About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[YoursTrue]

The widest spread deposits are from volcanic ash. It is very fine material and can travel fairly long distances. In the case of the Mt. Ste. Helens blast it was found all over the state of Washington. Lava tends to be much more localized and is not as useful.

Hi. I asked you a question and I'd like to go over some details related to it - I asked you, "So the lava (?) may be coming up and out and over the landscape, is that right, in an "active" volcano?" And you replied that the widest spread deposits are from volcanic ash. (Thank you.) And it is very fine material which can travel fairly long distances. So the ash would come from the eruption which would happen from inside the volcano, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

More poor reasoning. How did you conclude that? Why do you think that they even need to do this?

Seriously why do you think that we have any need to know who all of our ancestors were? Try to give a coherent answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Tell me why. It looks as if you are looking for bogus excuses not to accept reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi. I asked you a question and I'd like to go over some details related to it - I asked you, "So the lava (?) may be coming up and out and over the landscape, is that right, in an "active" volcano?" And you replied that the widest spread deposits are from volcanic ash. (Thank you.) And it is very fine material which can travel fairly long distances. So the ash would come from the eruption which would happen from inside the volcano, right?

Yes. It is important to remember that it started out as liquid before it came to the surface.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. It is important to remember that it started out as liquid before it came to the surface.

OK, so then -- let's get into the dating of that material which I imagine melded into the fossil.

 

[YoursTrue]

More poor reasoning. How did you conclude that? Why do you think that they even need to do this?

Seriously why do you think that we have any need to know who all of our ancestors were? Try to give a coherent answer.

The reason I would say it would be important to find out what (not who) the 'common ancestor' of chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas is because that is from what (not whom) gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans are supposed to (1) share and (2) evolve from. Unless of course they have no common ancestor way back when before they branched out to gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. Thus I assume it is believed by those who adhere to the certainty of the process of evolution that there IS a common ancestor branching out to gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Tell me why. It looks as if you are looking for bogus excuses not to accept reality.

The reality is, apparently, that it is claimed these various types (gorillas, chimps, and humans) have a common ancestor from which they emerged by "natural selection." Right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

You adhere to something that is not a fact. The theory of evolution describes the change in living populations over time no matter how those populations came to exist. The theory describing change is independent of the ideas proposing origin. That is a fact. Claiming otherwise makes no sense in light of that fact.

When someone against the idea of evolution finds that we do not have a theory for abiogenesis, because we do not know the means and mechanisms, they falsely link the two in an attempt to establish a false relationship between what is known and unknown to nullify the known that they do not like. This is done for reasons of personal ideology and not for any facts that the person doing it has. No facts that demonstrate a link have ever been provided. Just the say so of the persons making the claim.

Yes. Kafka's "The Metamorphosis". The central character woke suddenly to find he was a bug. Metamorphosis in living things it is a gradual process. In stories it can occur at whatever speed the author decides for it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The reality is, apparently, that it is claimed these various types (gorillas, chimps, and humans) have a common ancestor from which they emerged by "natural selection." Right?

You're familiar with Kafka. Are you familiar with the term "beating a dead horse"?

The evidence supports the conclusion that we share a common ancestry with the other Great Apes. I have seen nothing valid to challenge this.

There is no logical reason that not knowing the specific population from which this schism arose means that it did not happen. Just the same as you not knowing the names of your 20X great grand parents means you didn't happen.

I understand that you do not want to accept facts for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with science or verifiable facts. You are free to do that. But I and others do not have to consider your personal reasons for you actions as a valid reason to reject facts and reasonable conclusions from those facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reality is, apparently, that it is claimed these various types (gorillas, chimps, and humans) have a common ancestor from which they emerged by "natural selection." Right?

Let's at least try to be honest. You should know by now that we know that we share a common ancestor. You may not understand how others know, but that is not our fault. If anything you are to blame for that inability.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so then -- let's get into the dating of that material which I imagine melded into the fossil.

No. We went over this too. But lets go over the basics first.

Do you understand that if several different deposits of sediment are made that the oldest sediments will be on the bottom.

If you work at a blanket factory and stack your blankets one on top of the other as you finish them the bottom blanket will be the oldest one that you made that day. The next one will be a little newer or younger etc. until you get to the top blanket that you just made. Does this make sense to you so far?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason I would say it would be important to find out what (not who) the 'common ancestor' of chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas is because that is from what (not whom) gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans are supposed to (1) share and (2) evolve from. Unless of course they have no common ancestor way back when before they branched out to gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. Thus I assume it is believed by those who adhere to the certainty of the process of evolution that there IS a common ancestor branching out to gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.

No. whom works. There is nothing wrong with that adjective.

And no, it is not "believed". It is known. If one understands how something happened and that it had to happen then one can say "know".

Let's use proper language here.

