Evolution of what?

[Eli G]

It is funny how the least educated participants in any subject to the point of dedicating themselves only to offending their interlocutors, believe that they are the representatives of science.

That's why I ignore everything they say... They don't add a single thing to the threads, just insults.

See it for yourselves. It's like they've been given the job of filling up space by saying nonsense. Maybe they really believe that they are cultured people, who knows how the minds of people who believe they are superior to others work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why I ignore everything they say... They don't add a single thing to the threads, just insults.

See it for yourselves. It's like they've been given the job of filling up space by saying nonsense. Maybe they really believe that they are cultured people, who knows how the minds of people who believe they are superior to others work?

Hmm, you still sound as if you are talking about yourself. What level of education did you ever achieve?

 

[Eli G]

In short, they do not know when or how life appeared, nor do they know when the apes came to have intellect.

They dont know anything. What a shame they think they do know...

Gen. 4:14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your face; and I will become a wanderer and a fugitive on the earth, and anyone who finds me will certainly kill me.” 15 So Jehovah said to him: “For that reason, anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times.”
So Jehovah set up a sign for Cain in order that no one finding him would strike him. 16 Then Cain went away from before Jehovah and took up residence in the land of Exile, to the east of Eʹden.
17 Afterward Cain had sexual relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Eʹnoch. Then he engaged in building a city and named the city after his son Eʹnoch. 18 Later Iʹrad was born to Eʹnoch. And Iʹrad became father to Me·huʹja·el, and Me·huʹja·el became father to Me·thuʹsha·el, and Me·thuʹsha·el became father to Laʹmech.
19 Laʹmech took two wives for himself. The name of the first was Aʹdah, and the name of the second was Zilʹlah. 20 Aʹdah gave birth to Jaʹbal. He was the founder of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Juʹbal. He was the founder of all those who play the harp and the pipe. 22 Also, Zilʹlah gave birth to Tuʹbal-cain, who forged every sort of tool of copper and iron. And the sister of Tuʹbal-cain was Naʹa·mah.

That occurred 4000 BC ... and archaeological evidence shows that no city found predates that date. But they can't realize it.

They also do not realize that there is no evidence of human language prior to that date. They also do not realize that the first human settlements discovered have been unearthed in the area where the Bible says that families settled after the Deluge and where the oldest languages emerged, as they themselves know... But they cannot see what that they have before their eyes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, don't say "I could not know". I have been following abiogenesis a little bit so I do know where the research is going. You need to remember that abiogenesis is the human explanation. It is not necessarily right, but there is one. The dictionaries definition is insufficient. At least for a serious discussion. You made a mistake by using a dictionary where you should have been seeing what scientists say directly.

You say the dictionary definition is insufficient. Are you saying that abiogenesis is not life coming from non-life?

 

[Eli G]

You say the dictionary definition is insufficient. Are you saying that abiogenesis is not life coming from non-life?

It's great that you cited the comment as it was posted. Thus the ridiculousness of the fallacy of authority was exposed. Who needs to cite a scientific thesis or document in scientific language to know what abiogenesis is? Nobody... That demand would only occur to someone who tries to make people believe that anyone who does not quote directly from evolutionary scientists cannot know how to reason on the subject.

Obviously, such an idea has nothing to do with logical reasoning on the issues, but rather with forcing the forum members to accept what the exponents of contrary ideas say...making them believe that anyone who thinks differently is an uneducated person and cannot present and defend his different point of view. As I said before: it is the preaching of the superiority of the atheist.

PS: I clarify that I recognize very well that not all atheists are dedicated to disparaging the reasoning of believers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say the dictionary definition is insufficient. Are you saying that abiogenesis is not life coming from non-life?

Dictionaries are always incomplete when it comes to scientific explanations. An overly short explanation leads to misunderstands, especially when some people want to misunderstand.

Now is abiogenesis, like evolution, proven beyond a reasonable doubt? No, I would not say that is the case yet. But your beliefs have been pretty much refuted. I am open to an as yet undiscovered possible answer, but I seriously doubt if one will come along because abiogenesis appears very much to be the right answer.

Do you not understand the concept of trying to have an open mind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In short, they do not know when or how life appeared, nor do they know when the apes came to have intellect.

They dont know anything. What a shame they think they do know...

