Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Sapiens]

One could easily ace an exam on evolution without believing that it actually happens. So please do explain how exactly I have demonstrated a deficiency in understanding the science of evolution. It would be nice if you could separate out the personal insults from the subject matter at hand.

No personal insults are intended, just objective observations of reality. You want an example? The mere fact that in this day and age we are even discussing "species" as though it were a meaningful concept is evidence enough. We did not see "species" as a viable scientific concept back in my undergraduate days, and that was almost half a century ago.

 

[Sonofason]

No personal insults are intended, just objective observations of reality. You want an example? The mere fact that in this day and age we are even discussing "species" as though it were a meaningful concept is evidence enough. We did not see "species" as a viable scientific concept back in my undergraduate days, and that was almost half a century ago.

In all honesty, it seems to me that the word species is quite simply another word for kind. In fact, it is often defined as "kind", and people were speaking of kinds of creatures for centuries, and perhaps even millenniums.

species - "kind; sort", " an individual or kind belonging to a biological species"
Species - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

kind - a group united by common traits or interests.
Kind - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus us talking about species of lifeforms is little different than our ancient ancestors talking about kinds of lifeforms.

 

[Sapiens]

In all honesty, it seems to me that the word species is quite simply another word for kind. In fact, it is often defined as "kind", and people were speaking of kinds of creatures for centuries, and perhaps even millenniums.

species - "kind; sort", " an individual or kind belonging to a biological species"
Species - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

kind - a group united by common traits or interests.
Kind - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus us talking about species of lifeforms is little different than our ancient ancestors talking about kinds of lifeforms.

Exactly ... and because you have an inability to see things in terms of a time span longer than your attention span (a condition you share with coreligionists and primitives) you don't see the issues with "kinds" and "species." I had hopes that with your seeming grasp of ring species you were beginning to see reality.

 

[Bunyip]

I am not inclined to put a great deal of faith into theories constructed upon faulty premises and definitions, even if some of the underlying premises seem reasonable and true. And I am very curious how you have reached the following contradictory conclusions about what I understand, in that in one breath you suggest I do not know what evolution means, and in the next breath you suggest that I have not in any way challenged evolution. If indeed I have not put forth any challenges to evolution, how is it that you can conclude that I do not know what evolution means? On what basis do you suggest that I don't know what evolution means?

From reading your comments, clearly you do not understand the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory that explains the fact. Nor do you know what evolution actually means.

 

[Sonofason]

Exactly ... and because you have an inability to see things in terms of a time span longer than your attention span (a condition you share with coreligionists and primitives) you don't see the issues with "kinds" and "species." I had hopes that with your seeming grasp of ring species you were beginning to see reality.

Actually, I'm the one who brought up the issues with kinds and species. But do take credit for that if you like. That doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Sonofason]

From reading your comments, clearly you do not understand the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory that explains the fact. Nor do you know what evolution actually means.

Of course I know what evolution means. I've been studying evolution for a long time now, and believe I probably have a better grasp of it than you do

 

[Bunyip]

Of course I know what evolution means. I've been studying evolution for a long time now, and believe I probably have a better grasp of it than you do

No, it is not possible to know what evolution means and deny it as a fact. There are only two possible positions:

1. Knowing what evolution means and accepting it as fact.
2. Not knowing what evolutuon means.

It really is that simple. Evolution just means change over time, to deny things change over time is to deny the obvious truth.

 

[Sonofason]

No, it is not possible to know what evolution means and deny it as a fact. There are only two possible positions:

1. Knowing what evolution means and accepting it as fact.
2. Not knowing what evolutuon means.

It really is that simple. Evolution just means change over time, to deny things change over time is to deny the obvious truth.

Now you're showing yourself to be delusional. I'm sorry, I can't argue with delusional people. It's not very practical for me to do.

 

[McBell]

Now you're showing yourself to be delusional. I'm sorry, I can't argue with delusional people. It's not very practical for me to do.

No doubt.
All that competition in one post.
It would have to be dreadful taxing.

 

[Bunyip]

Now you're showing yourself to be delusional. I'm sorry, I can't argue with delusional people. It's not very practical for me to do.

You really are a troll aren't you buddy?

That was a pretty lame attempt to avoid dealing with the truth.

We can make this even simpler:

1. Evolution means change over time correct? (YES OR NO)?
2. Species do change overtime.

 

[Sapiens]

Actually, I'm the one who brought up the issues with kinds and species. But do take credit for that if you like. That doesn't surprise me in the least.

