I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all. What I know from writings and conclusion of those like Darwin is that the claim is put forth that evolution happened and, it is also claimed that it is true and a fact by some.

No, he was correct. You do not even understand the concept of evidence yet. That makes understanding science almost impossible.

 

[nPeace]

It is evidence that there was sufficient time. Because we are where we are.
It is a choice between magic and science, as to how we got here.

How did we get here?

As I can recall, there are many ideas that are proposed, to make the magic go away - like chemicals in a warm soup... after the right chemical fell from space... etc.

The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today.

The challenge for abiogenesis or origin of life. researchers is to explain how such a complex and tightly-interlinked system could develop, as at first sight all its parts are necessary to enable it to function

The difference between these hypotheses, and an intelligent entity is this.
An intelligent entity does not employ magic to combine the right chemicals.

In fact, an intelligent creator is the better explanation for how all the parts necessary to enable such a complex and tightly-interlinked system to function, would be placed correctly.

No magic is required.
Isn't magic something like "Abracadabra".
Do scientists do that in their labs? Do you think if they did, it would help them solve their problems?

No, God does not use magic. He knows Chemistry, Mathematics, Physics, Biology... better than any man does.

Wait though... Abiogenesis isn't evolution right. So what were we talking about?
How did we got here? Do you know?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We do?

Yes. It is true. It is observable and has been observed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. It is true. It is observable and has been observed.

Look I'm not an expert, but I have only seen speculation that mammals evolved from fishes. I'm still more interested in bugs since we started talking.

 

[Tiberius]

Not at all. What I know from writings and conclusion of those like Darwin is that the claim is put forth that evolution happened and, it is also claimed that it is true and a fact by some.

And you think that's based on just the fact that Darwin said so?

It's based on EVIDENCE.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Look I'm not an expert, but I have only seen speculation that mammals evolved from fishes. I'm still more interested in bugs since we started talking.

I'm not aware of any speculation that you are referring too. The evidence supports evolution, including direct observation of evolution.

Bugs are very interesting. If you have any questions or find something cool to post about them, I would love to see it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not aware of any speculation that you are referring too. The evidence supports evolution, including direct observation of evolution.

Bugs are very interesting. If you have any questions or find something cool to post about them, I would love to see it.

Well, since you attracted me to bugs, what comes to mind is that worm type thing (bug) I was reading about that digests plastic. (Down below is a link.)
P.S. I still don't believe all life evolved from a few cells. Period. (And that's basically it except that yes, my friend, there is no proof. Sorry.) Oh, and lest I forget, before I say there IS no direct observation of evolution, what are you talking about re: "direct observation.." I mean, Mary, Jesus' mother, did not "evolve" from her mother's womb. I hope that's not what you mean by evolution.==>
Meet the "superworm" that can digest plastic | Salon.com
Fascinating. Why do I think it's fascinating? Because they can clean up some of the pollution mankind has plummeted the earth with. (Take care...)
Oh no, sorry, it was a WORM, not a bug. I guess there's a difference.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you think that's based on just the fact that Darwin said so?

No, but it got pretty popular. And many fell for it and teach it and believe it. AS Darwin basically explained it. (Survival of the fittest as well as so-called "natural selection.")

It's based on EVIDENCE.

No, it's based on speculation based on fossils placed in speculating by scientists of "evidence" of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, since you attracted me to bugs, what comes to mind is that worm type thing (bug) I was reading about that digests plastic. (Down below is a link.)
P.S. I still don't believe all life evolved from a few cells. Period. (And that's basically it except that yes, my friend, there is no proof. Sorry.) Oh, and lest I forget, before I say there IS no direct observation of evolution, what are you talking about re: "direct observation.." I mean, Mary, Jesus' mother, did not "evolve" from her mother's womb. I hope that's not what you mean by evolution.==>

Reproduction, fetal development and birth are not what I mean by evolution. Different, but related.

Both believing in God and accepting evolution, I look at it this way. The evidence would not exist if it wasn't real and God gave me the senses to observe that evidence and a mind capable of evaluating it and coming to reasonable conclusions. I don't think He would do that to fool me or anyone else.

Meet the "superworm" that can digest plastic | Salon.com
Fascinating. Why do I think it's fascinating? Because they can clean up some of the pollution mankind has plummeted the earth with. (Take care...)
Oh no, sorry, it was a WORM, not a bug. I guess there's a difference.

It is an insect. The larvae of a beetle. I've reared it and used it in research. I can't recall the specific project, but it'll come to me. They are pretty interesting and easy to rear.

Thanks for the link. I am fascinated with biological means to address the problems we create.

