Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Are you not aware that there never was an exodus"? That Moses is a mythical person. They historical evidence cannot find him, and yet he should have left signs of the massive migration.

https://factsandtrends.net/2018/09/...dus-new-discoveries-support-biblical-account/
Yes, always coming up with proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

About what? You keep bringing this up.
Yes, I understand what they are called. I don't generally look at a person (and by person, I mean human, not a gorilla or chimpanzee), and think, "Oh, he (or she) is a nice-looking ape." I'll call gorillas gorillas because they are supposed to be in the same family, predecessors perhaps? Besides, what ape-like being IS a predecessor of a homo sapien? Do you know, and what is your proof? Naturally there's no writing to prove the predecessor's existence, of course.

It appears that you believe the Genesis account. Since you deny that man is an ape. The problem with that is the evidence is so strong and so clear that we do share a common ancestor with other apes is that you are in effect saying that God used his omnipotence to plant false evidence.

At times you ask rather pointless questions. Why does it matter that we know which exact species was our common ancestor with chimpanzees. You do realize that we have a few. The branch we are on with chimpanzees and bonobos separated from the branch that became gorillas. And the branch that we share with chimps, bonobos, and gorillas itself separated from the branch that became orangutans. That is at least three different common ancestors. The evidence is the fossil record and the DNA on multiple levels.

The same evidence that tells us if a man is innocent or guilty of being a rapist, the same evidence that tells us "You ARE the father!!", the same evidence used by Ancestry.com and other genetic testers tells us that you are I are apes. You have to deny a lot of science to pretend that man is not an ape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

https://factsandtrends.net/2018/09/...dus-new-discoveries-support-biblical-account/
Yes, always coming up with proof.

Try and find a reliable source if you don't want to be laughed at. History has peer review too.

 

[YoursTrue]

It appears that you believe the Genesis account. Since you deny that man is an ape. The problem with that is the evidence is so strong and so clear that we do share a common ancestor with other apes is that you are in effect saying that God used his omnipotence to plant false evidence.

At times you ask rather pointless questions. Why does it matter that we know which exact species was our common ancestor with chimpanzees. You do realize that we have a few. The branch we are on with chimpanzees and bonobos separated from the branch that became gorillas. And the branch that we share with chimps, bonobos, and gorillas itself separated from the branch that became orangutans. That is at least three different common ancestors. The evidence is the fossil record and the DNA on multiple levels.

The same evidence that tells us if a man is innocent or guilty of being a rapist, the same evidence that tells us "You ARE the father!!", the same evidence used by Ancestry.com and other genetic testers tells us that you are I are apes. You have to deny a lot of science to pretend that man is not an ape.

I don't see the evidence, even if and though artifacts have similarities in skulls, arms, and so forth. No, I'm not saying God used his creative powers to plant false evidence. I am saying that similarities in my humble opinion do not prove that one species evolved (yes, by chance, despite some say it's not really by chance but by force of nature) from another. And what grabs my interest is that the commentator about "death anxiety" on the Wikipedia website said that bacteria were nervous (my word, not hers) about dying, so these specimens pushed ahead to figure they could keep living. Until they died, of course. Now those are my words of interpretation of the comments on Wikipedia from experts about death phobias or anxiety. Here is the comment: "Unicellular organisms have receptors that have evolved to react to external dangers, along with self-protective, responsive mechanisms made to increase the likelihood of survival in the face of chemical and physical forms of attack or danger." (My reaction is: uh-huh, sure. (not.))

 

[YoursTrue]

Try and find a reliable source if you don't want to be laughed at. History has peer review too.

So you don't think that's a credible source? How come?

 

[YoursTrue]

It appears that you believe the Genesis account. Since you deny that man is an ape. The problem with that is the evidence is so strong and so clear that we do share a common ancestor with other apes is that you are in effect saying that God used his omnipotence to plant false evidence.

At times you ask rather pointless questions. Why does it matter that we know which exact species was our common ancestor with chimpanzees. You do realize that we have a few. The branch we are on with chimpanzees and bonobos separated from the branch that became gorillas. And the branch that we share with chimps, bonobos, and gorillas itself separated from the branch that became orangutans. That is at least three different common ancestors. The evidence is the fossil record and the DNA on multiple levels.

The same evidence that tells us if a man is innocent or guilty of being a rapist, the same evidence that tells us "You ARE the father!!", the same evidence used by Ancestry.com and other genetic testers tells us that you are I are apes. You have to deny a lot of science to pretend that man is not an ape.

