Evolution of what?

[Eli G]

"Genus" is a classification per se.

I think that classifications are useful, because they help us organize things. But when they are used to justify a belief that has no evidence... Just because two animals look alike does not mean that they have any genetic relationship. It's like saying I'm your cousin because I look like a photo of your dead great-grandfather.

 

[Eli G]

...

The Homo sapiens certainly didnt come from “dust of the ground” (or more precisely from “soil”), like what Genesis 2:7 say about Adam.

From soil to a fully grown human male (Adam) is clearly unnatural fairytale or myth invention, not based on biological reality.

The story of Adam being created from soil is no better than believing in myth of flying storks bearing babies bundled in cloth, taking these babies to parents.

Both myths only demonstrate people wild imagination, and only uneducated people believed in such nonsense in this day and age.

I can believe in Adam and Eve because I believe that the Bible is truthful. I don't have to prove anything to you if not with the Bible. In the Bible Adan and Eve were true persons.

You need to prove that the doctrine of the evolution is real according to evidence, since you decided not to believe what the Bible says without that kind of evidence ... supposedly you must have that kind of evidence to proof your doctrine. I don't have to.

 

[Kfox]

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?

The vast majority of evolution is about bacteria and insects, only a small percentage of it is about animals. But because we are animals, we tend to focus more of our attention on animals; especially human animals.

 

[Eli G]

The vast majority of evolution is about bacteria and insects, only a small percentage of it is about animals. But because we are animals, we tend to focus more of our attention on animals; especially human animals.

The evolutionary doctrine was a failed attempt to deny the Creator. It is now a failed attempt to deny His creation of each animal separately.

I'm not really interested in what the doctrine of evolution claims... What they have to do is demonstrate it with real evidence and not with assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can believe in Adam and Eve because I believe that the Bible is truthful. I don't have to prove anything to you if not with the Bible. In the Bible Adan and Eve were true persons.

You need to prove that the doctrine of the evolution is real according to evidence, since you decided not to believe what the Bible says without that kind of evidence ... supposedly you must have that kind of evidence to proof your doctrine. I don't have to.

Yes, you have the right to believe any myth that you want to.

Why you would want to claim that your own God is a liar is beyond me.

 

[Kfox]

The evolutionary doctrine was a failed attempt to deny the Creator. It is now a failed attempt to deny His creation of each animal separately.

I'm not really interested in what the doctrine of evolution claims... What they have to do is demonstrate it with real evidence and not with assumptions.

You said the Theory of Evolution was only about animals; I was pointing out to you that it is not. Now you seem to be asking a different question. To that I say; if the Theory of Evolution were not true, modern medicine would not work. Even modern agriculture is built on the theory. The fact that those things work should tell you something. There is soo much of your life that is built on the Theory being true, you're just unaware of it; that's all.

Evolution in Medicine

A recent series of article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) discusses the role of evolutionary biology in modern medicine. The authors collectively make a forceful point -

sciencebasedmedicine.org

 

[gnostic]

I can believe in Adam and Eve because I believe that the Bible is truthful. I don't have to prove anything to you if not with the Bible. In the Bible Adan and Eve were true persons.

there are no such persons as Adam and Eve, so it is far from the truth as you can get.

the whole “human” being created from soil (”dust of the ground”), and human being created from man’s rib, is all fairytale nonsense, with no basis on reality, as it is unrealistic, unnatural and unscientific. There are no evidence to such primitive story.

Humans have always reproduced, through natural means, via sexual reproduction.

 

[Eli G]

The biblical Adam and Eve are two more credible people than the ape they named Eve and the husband with whom she had the first human being, who I don't know if they have named...

 

[Subduction Zone]

The biblical Adam and Eve are two more credible people than the ape they named Eve and the husband with whom she had the first human being, who I don't know if they have named...

That is not what the theory of evolution tells us.

 

[Eli G]

You need to look for your own Eve. You seem very lacking in love in your life.

 

[sayak83]

So are humans fish or are they not, as far as you are concerned?

Yes. Along with all land vertebrates.
And not according to me. According to the science of biology.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can believe in Adam and Eve because I believe that the Bible is truthful. I don't have to prove anything to you if not with the Bible. In the Bible Adan and Eve were true persons.

You need to prove that the doctrine of the evolution is real according to evidence, since you decided not to believe what the Bible says without that kind of evidence ... supposedly you must have that kind of evidence to proof your doctrine. I don't have to.

The difference between the intellect of humans and gorillas is so vast that despite closeness of possibility of genetic similarities, there is no intellectual comparison between the two because the disparity is so huge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to look for your own Eve. You seem very lacking in love in your life.

Someone appears to be only pretending to having someone else on ignore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The difference between the intellect of humans and gorillas is so vast that despite closeness of possibility of genetic similarities, there is no intellectual comparison between the two because the disparity is so huge.

Really? How would you prove that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Along with all land vertebrates.
And not according to me. According to the science of biology.

So you are saying that scientists say that humans are fish? Just to clarify is why I'm asking this question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Really? How would you prove that?

thanks for asking but because of the situation, I'm going to move on to other things and let you do the proving and surmising. Thanks though for the conversation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Very, very -- interesting article, I quote some of it:
"This means, for example, there can be no definition of fish that does not include everything that evolved from fish. Following this logic you could argue that as amphibians evolved from fish, amphibians are fish. Mammals evolved from animals that evolved from amphibians, so mammals are fish. We are fish. While every biologist knows this conundrum, and that there is no biological definition for what most people consider “fish”, they decide not to worry about it because it’s helpful to think about living swimming “fish” as a group. Taxonomy is useful and makes a lot of sense, until it doesn’t."
(bolding mine)

The absurdity of natural history – or, why humans are ‘fish’

The way humans see and engage with the natural world is anything but natural.

theconversation.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are saying that scientists say that humans are fish? Just to clarify is why I'm asking this question.

That all depends upon how you define your terms. Do you remember how you made up your own definition of abiogenesis and I pointed out that by your definition you believed in abiogenesis? You then used a different definition and tried to get me to repeat that claim, but I pointed out how your definition was different?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Humans (and all land vertebrates) evolved from and continue to remain FISH.

ROFL such utter hogwash that it doesn't deserve a reply. You should have stopped while you were ahead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ROFL such utter hogwash that it doesn't deserve a reply. You should have stopped while you were ahead.

By cladistics he is correct. Using the term that way is not usually of much value unless correcting creationists with their "change of kind" claim. Then it is quite useful.