About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[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.

Yes, I mean with certainty. By certainty yes, I mean absolutely without equivocation. Rock solid conclusions yes, meaning with -- proof beyond figuring what's not evidentiary. And of course, there is no proof, as it has been mentioned so many times. First let me thank you for your continued discussion with me, it caused me to think it over as carefully as possible. However it happened, here's what I do know: humans have a unique ability mentally to examine things. I leave it there right now. And again, despite you (and some others) calling me dumb, uneducated, ignorant, etc., (lol) I still do thank you for pointing me to things to think about.
Take care, SZ. Perhaps we can continue another time.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

So following this up, not sure if you've answered this yet -- underneath the lava is magma, is that right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Evolution was proven beyond reasonable doubt a long long time ago.

You keep focusing on only one small part of the evidence for evolution. And you do not understand even that.

Here is an assignment for you. Look up the term "consilience". Tell us what it means in your own words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Since you are using the word "proof" in the same way that other laymen use the term, then use. There is no doubt that evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[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.
...

I believe that mistakes of wrong conviction have happened, based on what the jury thinks is lirrefutable evidence.
By the way, I do believe that genetics plays a biiigg part in passing on characteristics. But reading again aboiut evolution, although bacteria change characteristics, they still remain bacteria.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Why would you want eyewitnesses? In a court of law eyewitness testimony is the weakest evidence allowed Not the strongest. Humans are too prone to error. That is why the best evidence is objective evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since you are using the word "proof" in the same way that other laymen use the term, then use. There is no doubt that evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Really not so. And I'm talking about the pictures I've seen of fish that walk, etc. As if that points to (ok, not prove, maybe) fish becoming landrovers. No matter what it seems like, as if these organisms evolved by natural selection from non-walking fish, it doesn't prove a type of fish grew legs and eventually became landwalkers that didn't need to stay continually in water to live.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that mistakes of wrong conviction have happened, based on what the jury thinks is lirrefutable evidence.
By the way, I do believe that genetics plays a biiigg part in passing on characteristics. But reading again aboiut evolution, although bacteria change characteristics, they still remain bacteria.

So what? Bacteria remain bacteria. It was an extremely rare event that turned a bacteria into the first eukaryote. Even with trillions and more of bacteria that still took over a billion years.

You on the other hand are still an ape. You know that. I know that. You are still a monkey. You are till a primate. You are still a mammal (have you noticed that the groups that you are still a member of has been growing in number) you are till a tetrapod. You are still a vertebrate. You are still a chordate. And your are still a eukaryote. That is a a hugeeeee group.

The only "change of kind" that I can think of was when a bacteria became a eukaryote.

And the vast number of wrongful convictions was from eyewitness testimony.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would you want eyewitnesses? In a court of law eyewitness testimony is the weakest evidence allowed Not the strongest. Humans are too prone to error. That is why the best evidence is objective evidence.

Ok. But then how about video evidence, slow-time of course of the changes that evolutionists say happened? Naturally there were no long-term videos made millions of years ago. Cameras weren't developed by gorillas OR bacteria.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really not so. And I'm talking about the pictures I've seen of fish that walk, etc. As if that points to (ok, not prove, maybe) fish becoming landrovers. No matter what it seems like, as if these organisms evolved by natural selection from non-walking fish, it doesn't prove a type of fish grew legs and eventually became landwalkers that didn't need to stay continually in water to live.

Nope. really so. Just because you do not understand something does not mean that it has not happened. You won't let yourself understand even the most basic of ideas. What makes you think that your opinion carries any weight at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. But then how about video evidence, slow-time of course of the changes that evolutionists say happened? Naturally there were no long-term videos made millions of years ago. Cameras weren't developed by gorillas OR bacteria.

Why do you keep looking for evidence that you know cannot exist.

We need to go over the concept of evidence again. You will not get anywhere until you understand what is and what is not evidence and why.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Yours True. You probably missed it. Most wrongful convictions were from eyewitness testimony.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? Bacteria remain bacteria. It was an extremely rare event that turned a bacteria into the first eukaryote. Even with trillions and more of bacteria that still took over a billion years.

