Evolution of what?

[Valjean]

The Bible is a rather long book. It is not written about how God made things, except a brief description. Because the Bible is not a book about evolution.
Libraries are filled with books. The ideas about evolution have changed over the years, tomes have been written on the subject.

What are you implying by "...have changed over the years?"

 

[Valjean]

I don't find inconsistencies or errors in the creation account.

How have you verified the account, then? You write as if you had some evidenced knowledge on the subject.

And I trust the Bible more than I do what others may say.

How about what the evidence says?

So while researchers may find fossils and categorize them as they see fit, this does not mean to me that fish eventually evolved through genetic passages to become humans. Sorry if I'm not using the right terms but I do not think that God is obliged to have the details recorded. Or that I need to know. What I want to look forward to now is outlined and foretold in the Bible.

So you have blind faith in an unevidenced anthology, written by men, not God; over the well researched evidence of scholars, scientists, and historians.

Why?

 

[Valjean]

Why would it be magic poofing? And again -- some here that believe in the theory of evolution do declare that humans are apes. So? Nothing to it. (or no problem, right?) According to you, humans are apes, right? But the better question is why would creation be thought of by you as possibly magic poofing?

Because that seems to be the only reasonable alternative.
What would I have seen at the creation of humans, if not a gradual accumulation of adaptations?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not at all. But then why is it considered by you to be insulting?

Because this isn't my first rodeo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I figure that's how it likely is figured. Now you got me wondering as to whether there is any evidence that modern fish are evolving.

All life constantly is subject to evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok. Does the theory demand that humans, gorillas, bonobos and the like came from or evolved from anUnknown Coom Ancestor?

That great apes share ancestors, is a genetic fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fossils demonstrate that something considered once as living matter is no longer living and the remnants are left behind.

It also demonstrate what was alive, when it was alive, what its anatomy was like, what environment it lived in, etc... in some cases even how it died and what its diet was.

Fossils can tell us a great many things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not sure if I answered this or not, but the things not evidenced are supposed to have happened, right? For instance with Tiktaalik there is no evidence from which organism specifically it evolved from, is there? I mean one can say fish but do scientists know what kind of fish it evolved from?

Why does that even matter?

Tiktaalik was found by prediction, with the exact anatomical features that were predicted by evolution theory.
If evolution is false, then how is it possible that previously unknown species with specific anatomical features are found by prediction?


When you have a theory that makes such detailed testable predictions and then those exact things are found, how is that not evidence for the theory?

 

[gnostic]

While I realize there have been experiments with chemicals, or observation of natural reactions, these do not solidify the theory of evolution and..abiogenesis.

That because the modern theory of evolution is all about common traits shared by species of the same genus or different genera, of families, classes, orders, phylum, etc.

With changing environments (eg geographical isolation vs no isolation, long terms vs short terms climate changes, atmospheric changes (excessive oxygen vs excessive carbon dioxide or other gases), availability or scarcity of food or water, etc), will have impacts on organisms living in such environments. Those that adapted better in such environments, will reproduce more frequently, thereby increasing their respective populations, while other organisms will face declines in populations.

Evolution is all about changes, the ability to reproduce, and genetically shared those traits.

SO, LIFE HAVE TO ALREADY EXIST, FOR EVOLUTION TO OCCUR.

As to Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is about the origin, not only the earliest organisms, but also the origins of organic matters - biological molecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids (eg DNA or RNA), carbohydrates, lipids and many other biological substances, which are the building blocks of living cells, and therefore the very substance of life.

Without these biological macromolecules (macromolecules literally means “large molecules”), cells wouldn’t exist, nor any living organisms, as organisms cannot exist without cells.

Abiogenesis required advanced knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry.

The reasons why biochemists (eg Stanley Miller, Harold Urey, Joan Oró, Jeffrey Bada and others) have been doing experiments with inorganic chemicals, is to learn how biological molecules or compounds would form through chemical reactions.

Abiogenesis is about investigating what Earth’s early environments, and that understanding the chemicals that might exist then in the atmosphere and in the water, that would lead to the origin of these biological macromolecules.

you are only demonstrating your biased personal opinions, with very little of understanding of the experiment and evidence…especially when you are saying something as ignorant and false claims, as this:

“While I realize there have been experiments with chemicals, or observation of natural reactions, these do not solidify the theory of evolution and..abiogenesis.”​

You preferred to hide behind the primitive superstition of “God did it”, which is behind your belief in Genesis Creation.

You say that you are not anti-science, but that is exactly what you are claiming...that things cannot exist or occur naturally, without God’s magic or miracles. You are essentially denying chemical reactions cannot happen, reproduction cannot happen, inheritance cannot happen and genetic variations don’t exist.

i would laugh that you’re “not anti-science”, if I thought you were joking…but you are not joking, so it isn’t laughing matter. It is just sad that you are in self-denial.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Any time a laboratory puts together materials by human modern apes the results are because human modern apes put the ingredients and materials together.

Tell us you don't understand science, without telling us you don't understand science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let me try again to understand what you are saying. I said, "Evolution puts humans in the "great ape" category, isn't that true?" And you replied that it's not true, right? But humans are put in the great ape category via Carl Linne, right? Then you go on to say that we are great apes because we share a lot of characteristics with chimpanzees, etc. But now I see that being a great ape or ape has nothing to do with evolution, it's just a term used to categorize what(?) humans are -- in other words, would it be wrong or right to say you believe humans are members of the "great ape" category because of similar characteristics but that has nothing to do with evolution, right? If not, please clarify. Either we are great apes or we're not great apes. Which is it?

