Is there true love if everyone obeys animal instincts?

[The Hammer]

The theory of Evolution started badly. It began with the book The Origin of Species. However, the modern man did not descend from any of the known species. Not from monkeys, not from primates, not from rodents, not even from a single-celled amoeba a billion years ago. The modern man appeared directly from "common ancestors". Do not confuse these common ancestors with transitional forms! For example, Homo sapiens descended from a common ancestor (let us denote it by the letter A) between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal. In turn, this mythical chimera A descended from a common ancestor (let's call it chimera B) between chimera A and Homo Erectus. And so on. We are not descended from known species, but from a chain of chimeras that begin with the Big Bang. That is why I oppose the apparent wrongness of Darwinian Evolution.

A common ancestor isn't necessarily one thing, it could have been two species that were relatively similar but could still reproduce together. Take Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis; of which we now get the genes for light skin, blue/green eyes, and blonde hair; things which were not present until our interactions with them.(thanks DNA evidence).

I'm not confusing them with transitional forms, you seem to be though.

 

[firedragon]

Humans do that too. Oedipus complex anyone?

is a theory isn't it?

But yeah, humans do this too. But just way too rare to equate it to Dog's mate.

 

[The Hammer]

is a theory isn't it?

But yeah, humans do this too. But just way too rare to equate it to Dog's mate.

Believe what you must. It's rare due to Culture. Sibling/cousin and even parental sex between offspring was common up through even the middle ages.

Again, Oedipus Complex. Afaik not a theory. Google hapsberg lips.

Edit: Don't call me mate, it's demeaning; I'm not your friend. (Yet)

 

[LightofTruth]

Breathing's an interesting concept, don't ya think.

 

[Kooky]

However, the modern man did not descend from any of the known species. Not from monkeys, not from primates, not from rodents, not even from a single-celled amoeba a billion years ago. The modern man appeared directly from "common ancestors". Do not confuse these common ancestors with transitional forms! For example, Homo sapiens descended from a common ancestor (let us denote it by the letter A) between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal. In turn, this mythical chimera A descended from a common ancestor (let's call it chimera B) between chimera A and Homo Erectus. And so on.

Indeed!

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

When I see a reply that is nothing but a music video in a serious topic/discussion, I have little choice but to believe the person that replied to be "on the run" from facts, evidence, reality, etc. Does that fit YOU in this instance? Again - I am simply forced to believe that it does. If you don't like people thinking that of you, then I suggest you cut this crap out. However, if it is just fine and dandy that people think you incapable of actually producing a worthwhile response then go for it! Keep posting music videos to people's well-crafted responses! You'll be sure to win yourself an abysmal reputation with ridiculous actions like that on your record! And so well deserved in your case!

 

[blü 2]

modern man did not descend from any of the known species.

Yes, we did. Our line back to the start looks something like this ─

Human evolution goes from the most basic form of life (protobionts, presently undefined)
3.7 bya — to the single cell (Prokaryota)
1.7 bya — to nucleated multicelled (Eukaryota) [though some say Eu- was before or simultaneous with Pro-]
555 mya — to bilateral symmetry (Bilateria) ›
›555 mya — to a stomach with two openings [mouth and anus] (Deuterostomia)
›555 mya — to a notochord [‘spinal chord’] (Chordata)

440–450 mya — Ordovician - Silurian Extinction​

›525 mya — to a backbone (Vertebrata)
›385 mya — to a movable lower jaw (Gnathostomata)
›385 mya — to four legs (Tetrapoda)

]~360 to 375 mya — Late Devonian Extinction​

›340 mya — to eggs with water retention suitable for dry land (Amniota)
›324 mya — to eye sockets each with a single opening into the skull (Synapsida)
~274 mya — to mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida)
~260 mya — to ‘dog teeth’ (Cynodontia)

251 mya — Permian-Triassic Extinction​

~200 mya — to milk glands (Mammalia)
›160 mya — to vivipars and monotremes (Theriiformes)
to modern vivipars (Holotheria)
to proto-placentals and marsupials (Theria)
›160 mya — to placentals and certain extinct non-marsupials (Eutheria)
~110 mya — to placentals (Placentalia)
~100 mya — to all mammals except the Xenarthra [sloth, armadillo, anteater] (Epitheria)
~100 mya — to bats, primates, treeshrews (Archonta)

