Evolution of what?

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is not the first time or the second, third, fourth...that this claim has been made and corrected. I recall answering it for the same person more than once. At this point, it seems more like a game to me than a legitimate line of inquiry.

Yep.

Just like @YoursTrue 's silly "argument" saying any variation of "...but they remain gorilla's!!!"

I can no longer take it seriously or consider that poster honest or genuine.
It's just being willingly obtuse and intellectually dishonest. After having corrected the SAME mistake SO MANY times, there comes a point where one simply can't draw any other conclusion.

In fact, I'ld even say that I feel like I would be insulting his / her intelligence if I would pretend as if the questions / statement are really rooted in genuine ignorance or curiosity. It's just bearing false witness, plain and simple.

 

[Dimi95]

It isn't correct? You mean evolution started by something other than the consequences of abiogenesis?

Evolution does not bother with how Evolution started,Abiogenesis research does.
Evolution only needs existence of life.

Why are you so consistent in straw man?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why are you so consistent in straw man?

Because misrepresenting evolution is the only way to argue against it while not look like a complete buffoon.

 

[Eli G]

Nobody reaches the age of 30 without having been a teenager.

You want us to believe that settlements of civilized humans (who know how to speak, read, count, name things, make fire, realize what constellations are, sow and wait for harvests, educate their children, make products from raw materials, etc.) emerged from apes.

However, you have not shown that any ape community knew how to do any of those things. In fact, they even intended to invent a semi-human race of apes that knew how to make ropes, when they realized that they were as human as their contemporaries.

There is no evidence of apes giving way to any level of knowledge that requires a human-like intellect.

 

[Eli G]

...
Existing parallels to Sumerian civilisation ...

The first known human civilization is the Mesopotamian (Sumerian).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody reaches the age of 30 without having been a teenager.

You want us to believe that settlements of civilized humans (who know how to speak, read, count, name things, make fire, realize what constellations are, sow and wait for harvests, educate their children, make products from raw materials, etc.) emerged from apes.

However, you have not shown that any ape community knew how to do any of those things. In fact, they even intended to invent a semi-human race of apes that knew how to make ropes, when they realized that they were as human as their contemporaries.

There is no evidence of apes giving way to any level of knowledge that requires a human-like intellect.

Reading and counting arose after cities were built. There was little need for those abilities before then. Once knowledge could be preserved by reading and writing that was when man began to advance quickly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've stayed out of these threads for a while and I see it's the same old nonsense being recycled. I wish I had a dollar for everytime abiogenisis and evolution has been explained.

Me too. We'd both be wealthy or at least well off.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nobody reaches the age of 30 without having been a teenager.

You want us to believe that settlements of civilized humans (who know how to speak, read, count, name things, make fire, realize what constellations are, sow and wait for harvests, educate their children, make products from raw materials, etc.) emerged from apes.

However, you have not shown that any ape community knew how to do any of those things. In fact, they even intended to invent a semi-human race of apes that knew how to make ropes, when they realized that they were as human as their contemporaries.

There is no evidence of apes giving way to any level of knowledge that requires a human-like intellect.

Good grief!

You seem to have erected an entire straw civilization.

Those civilizations emerged from the activity of people. People are classified as apes whether you like it or not. But it was not modern chimpanzees, gorillas or orangutans that evolved the first civilizations. That fact does not eliminate the biological relationship established by so many different lines of study.

The same skills learned to develop civilizations led us to continue further and look at the world around us and discover differences and similarities even with ourselves and other living things. If you wish to believe a certain way that demands you live in ignorance and reject that knowledge, that is fine by me. But you are no expert whose word means anything here in the light of the material being discussed. You are going to need more than a sarcastic, irrational claims to convince a rational person to follow you into the world of denial without cause.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep.

Just like @YoursTrue 's silly "argument" saying any variation of "...but they remain gorilla's!!!"

I can no longer take it seriously or consider that poster honest or genuine.
It's just being willingly obtuse and intellectually dishonest. After having corrected the SAME mistake SO MANY times, there comes a point where one simply can't draw any other conclusion.

In fact, I'ld even say that I feel like I would be insulting his / her intelligence if I would pretend as if the questions / statement are really rooted in genuine ignorance or curiosity. It's just bearing false witness, plain and simple.