Credit for "bringing" up something that we discuss daily on various threads is hardly the point.

But to that point, which goes to the veracity of your claims in general, "kinds" are first mentioned back in post 746 by Aman777. I respond to Aman777 in post 908. You do not address the subject until post 1922.

If we look for the word "species" we find that Aman777 was first, back in post 459, while I come in, again responding to Aman777 in post 469, and you drag up the rear, again, at 1154.

The point is an understanding of the concepts that does not do great violence to all of modern science.

 

[Parsimony]

No, it is not possible to know what evolution means and deny it as a fact. There are only two possible positions:

1. Knowing what evolution means and accepting it as fact.
2. Not knowing what evolutuon means.

It really is that simple. Evolution just means change over time, to deny things change over time is to deny the obvious truth.

Knowledge of evolution comes in degrees. One can understand the basics without understanding the whole picture. I knew how evolution worked and even accepted that a microbial species could evolve into a multicellular species given enough time. The problem was that, at the time, I didn't fully understand the weight of the evidence that this had actually happened billions of years ago. I figured scientists were jumping the gun, assuming that they were using a "since it can happen, that means it did happen" mentality. Then I learned better.

 

[Midnight Rain]

No doubt there is mountains of evidence that there might have been an evolution. I wouldn't call it mountains of evidence of evolution.

For instance there is a person with a similar surname to mine in Wales in 1000AD but I have no linking facts to him. I could be related but there is also another explanation that the surname developed separately in Wales sort of like Smith which could be given to anyone working as a blacksmith but not all blacksmiths were related.

The difference being that the fossil evidence, which is evidence enough, would be like taking a photograph of that guy and then giving a photograph of that guy with his son. Then a photograph of his son with his son in turn all the way down the line to you. Then would you be able to say you "might" be related to him?

And this isn't even beginning to count DNA evidence which fundamentally functions on evolution.

 

[leibowde84]

Dear Readers, It is impossible for Humans to have evolved from the common ancestor of Apes since Humans were made long before ANY other living creature. Adam, the common ancestor of ALL Humans was made the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4-7 Jesus made Adam of the dust of the ground BEFORE the first Stars of our Universe put forth their light on the FOURTH Day. Gen 1:16

This means that the common ancestor of Apes, on our Earth, lived Billions of years AFTER Adam, the first Human was made, according to Scripture. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Beyond Genesis, a book written by men thousands of years ago (before the scientific method existed), do you have any evidence to support your oulandish claim that humans existed before other animals? There is a plethora of evidence supporting evolution that can be observed through scientific research, but I have not seen a shred that substantiates your claim.

 

[Ben West]

I believe the sons of God were actually the sons of the gods and I believe the refeence to them is before Noah.

Dear Muffled, The sons of God (prehistoric people) were Innocent animals. Cain's wife was a member of that group because Flesh begets Flesh. Can you explain HOW a son of God (Who is an invisible Spirit) produced today's Humans? Of course not since you have NO support for your idea. Read Gen 6:1-4 to find out how it really happened. God Bless you

 

[Ben West]

Beyond Genesis, a book written by men thousands of years ago (before the scientific method existed), do you have any evidence to support your oulandish claim that humans existed before other animals? There is a plethora of evidence supporting evolution that can be observed through scientific research, but I have not seen a shred that substantiates your claim.

Dear "leibowde84, Genesis was written by God the Holy Spirit for He revealed things which cannot be known until the last days. Dan 12:4 As mankind continues to discover these things Genesis will be more and more CONFIRMED by the AGREEMENT of Scripture Science and History. Here are some examples of what Genesis teaches:

1. We live in a Multiverse composed of at least 3 Universes or separate Ecosystems. The European Space Agency should confirm this in 2015 with the L.I.S.A. pathfinder Satellites. Gen 1:6-8 and Gen 2:4

2. That the beginning of our Cosmos (Big bang) was on the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4 Hubble and other Space Telescopes have recently learned that it was Hundreds of Millions of years AFTER the Big Bang BEFORE the first Stars lit up. Gen 1:16 correctly shows this event happening on the FOURTH Day in total agreement with Hubble and God.

