Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

You stated that Noah landed the ark on Pangea which would be the age of dinosaurs. Most modern mammals would not be there. So from what you have said Noah should have let the dinosaurs on the ark or did he not listen to god.
So now you are saying that dinosaurs evolved from birds? Seriously? You also are saying the dinosaurs were there but did not get an invitation for the ark cruise ship? Why not?

It is hysterical.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course you were smoking the hookah with the caterpillar down the rabbit hole?

I can't see any way around it. Science does know that the continents were together one time in the past. If you believed in the bible would you not also deduce the same thing?

You were the one that stated Noah landed on Pangea and the bible identified Pangea?
And what do you mean by "the subsequent processes of the former different nature! Not by anything happening in this present nature." ? what new imaginative process are you talking about?
What is the former different nature?

Hey! No self-respecting rabbit would ever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the following is cute, if not funny, although I laughed when I saw the cute-funny face of the chimpanzee. Regarding the "last common ancestor" of humans, "Scientists have been on the trail of the LCA for decades, and they still have not found it. But many are convinced that they have established enough information to make the hunt a lot easier. They think they know roughly when and where the LCA lived. They even have a reasonable idea of what it looked like and how it behaved." We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
You gotta love this guy.

That is because "missing link" is a misnomer. We are still apes. You are an ape, I am an ape, dad is an ape. One thing wrong with the article that you linked is that it does not point out that humans are great apes too, unless I missed that somehow. Many people are still affected by the creationist strawman of a change of kind in evolution. There is none.

Also we may find the LCA between man and chimps. But then we will need to find the LCA between (man, chimps and bonobos) and gorillas. Then we will have to find the LCA between (man, chimps, bonobos, and gorillas) and orangutans. You can see that there will be an endless series of LCA's back the the ultimate one. The question is why do creationists put so much stock in a concept that they do not understand?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nor is there any evidence man came from animals. None at all.

I'd like to see real evidence from the first cell on and outward. (Can't say on and upward, someone might object.) OK, I'll take evidence of and about the second cell onward and outward. Not just the first cell. Or imaginations about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't seem to understand that non-believers of your specific religion don't recognize "blasphemy" (i.e. questioning as a sin. So pointing it out is a waste of time.

On and on. Endlessly.

OK, again. Can you please at least give (verifiable) evidence of the first OR second cell in transition showing emergence into more cells or the same cells, whatever the theory is about moving along from the first, second, or more cellular living forms, whether they multiplied into the same composition or different compositions, whether there was one, two, or many unicells moving along. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

The article you have a link to did a good job showing how as more evidence occurs we can refine our interpretation. That's what makes science such a powerful tool of discovery. The fact that we have not yet found the last common ancestor does not weaken the theory of evolution and the accumulating evidence as presented demonstrates that all of the new evidence supports evolution and no other explanation. Thank you for the link.

You're welcome. Glad you like it. (Isn't the chimp cute, though?) Especially as a close link and relative. When I think about it and look at his cute face, it makes me smile, if not laugh.

So rather than explaining definite circumstances such as what is the humans closest related link, scientists say, in essence, they don't really know. Especially because their concept keeps changing, based upon discovery and opinion putting it all together within the 'theory.' And now there's more changing opinions about evidence. You can say it's great they keep coming up with new ideas about what's what within the realm of evolution, but when looked at precisely, they don't really know.

"There appears to be a decrease in overall body size within our lineage, rather than size simply staying the same or getting bigger with time, which goes against how we generally think about evolution," Grabowski said. Oops. Goes against how they generally think about evolution.

And it is not just possible, but likely, that the opinion (how they generally think about evolution) will change again. Because -- they admit they don't really know. Now when a person admits they don't really know -- because something enters the picture to go against the general thinking about evolution, whether you accept that as reality of evolution, or that scientists don't really know, is up to one's perception of reality.
New study suggests that last common ancestor of humans and apes was smaller than thought

 

[YoursTrue]

The article you have a link to did a good job showing how as more evidence occurs we can refine our interpretation. That's what makes science such a powerful tool of discovery. The fact that we have not yet found the last common ancestor does not weaken the theory of evolution and the accumulating evidence as presented demonstrates that all of the new evidence supports evolution and no other explanation. Thank you for the link.

See, we look at the theory and evidence differently. I view evidence as that which depicts reality and truth, which is why I spoke of having trials with lawyers producing what they perceive as evidence. While a jury may vote to find guilty or not guilty based on "evidence," the OJ Simpson trial comes to mind, jurors can regret their decision either way because they were influenced by clever lawyers and the presented evidence. Men have been put to death because of mistaken decisions. I no longer believe the theory of evolution is linked to that which is considered to be evidence of the reality of evolution.

By the way, what did they "discover"? That chimps may not be the "closest living relative" to humans after all, and they still can't find or don't know the "common living relative" via evolution? (No kidding...it's still missing...the link to humans common relative.) Frankly, I don't see that as real true science at all, it is more like philosophy or intellectual bantering, using artifacts and conjecturing as evidence.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Let us deal with whether creationism is anti-intellectual. I will not be distracted from that question.

Do you think Newton, Boyle, Kepler, or Milton were anti-intellectual?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you think Newton, Boyle, Kepler, or Milton were anti-intellectual?

I don't think it matters, since they did not let church doctrine inhibit there conclusions about reality. What about all those clergy that set out find the evidence of a global flood and found none. They weren't anti-intellectuals either. They ended up establishing geology as a science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you think Newton, Boyle, Kepler, or Milton were anti-intellectual?

Milton? Berle? John? Remind me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don't think it matters, since they did not let church doctrine inhibit there conclusions about reality. What about all those clergy that set out find the evidence of a global flood and found none. They weren't anti-intellectuals either. They ended up establishing geology as a science.

But they were creationists!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Milton? Berle? John? Remind me.

Yeah, Milton Berle; what about him? Huh, huh, huh?

Lol. You know who I meant.

(Berle was quite a funny guy!)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But they were creationists!

They were not modern creationists. We are talking about the here and now. There work lead people to understand that not everything in the Bible has to be viewed as immutable fact. They could think on their own with regards to observations and scientific conclusions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, Milton Berle; what about him? Huh, huh, huh?

Lol. You know who I meant.

(Berle was quite a funny guy!)

Actually, I am drawing a blank. The only other Milton that comes to mind is John Milton.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think Newton, Boyle, Kepler, or Milton were anti-intellectual?

They had a valid excuse. People of this day do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But they were creationists!

They did not accept General Relativity either. Do you know why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I am drawing a blank. The only other Milton that comes to mind is John Milton.

Well you know what they say about Milton Berle. To put it mildly he was quite popular with the ladies

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But they were creationists!

Modern creationists do not see any value in science except perhaps a few areas that they do not perceive as contrary to their personal religious views. This varies of course, with some practically rejecting all of it. Ironically, they often use that science and technology to spread their views to that effect.

You are intelligent, but you are devoted to your particular doctrine too. That contradictory dichotomy would tear me apart.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well you know what they say about Milton Berle. To put it mildly he was quite popular with the ladies

I have heard that he was an actor used to handling large parts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They did not accept General Relativity either. Do you know why?

I understand that they rejected antibiotics as well.