65.5 mya — Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction​

~63 mya — to tarsiers, monkeys, apes (Haplorrhini)
~40 mya — to New and Old World monkeys and apes (Simiiformes)
~35 mya — to Old World monkeys and gibbons (Catarrhini)
~29 mya — to apes [great apes and gibbons] (Hominoidea)
~25 mya — to hominids / great apes [orangutans, gorillas, chimps, Homo] (Hominidae)
~4.5 mya — to hominins [gorillas, chimps, Homo] (Homininae)
~2.4 mya — to Homo [H. sapiens, H. neanderthalensis, ] (Homo)

~1.8 mya — (— H. floresiensis)
~430 kya — (— H. neaderthalensis)​

300 kya — to Homo sapiens [H. sapiens sapiens] (Homo sapiens)

~158 kya — ( — H. sapiens denisova)​

100-70 kya — to modern H. sapiens sapiens.​

Not from monkeys, not from primates, not from rodents, not even from a single-celled amoeba a billion years ago.

No, you've misinformed yourself. Check the rough outline above, and you'll see we're simply a species of animal that came down the vertebrate ─ tetrapod ─ mammal ─ vivipar ─ primate ─ hominid ─ Homo trail.

As for your rodents, not, we're not descended from the rodents. We simply have distant ancestors in common with them. But then, we have (even more distant) ancestors in common with the slime molds, the Covid virus, anything alive now or in the past.

Darwinist: "primates evolved from rodents."

Your Darwinist was misinformed. No need for you to be.

Then he did not come from anyone at all, but appeared by a miracle, as it is written in the Bible.

The things that you're liable / To read in the bible / It ain't necessarily so, as the song tells us. The bible thinks the earth is flat, for example.

the believer has no other option in Darwinism but to blaspheme Jesus Christ, to think of Godman as of a humanoid primate, hasn't he?

The story says he was a member of the species modern H sap sap, just like one (Matthew, Luke) or both (Paul, Mark, John) of his parents. What species do you say Jesus was?

If man and macaque are at the same level of evolutionary development, then this is not a correct theory. Man is qualitatively and significantly developed in comparison with monkeys and macaques.

What has the evolution of macaques got to do with the evolution of H sap sap, once we take our separate ways from our common ancestors? They became efficient at being macaques and we became efficient at being H sap sap. I see no puzzle there.

And since [the publication of The Origin of Species 1859]until now no one has descended from anyone (humankind is a subspecies of the monkey).

Go back and look at the time scales I set out above. Microorganisms can evolve a lot in a short time, but for us more complex varieties, the 162 years you indignantly allow is unlikely to make a noticeable difference in a population pushing ten billion.

Now, the alternative to evolution is the bible's special creation of species. In the bible this is done by magic, and as you know, to say something is done by magic is to explain nothing at all unless we know the nature of magic and how it actually works.

So to start with a simple example, before we move on to the animals, what actually happened to bring light into being when God (as the bible tells it) says "Let there be light."? Talk me through it, step by step.

 

[viole]

The theory of Evolution started badly. It began with the book The Origin of Species. However, the modern man did not descend from any of the known species. Not from monkeys, not from primates, not from rodents, not even from a single-celled amoeba a billion years ago. The modern man appeared directly from "common ancestors". Do not confuse these common ancestors with transitional forms! For example, Homo sapiens descended from a common ancestor (let us denote it by the letter A) between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal. In turn, this mythical chimera A descended from a common ancestor (let's call it chimera B) between chimera A and Homo Erectus. And so on. We are not descended from known species, but from a chain of chimeras that begin with the Big Bang. That is why I oppose the apparent wrongness of Darwinian Evolution.

At school biology class we were told a piece of misleading information because Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein did not come from monkeys, "but rats!"

Do you believe that?! Here is the dialogue between the Creationist and the Darwinist; which is likely to happen in the future, after the publication of my promising paper on biology, e.g.
Adam and Eve in human genetics. New results.

Creationist: "So has a man already descended from monkeys, or is he still a monkey?"

Darwinist: "Man is another, smarter monkey. Humans and monkeys are in the same biological order, called primates."