 

[YoursTrue]

Reproduction, fetal development and birth are not what I mean by evolution. Different, but related.

Both believing in God and accepting evolution, I look at it this way. The evidence would not exist if it wasn't real and God gave me the senses to observe that evidence and a mind capable of evaluating it and coming to reasonable conclusions. I don't think He would do that to fool me or anyone else.

It is an insect. The larvae of a beetle. I've reared it and used it in research. I can't recall the specific project, but it'll come to me. They are pretty interesting and easy to rear.

Thanks for the link. I am fascinated with biological means to address the problems we create.

Yes, I remember, the article said it was the larvae. NOW I remember. I was thinking that GOD can use these organisms to clean up the earth when the time comes.

 

[rational experiences]

Evidence.

You are only one self.

Species of your one type a human...and two humans continue species by sex.

Humans live humans die.

Science advice on planet earth humans don't even exist. As true science answer a total review.... Life is just passing surviving as natural life.

Told exact advice as a human being a human. We actually no longer exist. Is the scientific answer itself.

Then a whole lot of humans using words as just stories argue. Say as I state my theory is the story... you must concede. As the word theory owns by organised human behaviour hierarchy.

So we say...just humans always. Lying is theism.

Sex was the teaching in science why any human lives now as the human as science is legally not a theory.

It's human reality.

Any human before as history the human is about 120 years ago dead decomposed biology so only pre microbes surviving first that are not the human body ever in biology are still as exist after... Are not any human.

Says just a human thinking.

So if you study microbes don't you prove by contrivance that you search for humans death removal only?

As living microbes die too!

So humans said already the theist is researching to kill us all. As microbe science thesis. By living humans uses owns living microbes already.

A human looks at healthy monkeys.

They have sex live and die. No biology even exists says science. Actually life is in reality only microbes as nature's survival only. On earth.

Sex the exact and only reason. Life regains a living status. Survival only.

So two healthy monkeys have healthy monkey babies.
Two healthy monkeys have sick monkey baby.
Two unhealthy monkeys have unhealthy monkey baby.
Or two unhealthy monkeys have a healthy monkey baby.

Observed. Humans science status only. Only what a human observed only. As living advice seen exact.

You live as a human.
You observe details as the human.
What you observe is reality. Natural one whole origin only position.

What you theory is fake. Its just the want of a story. By an egotist human. Who seeks social hierarchy. Human behaviour only.

Law. Past is legal. Position choice a legal position.

Muslims. Didn't do social law. Agreed Jesus life sacrifice testimonial but kept it as religious family control.

Baha'i study of past then present attack. Muslim brain changed by new star fall re emerged into new human science theists. He witnessed returned advice warnings.

Human life mind biology conscious traits re emerged. Governing religious ideals not about life's equality or idealised that only sex brought the changed human into being.

Was the argument sacrificed human life consciousness should legally never be blamed.

Past identified human conscious life warning today. The same. Changed human minds. Produces incorrect storytellers theists. Produces non supportive mutual world family fairness governing.

Science theist was the cause.

In science.

Why looking back theorising only involved dead advice. Illegal in theories. Destroyed biology only.

Is the human only position no coercing allowed.

 

[Tiberius]

No, it's based on speculation based on fossils placed in speculating by scientists of "evidence" of evolution.

If you think that the evidence has been interpreted incorrectly, then please show us where the error is (which would require you to show WHY it is an error), and also provide an alternative explanation which matches all available data and does NOT make any errors.

If you can do that, I will reject evolution and follow your position instead.

 

[nPeace]

If you think that the evidence has been interpreted incorrectly, then please show us where the error is (which would require you to show WHY it is an error), and also provide an alternative explanation which matches all available data and does NOT make any errors.

If you can do that, I will reject evolution and follow your position instead.

That's interesting.
You are asking @YoursTrue to explain why an interpretation is wrong?
Didn't she explain it's based on speculation? Isn't that enough?
You don't think an interpretation is correct because it's the one that's acceptable to some, do you?
You aren't saying their interpretation cannot be wrong, or they aren't mistaken, are you?

The alternative has been mentioned already.
Creatures look alike, but that doesn't mean they are related, or evolved one from the other.

Convergent evolution
One of the most fascinating phenomena in nature is called convergent evolution, a process through which creatures (and plants) that are either unrelated or only distantly related evolve to fill the same ecological niche and consequently, the result is that both animals often end up looking alike, despite having very little shared ancestry.