Gen. 4:14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your face; and I will become a wanderer and a fugitive on the earth, and anyone who finds me will certainly kill me.” 15 So Jehovah said to him: “For that reason, anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times.”
So Jehovah set up a sign for Cain in order that no one finding him would strike him. 16 Then Cain went away from before Jehovah and took up residence in the land of Exile, to the east of Eʹden.
17 Afterward Cain had sexual relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Eʹnoch. Then he engaged in building a city and named the city after his son Eʹnoch. 18 Later Iʹrad was born to Eʹnoch. And Iʹrad became father to Me·huʹja·el, and Me·huʹja·el became father to Me·thuʹsha·el, and Me·thuʹsha·el became father to Laʹmech.
19 Laʹmech took two wives for himself. The name of the first was Aʹdah, and the name of the second was Zilʹlah. 20 Aʹdah gave birth to Jaʹbal. He was the founder of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Juʹbal. He was the founder of all those who play the harp and the pipe. 22 Also, Zilʹlah gave birth to Tuʹbal-cain, who forged every sort of tool of copper and iron. And the sister of Tuʹbal-cain was Naʹa·mah.

That occurred 4000 BC ... and archaeological evidence shows that no city found predates that date. But they can't realize it.

They also do not realize that there is no evidence of human language prior to that date. They also do not realize that the first human settlements discovered have been unearthed in the area where the Bible says that families settled after the Deluge and where the oldest languages emerged, as they themselves know... But they cannot see what that they have before their eyes.

But we do know enough to know that the Bible is wrong. Far too often creationists run on a Black or White fallacy. Where you mistakenly believe that because we do not know everything that we cannot know anything. Now the "not know anything" does appear to be rather descriptive of creationists since they openly oppose learning. They do not even want to try to find any evidence because of the risks that that entails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's great that you cited the comment as it was posted. Thus the ridiculousness of the fallacy of authority was exposed. Who needs to cite a scientific thesis or document in scientific language to know what abiogenesis is? Nobody... That demand would only occur to someone who tries to make people believe that anyone who does not quote directly from evolutionary scientists cannot know how to reason on the subject.

Obviously, such an idea has nothing to do with logical reasoning on the issues, but rather with forcing the forum members to accept what the exponents of contrary ideas say...making them believe that anyone who thinks differently is an uneducated person and cannot present and defend his different point of view. As I said before: it is the preaching of the superiority of the atheist.

PS: I clarify that I recognize very well that not all atheists are dedicated to disparaging the reasoning of believers.

Yeah! And why should anyone ever ask Christians what they believe?? We can tell them what they believe for them.

Some people post without thinking at all.

 

[gnostic]

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?

Evolution would still be scientifically true, whether natural Abiogenesis occur, or God created life, or Rudolf the reindeer farted the life into existence.

How life started in the first place, don't change Evolution occurring through mutations, through changes to frequency of alleles (Genetic Drift), through changed environments causing selective pressures (Natural Selection), etc.

People who understand biology than you and I, have corrected you so many times, but you continued to not understand that.

Wilful ignorance isnt a virtue.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah! And why should anyone ever ask Christians what they believe?? We can tell them what they believe for them.

Some people post without thinking at all.

The basic definition of abiogenesis is that life arose from nonlife.
When you say "we can tell them what they believe for them," I see that not all among those you seem to incorporate in the term 'we' -- are atheists. Some who believe in the theory of evolution also say they believe in God.

 

[gnostic]

To @Eli G , more about languages.

The theory of Evolution is about mechanisms for changes and speciation. These changes are that of physical traits, and it require any physical changes should be passed on from parents to offspring, and over generations, to descendants.

Hence, Evolution is very much about genetics, hence it’s about biology.

Languages, on the other hand, are taught and learned, and more importantly, languages have more to with respective cultures, not biology. Whether it be spoken or written, languages are not imprinted in human DNA.

It is is absurd that you would bring up languages on the matter about evolution, as they are unrelated.

For instance, if you grew up in France, and spoke French that because you have learned it. But the French language wouldn't be encoded in your DNA, and you won't pass it on genetically to your children, because it would be something they would learn from, where they grew up.