When declarations of the rejection of science are repeated, regularly, but then the same already-addressed many times questions keep popping up, I have to consider it represents a different agenda than learning and evaluating based on evidence. I don't see the point of helping to perpetuate another's game and agenda when I've seen no good fruit from it to begin with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because misrepresenting evolution is the only way to argue against it while not look like a complete buffoon.

And yet it is obvious to anyone what is going on when it happens.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because misrepresenting evolution is the only way to argue against it while not look like a complete buffoon.

And yet it is obvious to anyone what is going on when it happens.

Nobody said it was a successful strategy...

 

[John53]

Me too. We'd both be wealthy or at least well off.

We'd be collecting bugs in a stretch limo

 

[YoursTrue]

Anyway, YoursTrue, just like almost every other creationists, refused to understand the differences between Evolution and Abiogenesis.

So again, are you saying that evolution could have started without the process of abiogenesis, however it happened? In other words, if abiogenesis did not happen, could evolution have begun?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We'd be collecting bugs in a stretch limo

That would be nice. Jeeves, fetch me yonder scarab. And be quick about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

That was not what you claimed and was refuted.

Let's be honest, abiogenesis is probably what happened. Even you know that. But evolution would still have worked if a God started everything with the first life. The theory of evolution does not demand abiogenesis. It only demands that life began at some time. It does not matter how life began.

How many hundreds of times have you been told this?

Abiogenesis is probably what happened you say? What do you mean by that? Are you saying that maybe it didn't happen?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Animals and the environment are in a symbiotic relationship.

There is an ecology of interaction. Symbiosis describes a specific group of interactions between living things and not between living things and the environment which has many abiotic components.

There cannot be fish where there is no water

Mudskippers, walking catfish, snakeheads.

, nor quadrupeds where there is no dry land

Whales and dolphins evolved from quadrupeds and do not make use of dry land.

, nor herbivores where there is no grass

Unless they eat herbs, trees, moss etc.

, nor birds where the air is not breathable

There really aren't likely to be any animals and few plants where the air isn't breathable. Bacteria maybe.

, etc. Do you understand my point?

I understand what this tells me, but it may not be what you were intending.

However, evolutionists disconnect the relationship between environment and evolution

No. This is not correct. Evolutionary biologists recognize that the environment is a key factor in evolution. It is the main driver of change or the protector of population stability.

... from my point of view, this disconnection causes them to stop being objective in the comprehension of the time of appearance of animals and the changes that actually occurred on the planet before their appearance (or creation).

It isn't real problem and your perspective is clearly based on a poor understanding of biology, evolution and what objective means. Though you are doing a great job at poorly informed, subjective opinion.

Science seeks to and has learned a lot about the world before life existed here, as well as during the time evidence of first life is derived and all the way to the present. Creationists trivialize that knowledge and dismiss it without review or understanding. Those latter facts are highlighted by the evidence of your posts and the post I'm responding to.

Science does not know everything. But that does not mean it cannot keep learning and acquiring more knowledge or that what has been learned using it is wrong because it is contrary to what someone wants to believe.

This totally distorts the supposed chronological line of appearance of the links in that supposed evolutionary chain. So it's not as simple as it may seem.

It isn't a real scenario, so it does nothing.

 

[Soandso]

So again, are you saying that evolution could have started without the process of abiogenesis, however it happened? In other words, if abiogenesis did not happen, could evolution have begun?

Yes. Abiogenesis isn't the only origin theory. There's also panspermia among others, for example

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. Abiogenesis isn't the only origin theory. There's also panspermia among others, for example

Even supernatural or divine creation, though there is no evidence to indicate that or to test.

But in however life got here, change over time is what has been going on since.

 

[Soandso]

Even supernatural or divine creation, though there is no evidence to indicate that or to test.

True, but some old earth creationists feel this is a possible explanation. It doesn't need to be an either or choice between God and evolution

 

[Dan From Smithville]

True, but some old earth creationists feel this is a possible explanation. It doesn't need to be an either or choice between God and evolution

There are many problems with the idea, but the main one is that is unfalsifiable. So many prior conditions would have to be established in order to bring it up to valid consideration.

The main point is that even where life were created at the will of a supernatural being, what we observe since is the action of environment driving change in living things over time or simply the evolution of living things.