I have many more examples to show you IF you are interested. Just let me know. God Bless you

 

[leibowde84]

Dear "leibowde84, Genesis was written by God the Holy Spirit for He revealed things which cannot be known until the last days. Dan 12:4 As mankind continues to discover these things Genesis will be more and more CONFIRMED by the AGREEMENT of Scripture Science and History. Here are some examples of what Genesis teaches:

1. We live in a Multiverse composed of at least 3 Universes or separate Ecosystems. The European Space Agency should confirm this in 2015 with the L.I.S.A. pathfinder Satellites. Gen 1:6-8 and Gen 2:4

2. That the beginning of our Cosmos (Big bang) was on the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4 Hubble and other Space Telescopes have recently learned that it was Hundreds of Millions of years AFTER the Big Bang BEFORE the first Stars lit up. Gen 1:16 correctly shows this event happening on the FOURTH Day in total agreement with Hubble and God.

I have many more examples to show you IF you are interested. Just let me know. God Bless you

There are several problems with your reasoning right off the bat. Most importantly, every element came out of the Big Bang, which was basically Anti-Matter and Matter fighting it out with Matter as the winner. Everything (planets, stars, comets, people, animals, blades of grass, etc.) came from the "matter" that was left. So, there was nothing that could have been created before the Big Bang, as (assuming that there is a "creator") it was the device that brought forth everything.

In addition, you are using circular logic. You are using your theory (that the Bible is God's Word and is, thus, Accurate) to prove that theory (that the Bible is correct re: creation). This is a logical falacy and, any logician will agree, that it does not act to prove anything. If you are going to use the Bible as a telling of history (which didn't even exist when it was written ... recorded history, anyways), you must, as with any scientific theory, demonstrate it's FUTURE accuracy. You have merely provided examples of how the book of Genesis can be shaped or interpreted to fit scientific discovery. This can be done with almost any piece of literature that is as vague as the Bible, and is no real accomplishment. I would say that, unless you can demonstrate how modern science and nature shows that human beings came long before any other animal, you have no real argument to stand on. You merely have faith that the Bible is an accurate account of History.

Also, I'm surprised to say it, but I think you need to take a look at Genesis again. "Light," which could only be described by a star (or the sun) was created on the 1st day. In actuality, we know that the idea of a "day" could not exist without star light. So, according to Genesis, God either lit our Sun before the rest of the stars, or the book claims that stars were lit up on the first day.

L.I.S.A. is not meant to prove anything related to multi-verses (or parallel universes), to the best of my knowledge. I just did a bit of refresher reading and found no mention of any intention to test this hypothesis. Can you ellaborate on why you feel that L.I.S.A. has anything to do with your claim?

 

[shawn001]

Of course I know what evolution means. I've been studying evolution for a long time now, and believe I probably have a better grasp of it than you do

Explain to us evolution and mass extinction events like the dinosuars for one, but there have been others? Were humans around with the dinosaurs?

Where did the our atmosphere come from and oxygen, because it is the way it is today because of evolution.

 

[shawn001]

Dear "leibowde84, Genesis was written by God the Holy Spirit for He revealed things which cannot be known until the last days. Dan 12:4 As mankind continues to discover these things Genesis will be more and more CONFIRMED by the AGREEMENT of Scripture Science and History. Here are some examples of what Genesis teaches:

1. We live in a Multiverse composed of at least 3 Universes or separate Ecosystems. The European Space Agency should confirm this in 2015 with the L.I.S.A. pathfinder Satellites. Gen 1:6-8 and Gen 2:4

2. That the beginning of our Cosmos (Big bang) was on the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4 Hubble and other Space Telescopes have recently learned that it was Hundreds of Millions of years AFTER the Big Bang BEFORE the first Stars lit up. Gen 1:16 correctly shows this event happening on the FOURTH Day in total agreement with Hubble and God.

I have many more examples to show you IF you are interested. Just let me know. God Bless you

First

"King James Bible
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

"Multiverse composed of at least 3 Universes or separate Ecosystems." are NOT in Genesis.

Second the creation story is just like the Sumerians version and that was a different religion, so if yours is right was their's?


"hat the beginning of our Cosmos (Big bang) was on the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4 Hubble and other Space Telescopes have recently learned that it was Hundreds of Millions of years AFTER the Big Bang BEFORE the first Stars lit up. Gen 1:16 correctly shows this event happening on the FOURTH Day in total agreement with Hubble and God."


Nice try but wrong big time for a lot of reasons. Was there an earth before any star?

 

[Sonofason]

You really are a troll aren't you buddy?

That was a pretty lame attempt to avoid dealing with the truth.

We can make this even simpler:

1. Evolution means change over time correct? (YES OR NO)?
2. Species do change overtime.

Yes, evolution is descent with modification; it is change in gene frequency within a population of species over time.
And it certainly might be true that species do change over time. In fact, species might even change to such an extent that they fall in to a new classification category of species as presently defined.