 

[YoursTrue]

You adhere to something that is not a fact. The theory of evolution describes the change in living populations over time no matter how those populations came to exist. The theory describing change is independent of the ideas proposing origin. That is a fact. Claiming otherwise makes no sense in light of that fact.

When someone against the idea of evolution finds that we do not have a theory for abiogenesis, because we do not know the means and mechanisms, they falsely link the two in an attempt to establish a false relationship between what is known and unknown to nullify the known that they do not like. This is done for reasons of personal ideology and not for any facts that the person doing it has. No facts that demonstrate a link have ever been provided. Just the say so of the persons making the claim.

Yes. Kafka's "The Metamorphosis". The central character woke suddenly to find he was a bug. Metamorphosis in living things it is a gradual process. In stories it can occur at whatever speed the author decides for it.

Yes, I know about Metamorphosis, thanks for clarifying that though. Poor Kafka, evidently didn't have a real good opinion of himself but I enjoyed reading about him a little bit as a young person. And tried reading his story. I really don't read too much fiction, never have enjoyed it much. I know some people do. Now I know on trials where there are no eyewitnesses for sure it can be iffy. And sometimes, even in the closest cases, evidence can tend to lead to one thing but BE WRONG insofar as guilt goes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's at least try to be honest. You should know by now that we know that we share a common ancestor. You may not understand how others know, but that is not our fault. If anything you are to blame for that inability.

I may not understand the unknown common ancestor factor? (I do understand it, just don't see it, perhaps you get the difference.) For instance, gorillas and chimpanzees kind of look alike, but cannot interbreed. So that means that somewhere down the line scientists say their ancestry got divided. But see -- there is nothing but conjecture to back that up. Unless you can show otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I may not understand the unknown common ancestor factor? (I do understand it, just don't see it, perhaps you get the difference.) For instance, gorillas and chimpanzees kind of look alike, but cannot interbreed. So that means that somewhere down the line scientists say their ancestry got divided. But see -- there is nothing but conjecture to back that up. Unless you can show otherwise.

You need to watch your language. When you accuse others of conjecture you take on a burden of proof.

Can you prove that allegation?

 

[YoursTrue]

You need to watch your language. When you accuse others of conjecture you take on a burden of proof.

Can you prove that allegation?

can you prove with certainty (no assumptions) that 1. there is a common ancestor, and 2. but not least, when, where and how these "branches" or strands or whatever they're called from that so called common ancestor they all ascended, descended or branched out from came? Thanks. When you can do that, I won't use the word conjecture anymore. How about it? Oh sorry, you can't prove it. How about um..guessing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

can you prove with certainty (no assumptions) that 1. there is a common ancestor, and 2. but not least, when, where and how these "branches" or strands or whatever they're called from that so called common ancestor they all ascended, descended or branched out from came? Thanks. When you can do that, I won't use the word conjecture anymore. How about it? Oh sorry, you can't prove it. How about um..guessing?

What do you mean "with certainty"? Do you mean to the same extent needed to rightfully convict someone of murder? I don't know if I could do so personally but there is no doubt that the experts in the field have done it.

And no. No one is guessing. Just because you are rather ignorant is not an excuse to insult others.

 

[YoursTrue]

You adhere to something that is not a fact. The theory of evolution describes the change in living populations over time no matter how those populations came to exist. The theory describing change is independent of the ideas proposing origin. That is a fact. Claiming otherwise makes no sense in light of that fact.

When someone against the idea of evolution finds that we do not have a theory for abiogenesis, because we do not know the means and mechanisms, they falsely link the two in an attempt to establish a false relationship between what is known and unknown to nullify the known that they do not like. This is done for reasons of personal ideology and not for any facts that the person doing it has. No facts that demonstrate a link have ever been provided. Just the say so of the persons making the claim.

Yes. Kafka's "The Metamorphosis". The central character woke suddenly to find he was a bug. Metamorphosis in living things it is a gradual process. In stories it can occur at whatever speed the author decides for it.

You may say that evolution is a fact, however perhaps you feel that facts don't need proof? Not sure.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean "with certainty"? Do you mean to the same extent needed to rightfully convict someone of murder? I don't know if I could do so personally but there is no doubt that the experts in the field have done it.

And no. No one is guessing. Just because you are rather ignorant is not an excuse to insult others.

No. There is no insult, sorry you took it that way. So since there really is no proof of evolution, that's ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean "with certainty"? Do you mean to the same extent needed to rightfully convict someone of murder? I don't know if I could do so personally but there is no doubt that the experts in the field have done it.

And no. No one is guessing. Just because you are rather ignorant is not an excuse to insult others.

Even though there are no eyewitnesses, some feel or maybe even believe that the evidence leads to a sure conviction. But as we probably know, sometimes they are wrong.