As the poster just said to you, "Humans are put in the great ape category by cladistics. (Developed by Carl Linné 100 years before Darwin.)We are great apes because we share a lot of characteristics with chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas.
That we share those characteristics is a fact. The grouping is an accepted convention. It has nothing to do with evolution."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I sent her info on Mud Skippers a year or so back and got the reply "a few fish that flop about in mud are not proof". I wish you better luck.

Me too.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did some research as to the discovery of the Tiktaalik. This does not disprove the idea of intelligent design.

It's not supposed to. You've moved the goal posts.
What it does, is demonstrate that the theory of evolution can make testable predictions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Allow me please to rephrase the question, and hopefully you can answer the question: are humans apes?

This has already been thoroughly answered for you, several times in this thread.
Why can you not take in new information?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because this isn't my first rodeo.

I consider it to have been used as an insult.

If a person rejects a fact that they consider to be offensive based on their belief, then turns around and applies that to others that accept the fact, that is done to effect insult.

Like you, I've seen it done before. And better.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Me too.

I've provided the mudskipper information too and much more in the past. I suppose we are to believe that it was unintentionally forgotten.

 

[YoursTrue]

That great apes share ancestors, is a genetic fact.

I looked that up and find the following. I quote one sentence from the article in Scientitic Amerian and put the link there, too.
"The most complete extinct-ape skull ever found reveals what the last common ancestor of all living apes and humans might have looked like, according to a new study." Now the sentence says "all living apes and humans." Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Many evolutionists are so obsessed with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation. Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals, and forget about the environment that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival? For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

Are you implying that you are interested in learning the science? If so, that's not credible. The creationist is interested in promoting his religious beliefs, not understanding science. People interested in understanding science already do if they're not still children. Dozens of posters here can answer all of your questions without referencing anything but their memories. If you were sincere in your interest, you'd be among them.

Like many others posting here, I've been a fan of science since childhood. As kids we had chemistry sets and erector sets. We sat glued to the TV for space missions and watched the science for children shows. Later, we subscribed to Scientific American or Sky & Telescope. We ate up the biology, chemistry and physics in high school. Many chose the sciences professionally. Most continued reading after graduation, which is where I learned the science I didn't learn in my formal education (earth science, quantum science, cosmology). I still watch everything on Nova that's scientific.

I understand that not everybody has those interests or follows that path. But those who don't can't know what those who did have learned. Those answers are not for them to know, but I'm sure that they're fine with that. Your OP indicates that you haven't learned anything about evolution. You seem to think that the scientists haven't noticed that environment selects which genetic variations are best adapted to that environment. I guess you haven't heard that the environment decimated the dinosaurs. You have no concept of continent formation. You think the theory is about animal evolution alone. You don't seem to have a concept that water was on earth before life. You seem to think that environments have to adapt to animals.

I hope that you don't think that your rejection of the science carries any weight with those who know it. Au contraire. It affirms the value of education and the cost of the path that you did choose.

I always wonder what the apologist is trying to accomplish. The apologetics that creationists generate are not intended for educated, critical thinkers. It's purpose is to deceive the vulnerable who might be persuaded by such arguments and to give believers who see that science actually works a patina of scientific legitimacy to their beliefs by introducing pseudoscience about irreducible complexity, false claims about statistical improbabilities preventing proteins from forming, bogus arguments about the impossibility of information increasing in genomes, the separation of so-called micro- and macroevolution and an imagined barrier preventing one from becoming the other, and more.

But when he brings that stuff to a venue like this one, it becomes counterproductive to the cause of promoting creationism. What happens repeatedly is that the creationist demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's talking about. That can't possibly be his purpose. Is it possible that he is unaware that he is actually promoting the value of a scientific education and the incoherence of his religious beliefs? Maybe, but I doubt that. I always assume that he is performing for an audience of one and trying to curry favor by martyring himself like this. Scripture seems to praise those who suffer for their faith.

For any non-believer the Bible can be whatever he wants. For a believer is a Revelation that came from our Creator. I don't mind your opinion so, limit your posts to the topic and stop that line of argumentation... it's just out of place, so move on.

Not your call. You don't control the discussion. RF does.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This has already been thoroughly answered for you, several times in this thread.
Why can you not take in new information?

All the questions have been thoroughly answered numerous times over several years by numerous different members.

I person can conclude several things from this including:

1. Ignorance of the subject matter and an inability to understand it well enough to retain it, recognize the significance of it and respond meaningfully, or

2. It's is some sort of game with an unspoken, but not necessarily unobvious, agenda.

Given that the first is possible, but there is no serious indication of any interest in learning, there is not much to be done or to maintain interest. Given the latter, well, if I learned one thing from the movie War Games, the best move is not to play at all.

 

[Heyo]

I looked that up and find the following. I quote one sentence from the article in Scientitic Amerian and put the link there, too.
"The most complete extinct-ape skull ever found reveals what the last common ancestor of all living apes and humans might have looked like, according to a new study." Now the sentence says "all living apes and humans." Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like

Kudos for 1. catching the author using sloppy language and 2. citing and linking your sources. That's how we do scientific debate. But while the author clearly should have said "Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and other Apes Looked Like" it is also kind of a quote mine. It sounds like it says that humans are not apes but the text is very clear that it is about the common ancestor of humans and the other great apes.