About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I'm not confusing abiogenesis with evolution. I well know that many do not think that abiogenesis has anything to do with evolution. But it does. Furthermore, the experiments need an experimenter. Or two. And yes, despite the fact that some birds cannot interbreed in a couple of generations, they remain birds.

Abiogenesis is a group of hypotheses unrelated to evolution and the theory of evolution. It does not matter how life started, evolution would work just the same. This is not new information for you.

Yes, of course, we all know that cats, elephants, fish, jaguars, etc., etc., etc., are not something one would expect to hatch out of a birds egg. If such a thing happened, it could not be explained by the theory of evolution. That birds hatch from bird eggs is an unremarkable expectation of the theory. Repeating such things means nothing in terms of rejecting the theory.

The change over time in populations of living things is not in a single step.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please -- although I said good night -- there are the holes of simply no visual recognition of the emergence of these changes. Now IF mankind were to exist in its present state and scientists could record the genetic changes making visual recordings of the changes in the various forms, one to another such as -- what? an unknown type dinosaur emerging over billions maybe of years to become a little dove, then it could be said that section or hole was closed. But as for now -- it's open, dark, and 'not there.' Except of course in the imagination. Bye for now.

What does that supposed to mean?

Name a specific hole. Do it tomorrow if you need to . Waving your hands does not mean that one exists. And you appear to be making insane demands. We do not need to know that history of every form of life. When a man is on trial for murder do you need to know what he ate for breakfast ten years ago to know whether or not he killed someone? You are simply not thinking rationally. You are desperately looking for excuses not to believe, why would you do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course belief is necessary. Anyway, good night again.

No. Knowledge trumps mere belief. A lot of us know. You only believe in a myth. That is why you are doomed to lose any debate. You may not ever understand evolution yourself. Fear can make people act foolishly.

 

[Astrophile]

Again -- the more I think about it (the entire concept of evolution as well as that of objects in the universe)--it appears that nothing comes from nothing--does it? I'm not saying that rocks do not blast into other rocks, that windstorms or magnetism does not occur or that there are not shifts in populations because of genetics.

Abiogenesis does not mean that something comes from nothing; if I understand it correctly, it means that living things come from non-living systems of complex organic compounds.

 

[Astrophile]

I brought up abiogenesis because regardless of what you think, and others may think insofar as scientific experts go, it must go along with evolution, absolutely. That's not your opinion, granted. Similarly, I do not agree that humans are animals. They may be described as animals because some of them act that way, but they are not.

Do you think that you need to know when a person was born or conceived before you can write their biography?

 

[Astrophile]

The support is simply that without abiogenesis you would not have the theory of evolution. It is essential to the theory. Nevertheless, as I have often stated, the more I look at the 'evidence' supporting the theory, the less conclusive it appears to me. So -- if I were on a jury considering the theory judging whether it was true or not and I carefully reviewed the evidence, I could not conclude that is how we humans came about. Because -- aside from the number of teeth in a gorilla, there is so much left out. Including the supposed Common Ancestor from which it is said, I suppose, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans evolved.

I have shown you this family tree of the hominins several times already. It shows Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis as near to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, and Ouranopithecus as near to the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. These species are not imaginary phantoms conjured out of the imagination of scientists; they are solid fossils, the remains of primates that actually lived in Africa during the Miocene epoch.

I should appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge that I have shown you this image, and if you would explain your scientific reasons for rejecting Orrorin, Sahelanthropus and Ouranopithecus as ancestors of humans and of the other African apes.

 

[Audie]

Do you think that you need to know when a person was born or conceived before you can write their biography?

You have to know the origin of the universe before you can study architecture or metallury,
right? Same thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Abiogenesis does not mean that something comes from nothing; if I understand it correctly, it means that living things come from non-living systems of complex organic compounds.

I'm curious where this comes from. It is literally not a claim of science and yet creationists repeat it constantly while just as often being informed that it is not a claim from science. I am perplexed.

I saw that someone had posted this quote of G.K. Chesterton from his 1908 book Orthodoxy.

"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."

Perhaps this misinformed claim stems from that work.

It isn't as if those claiming strict Biblical creationism dig too deeply into any sources for their claims or check the validity of them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have to know the origin of the universe before you can study architecture or metallury,
right? Same thing.

Absolutely. That applies to everything. I have to know who wrote and first performed a song before I can enjoy it.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Why did you dodge my question? Yes there had to be an abiogenesis event, meaning that life had to come from somewhere, but why couldn't a God magically poof the first cell into existence?

You believe in something much less likely.

But it probably was natural abiogenesis, but the theory of evolution is not dependent upon natural abiogenesis. You need to explain why if you think otherwise.

First of all, you think life comes from non-life, is that correct?

 

[YoursTrue]

One does not need to "believe" in the theory. This is your mistake. One can know. Do you understand the difference between mere belief and knowledge?

And you have not found one single hole in evolution. All that you have done is to confirm your lack of understanding of the topic. Please tell me what you think is a hole and why.

And yes, there is a real answer. Evolution is testable, it is observable, it has been confirmed millions of times and yet you insist on believing in a refuted bronze age myth .

Once again, there is no confirmation that bonobos, chimpanzees, etc., and humans came from a common ancestor.

 

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis is a group of hypotheses unrelated to evolution and the theory of evolution. It does not matter how life started, evolution would work just the same. This is not new information for you.