You on the other hand are still an ape. You know that. I know that. You are still a monkey. You are till a primate. You are still a mammal (have you noticed that the groups that you are still a member of has been growing in number) you are till a tetrapod. You are still a vertebrate. You are still a chordate. And your are still a eukaryote. That is a a hugeeeee group.

The only "change of kind" that I can think of was when a bacteria became a eukaryote.

Nope, sorry, you may be considered an ape. lol. Others may consider you and me apes, however, I do not. Anyway, have a good night. Thinking of teeth, I should see a dentist soon. I'll have to look up eukaryotes. The name sounds familiar, do bacteria now become eukaryotes? OK, I'm looking that up.

"Bacteria evolve in a different manner than eukaryotes [all non-bacterial organisms]. Eukaryotes evolve by point mutations [changes in singe base-pairs in the DNA], whereas bacteria evolve by getting these large chunks of DNA. And they can get into a new niche then and they become new species." Maybe I misunderstood when it said bacteria evolve in a different manner than eukaryotes. Bacteria Take Short Cuts To Evolve on a Fast Track | University of Arizona News
If I went back to school again, I might consider becoming a bacteriologist. Probably not a eukaryotist.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you keep looking for evidence that you know cannot exist.

We need to go over the concept of evidence again. You will not get anywhere until you understand what is and what is not evidence and why.

What do you mean that I KNOW cannot exist? Because the fossils have turned to stone? I mean what?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Yours True. You probably missed it. Most wrongful convictions were from eyewitness testimony.

I heard your reply. Some supposed eyewitnesses lie, or do not really see the whole picture. Nevertheless, based on "evidence," wrongful convictions are made. Sometimes. People can be put to death based on convincing perhaps(?) evidence or suspicions raised by prosecutors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, sorry, you may be considered an ape. lol. Others may consider you and me apes, however, I do not. Anyway, have a good night. Thinking of teeth, I should see a dentist soon. I'll have to look up eukaryotes. The name sounds familiar, do bacteria now become eukaryotes? OK, I'm looking that up.

"Bacteria evolve in a different manner than eukaryotes [all non-bacterial organisms]. Eukaryotes evolve by point mutations [changes in singe base-pairs in the DNA], whereas bacteria evolve by getting these large chunks of DNA. And they can get into a new niche then and they become new species." Maybe I misunderstood when it said bacteria evolve in a different manner than eukaryotes. Bacteria Take Short Cuts To Evolve on a Fast Track | University of Arizona News
If I went back to school again, I might consider becoming a bacteriologist. Probably not a eukaryotist.

I can show that you are an ape. Do you think that you are a giraffe? That may be your problem. All humans are apes. It is a fact. I linked a video yesterday and it actually explains rather well why you are an ape.

And you misunderstood the article that you linked. Both bacteria and Eukaryotes evolve by point mutations. That article confirms that. But more often bacteria evolve by swapping blocks of their genome with other bacteria. It is easier for them. Eukaryotes do not evolve by just point mutations either. One common mutation is the duplication of genes ore even longer blocks of DNA in a eukaryote. This is called "Gene duplication".

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

There are genes in our bodies that are key to survival. So how do those genes evolve? Any change could easily be fatal. Sometimes more than one change has to happen and the odds of that happening instantly are almost zero. So how do we change those genes? Well, at times a whole gene is copied. Now there are two versions of that gene in your body. One keeps doing the job that it is supposed to to. The other is free to evolve without killing the host. As a result a lot of the "junk DNA" in our system are old genes that were duplicated and then evolved. They quite often evolved them selves out of a job. And they just hang around as evidence of those mutations.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can show that you are an ape. Do you think that you are a giraffe? That may be your problem. All humans are apes. It is a fact. I linked a video yesterday and it actually explains rather well why you are an ape.

And you misunderstood the article that you linked. Both bacteria and Eukaryotes evolve by point mutations. That article confirms that. But more often bacteria evolve by swapping blocks of their genome with other bacteria. It is easier for them. Eukaryotes do not evolve by just point mutations either. One common mutation is the duplication of genes ore even longer blocks of DNA in a eukaryote. This is called "Gene duplication".