And if you married someone who grew up speaking Polish or Greek, you and your spouse wouldn't be of different species, if you two spoke different languages. As I said, earlier, languages are not learned processes, not biological traits.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Languages are linguistics, not biology, so the theory of Evolution don't apply to spoken languages, but yes, languages and dialects can over changed over time, or differed from region to region, but none of the languages are encoded in one person's DNA, so languages are not inheritable traits, genetically.

 

[YoursTrue]

But we do know enough to know that the Bible is wrong. Far too often creationists run on a Black or White fallacy. Where you mistakenly believe that because we do not know everything that we cannot know anything. Now the "not know anything" does appear to be rather descriptive of creationists since they openly oppose learning. They do not even want to try to find any evidence because of the risks that that entails.

To know or not know everything surely does not mean that the basic definition of abiogenesis is wrong (that of life coming from nonlife).
"The idea that primitive life originated from nonliving matter (e.g. simple organic compounds) over a span of millions of years; autogenesis
Thus in essence, many scientists and non-scientists do not know how life on earth got started, in other words, whether by abiogenesis or possibly panspermia.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution...

Just so you know, once I read certain pejorative comments I refrain from either reading the rest of the post or answering.

 

[Eli G]

Anyone who defends the doctrine of evolution should be prepared to defend it from all points of view, if he really wants to demonstrate that it is a doctrine that agrees with reality and demonstrated with evidence.

For a person who does not believe in evolution but in the direct creation of each species by God, incomplete theories based on speculation or hypotheses are not enough. If evolution is something real, its supporters need to answer the questions asked about when, why, how, etc., the same as what it has to do with the emergence of the first form of life (which is supposedly the first member of that evolutionary chain), about each animal class supposedly becoming a different one in time, and of the apes finally becoming humans with intellect (which are the supposed last species in that chain).

Hypotheses or incomplete theories are of no use. Obviously, evolution is not a science, but a doctrine that seeks to draw ideas from different sciences to justify its wild hypotheses that life arises from the inanimate, that one animal becomes another over time, and that the end result is an intelligent being like humans.

No one needs to be brainwashed and foamed to feel intellectually satisfied... It's a mental illusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I can only repeat myself. Sumer did not arise in a vaccuum. It was preceeded by a loooooong history of ever-expanding settlements and tribes and social groups.
The same goes for agriculture, math, astronomy, etc. None of these things "suddenly" appeared like you like to claim without evidence.

We KNOW this is not the case.
Sticking your head in the sand won't change the facts.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Evolution itself is a record for climate. What the climate did not favor, did not evolve. Post dinosaurs, rodents evolved, which in time, turned into humans. Never forget Slender Loris. It is a 'primate' and a cousin (Strepsirrhini - wet nosed, like some of us are in winters). Aptly, it is called a 'Wanur-manushiya' (Forest Human) in Marathi language.
Slender loris - Wikipedia
I don't know for sure, but perhaps it does things as humans do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So again, are you saying that evolution could have started without the process of abiogenesis, however it happened?

How many times must this question be answered before that answer will sink in?

In other words, if abiogenesis did not happen, could evolution have begun?

Yes. YES. YEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionists are greatly affected by the fact that they cannot explain the transition from non-life to life

No.

, just as they cannot explain the transition from apes to humans with intellect.

False

When I talk about evolutionists I mean anyone who defends that doctrine in any of its points and from any of its fronts.

Not a doctrine.

In this forum there are many who defend it and cannot explain anything that is asked of them;

Asked and explained. Refusing to acknowledge and / or understand the answers does not mean the answers weren't given.

They say it's not their turn to answer that.

Lie

So who will it be?

It will be your head in the sand

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is funny how the least educated participants in any subject to the point of dedicating themselves only to offending their interlocutors, believe that they are the representatives of science.

 

[Eli G]

I never said "Sumer did rise in a vacuum".

I said there is not any gradual mental advances of apes to become humans later. Intellect is being in humans since the very beginning, and the intellect (capacity to reason, create, etc) belongs exclusively to humans form their very beginning.

You can easily find a human from 6 millennia ago more intelligent than one from today. Those ancient humans gave rise to the ideas that we still use today, many of them in the same development or even more backward, such as the construction of megalithic buildings.

There was no process of increasing human mental capacity at any time in history, only some were isolated and therefore remained less developed, but with the same mental capacity... Humans were never apes.