Evolution of what?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just because two animals look alike does not mean that they have any genetic relationship

Correct.

Them having a genetic relationship is what demonstrates them having a genetic relationship.

It's like saying I'm your cousin because I look like a photo of your dead great-grandfather.

Yes, that is the type of strawman we get from creatonists like you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the Bible Adan and Eve were true persons.

And in reality, they weren't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not really interested in what the doctrine of evolution claims...

Yes, that's very obvious...............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

And there are the silly ad hominims.

So predictable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The difference between the intellect of humans and gorillas is so vast that despite closeness of possibility of genetic similarities

The difference in flying ability between an albatros and a chicken is so vast despite closeness of possibility of genetic similarities.

there is no intellectual comparison between the two because the disparity is so huge.

It's far less "huge" then you would like to think though

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, they aren't.
Instead, they are graphical representations of comparative genomics from fully sequenced genomes.
They aren't "hypothetical". They are instead factual representations of the structure of DNA of all living things.

Some creationists think that humans draw the trees. Phylogenetic trees are " drawn" by the data.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps evolutionists should stay away from the sci-fi and pick up a Bible. The flamboyance of the theory of evolution may attract some, but to the prudent it is nothing but an empty shell which will cost people their salvation. Macroevolution has never been observed and the blind faith demonstrated in this theory is not enriching the human race in any way at all. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that believing in this theory is causing a great deal of animalistic and anti-social behavior, as well as being a unrecognized source of perturbation in our modern day society.

We have observed "macroevolution" in several ways. Have you ever considered that you might be wrong? Have you thought about the consequences of being wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some creationists think that humans draw the trees. Phylogenetic trees are " drawn" by the data.

Indeed. In fact, this one here:

Phylogenetic tree - Wikiwand

A phylogenetic tree, phylogeny or evolutionary tree is a graphical representation which shows the evolutionary history between a set of species or taxa during a...

www.wikiwand.com

Wasn't "drawn". It was generated based on completely sequenced genomes.

There's even this cool site iTOL: Interactive Tree Of Life
Where you can navigate the tree, which - again - is based on data, not on any "artist drawing" or whatever

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The flamboyance of the theory of evolution may attract some, but to the prudent it is nothing but an empty shell which will cost people their salvation.

When you have to argue against a scientific theory by "threatening" with some kind of hellfire instead of actual arguments, you know what time it is.

Macroevolution has never been observed

False.

and the blind faith demonstrated in this theory is not enriching the human race in any way at all

And "blind faith" is bad, right?

Not that any kind of faith is required to accept scientific theories, off course.

As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that believing in this theory is causing a great deal of animalistic and anti-social behavior

Especially by those who have no clue.

as well as being a unrecognized source of perturbation in our modern day society.

Yeah well. It's clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, so your "beliefs" are of no consequence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I keep telling you that I DO understand the theory of evolution. You don't believe me, obviously. To understand it does not mean it's true or that I believe/think it's true. So that's settled that I understand the theory. If you don't want to inquire of those here who profess belief in God and evolution, I understand that, too. But so far I have not seen an answer by those who claim to believe both (God and evolution).
P.S. While I understand the theory, it does not convince me that humans have evolved differently from bonobos and chimpanzees in intellect and thinking ability.

We don't believe you understand the theory of evolution because you reveal in your posts that you do not understand the theory of evolution.
In other words, the evidence indicates that you don't understand evolution, despite your protestations that you do understand it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It equates to not explaining in truth the theory of evolution. Gravity is insofar as I understand a fact. No matter what others say about evolution it is not a fact.

Evolution is a fact as well. Allele frequencies in populations change over time.
The theory of evolution is the explanation for that fact.

 

[shunyadragon]

All life seems to have come from the ground. And water.

Are you referring to Noah's flood? . . . which is physically impossible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Humans (and all land vertebrates) evolved from and continue to remain FISH.
That is problem with regular language and scientific language.
Scientifically we are a type of land living fish along with cows, lizards, tigers, sparrows etc.

Once a fish, always a fish.

Not to get too off the "heirarchy" thought, but here's an interesting concept:

The Problems of Evolution as a “March of Progress”

The idea that evolution is a hierarchy with humans on top is false and harmful. It's time to unlearn the "march of progress" perspective.

www.sapiens.org

So, according to the questions raised in this article, do scientists say that dolphins evolved before humans? (What do you think?)

 

[shunyadragon]

Not to get too off the "heirarchy" thought, but here's an interesting concept:

The Problems of Evolution as a “March of Progress”

The idea that evolution is a hierarchy with humans on top is false and harmful. It's time to unlearn the "march of progress" perspective.

www.sapiens.org

This an interesting article, but it does not remotely support your view of the sciences of evolution.

Though the reality is in science that evolution is not a "march of progress." Too mechanistic like Tin Soldiers.

So, according to the questions raised in this article, do scientists say that dolphins evolved before humans? (What do you think?)

This true, but you reject evolution, and this article also.

 

[sayak83]

Not to get too off the "heirarchy" thought, but here's an interesting concept:

The Problems of Evolution as a “March of Progress”

The idea that evolution is a hierarchy with humans on top is false and harmful. It's time to unlearn the "march of progress" perspective.

www.sapiens.org

So, according to the questions raised in this article, do scientists say that dolphins evolved before humans? (What do you think?)

You misunderstood the word hierarchy. I meant hierarchy as it is used in formal categories....a generalized category is higher up and hence includes a more specialized category. So category square is lower in hierarchy and is included in the category tetrahedral etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

You misunderstood the word hierarchy. I meant hierarchy as it is used in formal categories....a generalized category is higher up and hence includes a more specialized category. So category square is lower in hierarchy and is included in the category tetrahedral etc.

The thing is, that dolphins and humans are different. Dolphins have qualities that humans do not have. And that's where I'm going to stop right now.

 

[sayak83]

The thing is, that dolphins and humans are different. Dolphins have qualities that humans do not have. And that's where I'm going to stop right now.

Yes I agree.

 

[The Hammer]

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

He's right though.

 

[YoursTrue]

He's right though.

Once a human, always a human. Same with dolphins. Once a dolphin, always a dolphin. Unless, of course, you think otherwise. Then maybe they're not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once a human, always a human. Same with dolphins. Once a dolphin, always a dolphin. Unless, of course, you think otherwise. Then maybe they're not.

That is true. That is why we are still apes. That is why we are still mammals. And I know that you do not like this but that is also why we are still fish.

You just confirmed all of the above in your post.