Look Similar But Are Genetically Incompatible
For a really long time, biologists tried to unwrap the evolutionary history of various animals to figure out how they are related to one another. They have taken a seemingly logical course — to classify animals according to their morphological characteristics and fossil records. Thus, many similarly looking animals were presumed to have come from the same ancestors. However, scientists eventually realized that this sort of classification is not always accurate. Many morphological traits, such as, having wings or thumbs, may evolve multiple times, resulting in species that have similar traits but share a different evolutionary history. Things have changed with the recent advancement of molecular technologies. Scientists are now able to perform genetic analyses instead of relying on traditional morphological and fossil data. This has posed some rather interesting results and completely changed the way we look at some animals.

So looking at a snout, blowhole, tail, ear-bone, jawbone, etc, of fossils, and comparing them with other fossils with similar traits, does not mean the conclusions drawn are correct, and not speculative, or assumed.

Like this...

These breads could have been baked in the same oven, with the same ingredients, and by the same baker, but no one assumes that needs to be the case.
That could be a wrong assumption.

Genetics has its own drawbacks, which doesn't make those interpretations accurate either.
There is more, if that's not enough.

Genesis says the "baker" "baked" things according to their kinds.
Hence, they produce - not evolve - according to their kinds. Of course, they adapt, because they were made to. (Genesis 1:11-28)

 

[Jose Fly]

That's interesting.
Creatures look alike, but that doesn't mean they are related, or evolved one from the other.

That's correct. Fortunately, there's not a single published paper or evolutionary biologist who makes such a simplistic argument. But you know that, don't you? I'm pretty sure you and I have been over it before.

Frankly, given the countless hours you've spent discussing evolution I'm rather surprised you don't have a better understanding of the subject than this. I mean, I obviously don't agree with creationism but through years of discussing it I at least have a good understanding of it.

 

[nPeace]

That's correct. Fortunately, there's not a single published paper or evolutionary biologist who makes such a simplistic argument. But you know that, don't you? I'm pretty sure you and I have been over it before.

Frankly, given the countless hours you've spent discussing evolution I'm rather surprised you don't have a better understanding of the subject than this. I mean, I obviously don't agree with creationism but through years of discussing it I at least have a good understanding of it.

I would not be surprised if you said the same thing to a scientist who told you the exact same thing I said, only with additional terms you scientists use.

That's always your cop out.

 

[Jose Fly]

I would not be surprised if you said the same thing to a scientist who told you the exact same thing I said, only with additional terms you scientists use.

That's always your cop out.

Well then, I suppose you should probably show where a published paper and/or evolutionary biologist makes the simplistic argument that merely because two organisms look similar, they are therefore related.

Otherwise you're guilty of making a straw man argument, and we don't want that...right?

 

[nPeace]

Well then, I suppose you should probably show where a published paper and/or evolutionary biologist makes the simplistic argument that merely because two organisms look similar, they are therefore related.

Otherwise you're guilty of making a straw man argument, and we don't want that...right?

Did you read my post, or only pick out what parts you wanted to build your strawman, because I did not say that... as simple as you stated misrepresented it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Did you read my post, or only pick out what parts you wanted to build your strawman, because I did not say that... as simple as you stated misrepresented it.

Well, you did write "Creatures look alike, but that doesn't mean they are related, or evolved one from the other."

So if we both agree that that's not an actual argument evolutionary biologists make, that's good. But I have to wonder....what exactly was your point?

 

[nPeace]

Well, you did write "Creatures look alike, but that doesn't mean they are related, or evolved one from the other."

So if we both agree that that's not an actual argument evolutionary biologists make, that's good. But I have to wonder....what exactly was your point?

I was responding to this post.
I'm explaining why the interpretations are in error.
The conclusions are based on what many scientists think, which includes speculations and assumptions.

I gave examples of how these ideas can be wrong, and how an alternative explanation fits.
Does that answer your question, or are you still wondering?
Knowing you, I'm sure the wondering hasn't ended.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was responding to this post.
I'm explaining why the interpretations are in error.
The conclusions are based on what many scientists think, which includes speculations and assumptions.

That doesn't really make sense. You were asked to describe how scientists' interpretations of the fossil record are in error, and you replied by saying "Creatures look alike, but that doesn't mean they are related, or evolved one from the other" and then copying material about convergent evolution and a "boredpanda" article about organisms that look alike but aren't genetically related.

Yet now we both agree that "they look similar, therefore they are related" is not an assumption or argument that evolutionary biologists make.

So I'm still not sure what your point is.

I gave examples of how these ideas can be wrong

Not really.

and how an alternative explanation fits.

"Maybe the gods just made it that way" is kind of an "alternative explanation" for everything, isn't it?

Does that answer your question, or are you still wondering?
Knowing you, I'm sure the wondering hasn't ended.

Yup, still wondering.