Yes, of course, we all know that cats, elephants, fish, jaguars, etc., etc., etc., are not something one would expect to hatch out of a birds egg. If such a thing happened, it could not be explained by the theory of evolution. That birds hatch from bird eggs is an unremarkable expectation of the theory. Repeating such things means nothing in terms of rejecting the theory.

The change over time in populations of living things is not in a single step.

I understand the concept you hold to. It doesn't matter that I don't adhere to it, by that I mean that the theory of life coming from non-life is absolutely essential to comprehend well the theory of evolution. because without the recognition, and confirmation not by experiment of combining elements with electric currents imposed that evolution by "natural selection" happened to happen from nonliving matter, the theory/concept of evolution could not happen. Similar to the idea that I do not agree that humans are in the ape category. You may believe that, others may believe that; I do not. I mean wasn't it Kafka that wrote something about a character becoming a roach or something like that? Not sure, but it suddenly recalled to my mind. Metamorphosis I believe the story was called. Not gradual.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does that supposed to mean?

Name a specific hole. Do it tomorrow if you need to . Waving your hands does not mean that one exists. And you appear to be making insane demands. We do not need to know that history of every form of life. When a man is on trial for murder do you need to know what he ate for breakfast ten years ago to know whether or not he killed someone? You are simply not thinking rationally. You are desperately looking for excuses not to believe, why would you do that?

One of the holes is that the initial cells supposedly burgeoning to growth by natural selection (?) are so complicated and as I have read by some scientific estimates, the changes of this happening is so minute that it is to the zillionth of possibilities, or lack thereof. The fact that gorillas have 32 teeth or something in that area is interesting, but -- yet -- not ascertained for sure by experiment known common ancestor and so -- I may look into that further. Gorillas remain so far gorillas, chimps stay chimps, and yes, birds stay birds. So far.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have shown you this family tree of the hominins several times already. It shows Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis as near to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, and Ouranopithecus as near to the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. These species are not imaginary phantoms conjured out of the imagination of scientists; they are solid fossils, the remains of primates that actually lived in Africa during the Miocene epoch.

I should appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge that I have shown you this image, and if you would explain your scientific reasons for rejecting Orrorin, Sahelanthropus and Ouranopithecus as ancestors of humans and of the other African apes.

View attachment 71080

Sorry, but I can't read everything, although I'm sure it's interesting, so I may have missed that. But just saying things like humans are apes doesn't mean they are apes. So please excuse.

 

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis does not mean that something comes from nothing; if I understand it correctly, it means that living things come from non-living systems of complex organic compounds.

I can agree with that. Although like anything, I can be wrong.
But then some might believe there was always 'something.' As if it always was and nobody made it, it was just there like maybe from everlasting without beginning, On the other hand, non-living matter is rather complicated. Isn't it? I'm talking about the atoms and molecules. The structure is there. And then the first supposed "living things." Not simple, and doubtfully not able to be duplicated by scientists insofar as figuring how to make those nonliving things that because living things. I think. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe scientists have duplicated what they think could be the first living structure from non-living matter. Well, I shouldn't really say that because to duplicate it, they'd have to put it together. Right? In other words, an 'outside' hand or two or more putting it together from things kind of already there... With additional help from the scientists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, there is no confirmation that bonobos, chimpanzees, etc., and humans came from a common ancestor.

Why repeat falsehoods? This is getting rather tiring.

Do you know that when you make such foolish statements that you take on a burden of proof? You now need to prove that there is no such confirmation. I happen to know that there is. Now you may not have lied. But you still told a falsehood and even that is frowned upon for Christians. If you do not know you should admit it. When you claim something as a fact and then cannot support it then whether you meant to lie or no to many you would like liar. I think that you are just terribly confused. But I have seen many Christians call others liars for less.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of the holes is that the initial cells supposedly burgeoning to growth by natural selection (?) are so complicated and as I have read by some scientific estimates, the changes of this happening is so minute that it is to the zillionth of possibilities, or lack thereof. The fact that gorillas have 32 teeth or something in that area is interesting, but -- yet -- not ascertained for sure by experiment known common ancestor and so -- I may look into that further. Gorillas remain so far gorillas, chimps stay chimps, and yes, birds stay birds. So far.

I am sorry but this makes no sense at all. It appears that the hole is in your understanding Please, see if you can name a flaw in the theory. Not in your understanding of the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

"The development of radiometric dating techniques in the early 20th century allowed scientists to quantitatively measure the absolute ages of rocks and the fossils they host." Note the last part -- scientists measure the absolute ages of rocks AND the fossils THEY HOST. What do you get from this? Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated?

So now (that is the initial post) -- what have I learned from some of you posters--
1. Fossils turn to stone or rock after a while and no DNA is detected from them. Is this right? Just to make sure. Thank you again.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why repeat falsehoods? This is getting rather tiring.

Do you know that when you make such foolish statements that you take on a burden of proof? You now need to prove that there is no such confirmation. I happen to know that there is. Now you may not have lied. But you still told a falsehood and even that is frowned upon for Christians. If you do not know you should admit it. When you claim something as a fact and then cannot support it then whether you meant to lie or no to many you would like liar. I think that you are just terribly confused. But I have seen many Christians call others liars for less.

So you think scientists have discovered the "Common Ancestor"? Please, I'd like to know if you think scientists have found the "Common Ancestor" of chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am sorry but this makes no sense at all. It appears that the hole is in your understanding Please, see if you can name a flaw in the theory. Not in your understanding of the theory.

Please do try to answer if scientists have discovered remains or verified fossils of a common ancestor of humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees. thank you.