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

There are genes in our bodies that are key to survival. So how do those genes evolve? Any change could easily be fatal. Sometimes more than one change has to happen and the odds of that happening instantly are almost zero. So how do we change those genes? Well, at times a whole gene is copied. Now there are two versions of that gene in your body. One keeps doing the job that it is supposed to to. The other is free to evolve without killing the host. As a result a lot of the "junk DNA" in our system are old genes that were duplicated and then evolved. They quite often evolved them selves out of a job. And they just hang around as evidence of those mutations.

You can't show me that you are an ape. It doesn't matter that you think you look like one or have teeth like a gorilla. You accept what scientists categorize you as. I do not. What matters is the confirmed and verifiable process of biologic evolution that shows any one of humans evolved not FROM a gorilla, because it is said that gorillas and humans evolved from a common ancestor, as yet unfound and not around.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can show that you are an ape. Do you think that you are a giraffe? That may be your problem. All humans are apes. It is a fact. I linked a video yesterday and it actually explains rather well why you are an ape.

And you misunderstood the article that you linked. Both bacteria and Eukaryotes evolve by point mutations. That article confirms that. But more often bacteria evolve by swapping blocks of their genome with other bacteria. It is easier for them. Eukaryotes do not evolve by just point mutations either. One common mutation is the duplication of genes ore even longer blocks of DNA in a eukaryote. This is called "Gene duplication".

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

There are genes in our bodies that are key to survival. So how do those genes evolve? Any change could easily be fatal. Sometimes more than one change has to happen and the odds of that happening instantly are almost zero. So how do we change those genes? Well, at times a whole gene is copied. Now there are two versions of that gene in your body. One keeps doing the job that it is supposed to to. The other is free to evolve without killing the host. As a result a lot of the "junk DNA" in our system are old genes that were duplicated and then evolved. They quite often evolved them selves out of a job. And they just hang around as evidence of those mutations.

How do you know these genes evolved that are key to survival? Let's say that mutations are not always conducive to survival in the long run. But and yes again -- gorillas remain gorillas, etc. Reading about albinism in wikipedia, I notice the word usage there --
"It is suggested that the early genus Homo (humans in the broader sense) started to evolve in East Africa around 3 million years ago.[17] The dramatic phenotypic change from the ape-like Australopithecus to early Homo is hypothesized to have involved the extreme loss of body hair – except for areas most exposed to UV radiation, such as the head..." etc. I notice two words there and I wonder if you object to the usage -- the words are suggested and hypothesized.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't show me that you are an ape. It doesn't matter that you think you look like one or have teeth like a gorilla. You accept what scientists categorize you as. I do not. What matters is the confirmed and verifiable process of biologic evolution that shows any one of humans evolved not FROM a gorilla, because it is said that gorillas and humans evolved from a common ancestor, as yet unfound and not around.

Sure I can. Look at our shoulders for example. You will not see that in any other mammal. Look at our eyes. They face forward and are in color. Color vision is rare in mammals, common in insects. Look at our hands with fingernails. That is unique. You already mentioned our teeth. Look at our chromosomes with The join that we have in one of ours makes it the same as two different chromosomes in the rest of the great apes. Look at our genetic similarity. Dogs and wolves have the greatest similarity between other dogs and wolves. We have our greatest genetic similarity with chimps. Second with gorillas, third with orangutans.

And the one that you have no answer for at all, look at our ERV's. That is a slam dunk for evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know these genes evolved that are key to survival? Let's say that mutations are not always conducive to survival in the long run. But and yes again -- gorillas remain gorillas, etc. Reading about albinism in wikipedia, I notice the word usage there --
"It is suggested that the early genus Homo (humans in the broader sense) started to evolve in East Africa around 3 million years ago.[17] The dramatic phenotypic change from the ape-like Australopithecus to early Homo is hypothesized to have involved the extreme loss of body hair – except for areas most exposed to UV radiation, such as the head..." etc. I notice two words there and I wonder if you object to the usage -- the words are suggested and hypothesized.

Because of evidence. Albinism has nothing to do with it. Why even bring it up? And your are referring to members of the genus Homo in your article. And yes, Homos remained homos. They are also great apes:


Human - Wikipedia

And it is not my fault if proper scientific language throws you off.