't. God had his hand in everything right up to giving Adam and Eve ruler status in Genesis 1:28 [pre-fall]


There would be no purpose for such a thing... :huh:

1 Corinthians 15
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable


The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. John 6:63


...interesting...


So you are going to write it off as a supernatural act of God yet you agree that mankind is evolving without him???

Interested in seeing how he reconciles common ancestry of all living beings, according to man, with Corinthians which spells out the exact opposite. Don`t hold your breath, there is a reason why I don't bother responding much to creatures like River Jordan. Its like talking to an atheist pretending to believe the word of God, bizarre.