First of all, you make statements, and I'd like to see (not the specimens, but writing about it that I understand) the specific proof that : the "branch that we share with chimps, bonobos, and gorillas itself separated from the branch that became oranguatans." Then what, by the way?
Oh, and second, which animal is genetically proven to the "FATHER" of what? Several homo sapiens? One homo sapien? Please explain. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see the evidence, even if and though artifacts have similarities in skulls, arms, and so forth. No, I'm not saying God used his creative powers to plant false evidence. I am saying that similarities in my humble opinion do not prove that one species evolved (yes, by chance, despite some say it's not really by chance but by force of nature) from another. And what grabs my interest is that the commentator about "death anxiety" on the Wikipedia website said that bacteria were nervous (my word, not hers) about dying, so these specimens pushed ahead to figure they could keep living. Until they died, of course. Now those are my words of interpretation of the comments on Wikipedia from experts about death phobias or anxiety. Here is the comment: "Unicellular organisms have receptors that have evolved to react to external dangers, along with self-protective, responsive mechanisms made to increase the likelihood of survival in the face of chemical and physical forms of attack or danger." (My reaction is: uh-huh, sure. (not.))

That is because you won't let yourself see it. That is why I tried to go over the concept of evidence with you but apparently you did not understand it.

Also it does not matter what you openly say about God, it is what your claims of us not being apes says. That is calling God a liar. This is why you need to understand the concept of evidence. Either man evolved or God lied by planting false evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, you make statements, and I'd like to see (not the specimens, but writing about it that I understand) the specific proof that : the "branch that we share with chimps, bonobos, and gorillas itself separated from the branch that became oranguatans." Then what, by the way?
Oh, and second, which animal is genetically proven to the "FATHER" of what? Several homo sapiens? One homo sapien? Please explain. Thank you.

Why? Since you keep saying "proof" I doubt if you could understand it. But have fun. Here is just a small percentage of it:

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you don't think that's a credible source? How come?

Seriously you don't know what? In the sciences or history, you do not get to assume the results and then try to get the evidence to fit it. It is not a peer reviewed source, it relies on a group that has a fake historical "journal". Real journals follow the evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is because you won't let yourself see it. That is why I tried to go over the concept of evidence with you but apparently you did not understand it.

Also it does not matter what you openly say about God, it is what your claims of us not being apes says. That is calling God a liar. This is why you need to understand the concept of evidence. Either man evolved or God lied by planting false evidence.

Oh, I see. The concept is proof to you. The concept of Darwinian evolution is what many scientists are coming to realize isn't as simple/easy as had been believed. I know you don't want to approach abiogenesis because then it becomes murkier perhaps than usual. And from my readings here and otherwise, I see that much of it is conjecture as far as placing it on the evolutionary ladder. Now when I say much of it, I mean when a bone fragment is found, the conjecturing about it starts.

 

[YoursTrue]

Seriously you don't know what? In the sciences or history, you do not get to assume the results and then try to get the evidence to fit it. It is not a peer reviewed source, it relies on a group that has a fake historical "journal". Real journals follow the evidence.

This is not assuming. If you read the article, you see the conclusions are open. How easily you cast it aside.
From the article, "Their discoveries, however, reveal stone enclosures to house animals and pottery shards in the area, indicative of a traveling group of people settling in this area for a short time."
“By the end of our 2017 season, we were struck by the fascinating picture that had begun to emerge in the Jordan Valley, a region that up until recently has been virtually unknown archaeologically,” write Hawkins and Ben-Shlomo in Biblical Archaeology Review."
So why should you give it consideration, when it goes against your beliefs (and others beliefs as well)? The proof is in the pudding, or the Jordan Valley. Or shall we say, concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I see. The concept is proof to you. The concept of Darwinian evolution is what many scientists are coming to realize isn't as simple/easy as had been believed. I know you don't want to approach abiogenesis because then it becomes murkier perhaps than usual. And from my readings here and otherwise, I see that much of it is conjecture as far as placing it on the evolutionary ladder. Now when I say much of it, I mean when a bone fragment is found, the conjecturing about it starts.

