Evolution of what?

[Subduction Zone]

There is no intermediate link between different species of animals.

The only option left for evolutionists is to assume that there was a female ape somewhere that gave birth to a human being at some point.

Your claim, your burden of proof. How will you prove that?

And no, a female ape gave birth to another ape. There was no first human. Species change on the population level so there never is an exact date of when the new species began.

And remember, you are still an ape.

 

[Eli G]

In mathematics we talk about discrete numbers and continuous numbers.

For example: 3, 4 and 5 are discrete numbers.

But to get to a 4 from a 3, you have to go through 3.00000001 to 3.0000002 and so on through 3.2, 3.29999999, 3.3, ... ... ..., 3.999999999 and finally get to 4, so They are continuous numbers that cannot jump one by one, but rather in much smaller fractions.

Evolutionists want us to believe that all different species (which are like discrete numbers) appeared without going through all the thousands of changes that their supposed previous species had to undergo.

 

[YoursTrue]

You can do better than that. Try again. You have been corrected on this countless times.

lol...so you say...if you weren't so funny, you'd be funny

By the way, when you ignore or cannot understand the corrections constantly given to you you are once again demonstrating that you have no understanding of the theory of evolution.

I think you don't really understand it. One might pretend and cite statistics and DNA as purported evidence, but it's not necessarily adding up. All you do is insult, insult, insult.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol...so you say...if you weren't so funny, you'd be funny

I think you don't really understand it. One might pretend and cite statistics and DNA as purported evidence, but it's not necessarily adding up. All you do is insult, insult, insult.

And now you have once again demonstrated that you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. No wonder that you are so confused.

You may not like blunt corrections, but at least I am honest. You fail a bit at that. Why do you refuse to even learn the basics of science? Is it because you know that you would have to change your tune?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your claim, your burden of proof. How will you prove that?

And no, a female ape gave birth to another ape. There was no first human. Species change on the population level so there never is an exact date of when the new species began.

And remember, you are still an ape.

there aren't that many gorillas left in the world. Maybe they'll morph to something else, oh they left fish behind...so they can't digress back to fish, can they? They must not feel the need to survive for the fittest of them -- maybe they figure humans will help them survive...

 

[YoursTrue]

And now you have once again demonstrated that you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. No wonder that you are so confused.

You may not like blunt corrections, but at least I am honest. You fail a bit at that. Why do you refuse to even learn the basics of science? Is it because you know that you would have to change your tune?

I've been following what others (not you) provide as basics. Your excuses and insults and deferences are lame by now.

 

[YoursTrue]

And now you have once again demonstrated that you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. No wonder that you are so confused.

You may not like blunt corrections, but at least I am honest. You fail a bit at that. Why do you refuse to even learn the basics of science? Is it because you know that you would have to change your tune?

You offer no correction, btw. Maybe you should try learning more about it.

 

[Eli G]

That's why I ignore several characters on this forum. They act as artificial programs created in order to demoralize those who think differently. Normally forum rules control this class of characters... but we already know how this system of things works. Regardless, people's behavior shows the true value of their belief systems.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most of them believe that the seed of that supposed phylogenetic tree came out of nowhere.

Others believe that this seed came from space, where there were supposedly already trees of that type.

In the end, they have a lot of faith in their own beliefs, and they want people to adopt their religion and accept what their priests say.

I see they offer a supposed First Universal Common Ancestor and a Last Universal Common Ancestor. Truly amazing...yet they believe it. Plus -- they do on and on about it.
"The first universal common ancestor (FUCA) is a proposed non-cellular entity that is the earliest ancestor of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) and its descendants, including every modern cell.[1][2] FUCA would also be the ancestor of ancient sister lineages of LUCA, none of which have modern descendants."

First universal common ancestor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's been interesting. But they're certain about the tree or a couple of trees.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's why I ignore several characters on this forum. They act as artificial programs created in order to demoralize those who think differently. Normally forum rules control this class of characters... but we already know how this system of things works. Regardless, people's behavior shows the true value of their belief systems.

I have basically concluded that as well. It's almost like school classifications and laughing along with Dawkins as he makes fun of creation...and pondering along with Dr. Hawking as he concludes yeah, well, maybe the universe did come about from nothing. Why not, he might add?