No, no, no. Stop using the word "proof". Unless you put a qualifier on it. There is no such thing as "proof" in the sciences. Gravity is not proven, and there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

And I will gladly discuss abiogenesis with you, but first you must recognize a fact. You are moving the goal posts when you do that and since evolution does not rely on abiogenesis then it is a tacit admission on your part that evolution is a fact. If you will admit that evolution is a fact and that you are an ape then I will discuss abiogenesis with you. Otherwise you are simply not yet ready for that discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not assuming. If you read the article, you see the conclusions are open. How easily you cast it aside.
From the article, "Their discoveries, however, reveal stone enclosures to house animals and pottery shards in the area, indicative of a traveling group of people settling in this area for a short time."
“By the end of our 2017 season, we were struck by the fascinating picture that had begun to emerge in the Jordan Valley, a region that up until recently has been virtually unknown archaeologically,” write Hawkins and Ben-Shlomo in Biblical Archaeology Review."
So why should you give it consideration, when it goes against your beliefs (and others beliefs as well)? The proof is in the pudding, or the Jordan Valley. Or shall we say, concept.

You have to look at the source that they got it from. It is a poisoned well. You need to find real peer reviewed history if you want to make a claim. Not fake peer review that was copied from creationists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, it seems at this point you are the one refusing to acknowledge or admit evidence. Let's pretend for the moment you did not believe in evolution. What then? Would you be able to admit "scientifically" (that is, impartially based on evidence) that apes do not wonder, worry, or think about death and what happens when they die?

Some apes do. We call them humans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you sure that the thinking ability difference between apes and humans isn't that large?

Yes. In fact, and ironically, research has pointed out that one of the reasons we are that smart is because we are actually dumber while young. ;-)

Really? Let's take dogs, for example.

Dogs aren't primates and thus are, off course, quite more different from us then chimps or gorilla's.

They come when you call them. Sometimes. So they obviously (back to Dawkins' hot sun illustration as proof again) understand certain actions. But they still haven't figured to read and write, have they?

Why does written communication so important to you that you feel the need to obsessively restate the obvious, that only humans read and write? Come to your point already...

I'll help. Don't mind me skipping a few steps here, just to get to the crux of it...
You, no doubt, claim that these abilities are "gifts from god", right?
So, what's your evidence for that claim?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only humans can write.

And only cheetah's can run at 120km/h

I suppose you imagine their evolved brain enables them to write and read and build rocket ships by necessity of genetic and humanevolution, while chimpanzees and other human relatives cannot, they are not evolved to wonder if there's life of the intelligent type out there in the universe. Gorilla type apes are happy eating and swinging from trees. Thank you so much. It's been helpful to see your way of reasoning.

I love how you answer for him and then make sarcastic comments about the answer you invented.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, there is. Animals do not leave written documents about their history or thoughts. They are not wondering if there is life evolving on other planets. Good night.

How is the ability of a primate species to put his thoughts into writing, evidence of a god?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well answer this. Can dogs be humans? I know you classify these things by popular standards.

lol, yea... you're "informed"



No, classification happens based on phylogenies. You know: nested hierarchies.
Not by popular opinion.

Canines are another branch of the evolutionary tree then primates.
They share ancestry in some mammal millions of years ago.

So no, humans aren't canines.
Humans are primates, hominidae.

Dogs are canines.

Both humans and dogs are mammals.

Didn't you learn any of this in highschool?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you. I think it does. Because of what the Bible writer wrote when he said God said, "Let us make man in our image."

This is just another claim.

You don't support claims with more claims.
In fact, worse even... if you are going to try and use such biblical claims to support your other claims (that writing is evidence of a god), then you are only adding yet another fallacy to the already long list in your argument: the fallacy of the assumed conclusion.

Because you see, the bible only matters to people who already believe it.

I don't know what you think it means, but surely there is nothing written in Genesis that says God made horses in his image. Or cats. Or dogs.

And it doesn't even mention kangaroo's or koala bears because the others obviously were only aware of what was happening in a 500 mile radius of their immediate location.

None of this matters.
Your religious beliefs aren't supported by more religious beliefs and claims.

(P.S. I know you think the Bible is a book of fables, I can't explain how Moses knew that God said He made man in His image, and not like a dog, etc., except that somehow God transmitted that information to Moses, either by angels -- which I believe in -- or by word of mouth from his predecessors.)

Yes, you have religious beliefs that you believe on faith - we know.
We are trying to get you to support your beliefs with evidence and you will not succeed in doing that by only pointing at more religious beliefs that you hold.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's see what the other great apes look like in another 10 million years or so. That's pretty short on a geological time scale.

Looking at how their populations are disastreously shrinking, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to put my money on "extinct".

And it will entirely be the fault of Homo Sapiens.