 

[Eli G]

My interest in these kinds of doctrines is minimal. It's like wasting time studying the Harry Potter books to get into some kind of club. I can't spend much time on teachings based on assumptions, which grow and grow to infinity and beyond... to ultimately fall like a tower of cards.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.
Fish is special type of whichever vertebrate type that came before fish, as we are.
That is what nested hierarchy means. Everything that comes later remains within everything that came before it....but not vice versa.
Nested set collection - Wikipedia.

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

 

[YoursTrue]

That's why I ignore several characters on this forum. They act as artificial programs created in order to demoralize those who think differently. Normally forum rules control this class of characters... but we already know how this system of things works. Regardless, people's behavior shows the true value of their belief systems.

As well as those supporting their viewpoints, from a somewhat different angle. Which they get offended when asked to explain in detail. They'd rather talk about DNA and transference and that evolution is somehow not connected with abiogenesis, I notice. Oh, and how I don't understand and am ignorant. Watch.

 

[Eli G]

As well as those supporting their viewpoints, from a somewhat different angle. Which they get offended when asked to explain in detail. They'd rather talk about DNA and transference and that evolution is somehow not connected with abiogenesis, I notice. Oh, and how I don't understand and am ignorant. Watch.

Genetics contradicts evolutionary doctrine. The genetic laws that deal with mutations show that one species could never become another.

 

[John53]

From how many trees,?

Hi, hello, g'day. I won't comment anymore on this until I do in about 2 minutes. Goodbye, hooroo, tat tah for now.

PS. The bible posit is that humans are dirt insofar as my understanding dirt is still dirt.

Cheerio, I hope your xmas is a wonderful day. I'm leaving to mower fuel. adios.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been following what others (not you) provide as basics. Your excuses and insults and deferences are lame by now.

No, you have been distorting it badly. Look at your post just about the one that I am quoting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You offer no correction, btw. Maybe you should try learning more about it.

Incorrect. I have offered corrections endless times. You almost never take me up on them. You are now blaming others for your bad behavior.

 

[John53]

Regardless, people's behavior shows the true value of their belief systems.

Yes it does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As well as those supporting their viewpoints, from a somewhat different angle. Which they get offended when asked to explain in detail. They'd rather talk about DNA and transference and that evolution is somehow not connected with abiogenesis, I notice. Oh, and how I don't understand and am ignorant. Watch.

No, you constantly ask inappropriate questions. You try to ask "gotcha questions" when there are no gotcha events.

If you ask appropriate questions you will get answers.

 

[gnostic]

There is no intermediate link between different species of animals.

The only option left for evolutionists is to assume that there was a female ape somewhere that gave birth to a human being at some point.

You aren’t educated in biology and you haven’t been paying attention in human biology.

Plus, you are dishonestly making up things that have happened.

Apes aren’t “species”, “apes” or the biological classification “Homininoidea” is “superfamily” taxon, not species. That Homininoidea gave ways to two families,

• the lesser apes or the family Hylobatidae, of which there are currently 4 extant genera, genus Hylobates, which contained the species for gibbons.
• the greater apes, or family Hominidae, currently have 4 extant genera:
  • genus Pongo,
  • genus Gorilla
  • genus Pan
  • genus Homo, or “human”

Even “humans” are not species, it is classification is the genus “Homo”, of which there were number of human/Homo species and their respective subspecies…the majority of these species have become extinct, leaving only species “Homo sapiens” being extant.

The current classification to modern humans, is subspecies “Homo sapiens sapiens”, of which it belonging Homo sapiens. This subspecies wasn’t the only one in Homo sapiens. There are more earlier subspecies of which the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens evolved from the archaic Homo sapiens, then the Cro-Magnon that left Africa and into Eurasia (56,800 years ago), of which the Homo sapiens sapiens evolved from.

The Cro-Magnon started in Europe with the Upper Palaeolithic culture - the Aurignacian.

The Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for 20,000 years ago. The transition between Cro-Magnon and Homo sapiens sapiens isn’t clear or exact.

What we called “Homo sapiens” evolved from older species of Homo, and as far as I can tell, the line preceding Homo sapiens are Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus. There are debates over the status of being species that evolved from the Homo erectus or that they were subspecies of the Homo erectus…that haven’t been decided.

What is decided that the Homo sapiens did immediately evolve from Homo heidelbergensis, which went extinct roughly around 200,000 years ago.

The modern human (species Homo sapiens) didn’t just pop into existence, they evolved from older species of Homo (human), hence humans were always naturally reproduced. The modern humans didn’t from just a pair, like what Genesis 2 & 3 say. And at no point did the Homo sapiens sprung from only just 2 persons - Adam and Eve.

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.