Creationist: “From whom did man come? Not from primates. Because he is still a primate."

Darwinist: "primates evolved from rodents."

Creationist: "Is man already descended from rodents, or is he still a rodent?"

Darwinist: "He is already a primate, not a rodent. But sometimes he is not a fool to gnaw."

Creationist: “Since you are hinting that the signs of a rodent remain, then man is not descended from a rodent. Then he did not come from anyone at all, but appeared by a miracle, as it is written in the Bible. But, then, in your opinion, there are no people as such, since people are primates? Then the believer has no other option in Darwinism but to blaspheme Jesus Christ, to think of Godman as of a humanoid primate, hasn't he? A strange theory, difficult to fit with any of the religions. If man and macaque are at the same level of evolutionary development, then this is not a correct theory. Man is qualitatively and significantly developed in comparison with monkeys and macaques. For example, a person wrote explanatory books (he realized the laws of nature), but animals did not (they follow the laws, not knowing about their existence). "Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it." Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, p. 613.

Darwinist: "Primates and rodents are part of one superorder of placentals called euarhontoglyres. Besides, it includes blunt-like, lagomorphs, and herto-wings ones."

Creationist: “This means that there are no evolutionary levels of development at all. Everyone and everything appeared at once, at the moment of God's creation of the world. Let me remind you that the Theory of Evolution began its journey with Darwin's bestseller "The Origin of Species". And since until now no one has descended from anyone (humankind is a subspecies of the monkey), then the Theory of Evolution is not right at the very beginning, already from the very title. Do you ask who has created the Eternally existing, Uncreated God? My dear, Evolutionism is not an option, here is its criticism, a song:

Homo Sapience came from common ancestor A between Homo Sapience and Homo Neanderthalensis.
The mythical creature A came from common ancestor B between Homo Erectus and creature A.
And so, on common ancestors C,D,E,F,G,,, until the Big Bang. Thus, the Homo Sapience has not come from anybody existing,
only from the common mythical ancestors.

A perfect example of Ultracrepidarianism.

By the way, where does Eastern Orthodox Christianity come from?

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

This thread seriously needs the tag "bait and switch" since the topic has nothing to do with the title.

 

[Clara Tea]

The theory of Evolution started badly. It began with the book The Origin of Species. However, the modern man did not descend from any of the known species. Not from monkeys, not from primates, not from rodents, not even from a single-celled amoeba a billion years ago. The modern man appeared directly from "common ancestors". Do not confuse these common ancestors with transitional forms! For example, Homo sapiens descended from a common ancestor (let us denote it by the letter A) between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal. In turn, this mythical chimera A descended from a common ancestor (let's call it chimera B) between chimera A and Homo Erectus. And so on. We are not descended from known species, but from a chain of chimeras that begin with the Big Bang. That is why I oppose the apparent wrongness of Darwinian Evolution.

At school biology class we were told a piece of misleading information because Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein did not come from monkeys, "but rats!"

Do you believe that?! Here is the dialogue between the Creationist and the Darwinist; which is likely to happen in the future, after the publication of my promising paper on biology, e.g.
Adam and Eve in human genetics. New results.

Creationist: "So has a man already descended from monkeys, or is he still a monkey?"

Darwinist: "Man is another, smarter monkey. Humans and monkeys are in the same biological order, called primates."

Creationist: “From whom did man come? Not from primates. Because he is still a primate."

Darwinist: "primates evolved from rodents."

Creationist: "Is man already descended from rodents, or is he still a rodent?"

Darwinist: "He is already a primate, not a rodent. But sometimes he is not a fool to gnaw."

Creationist: “Since you are hinting that the signs of a rodent remain, then man is not descended from a rodent. Then he did not come from anyone at all, but appeared by a miracle, as it is written in the Bible. But, then, in your opinion, there are no people as such, since people are primates? Then the believer has no other option in Darwinism but to blaspheme Jesus Christ, to think of Godman as of a humanoid primate, hasn't he? A strange theory, difficult to fit with any of the religions. If man and macaque are at the same level of evolutionary development, then this is not a correct theory. Man is qualitatively and significantly developed in comparison with monkeys and macaques. For example, a person wrote explanatory books (he realized the laws of nature), but animals did not (they follow the laws, not knowing about their existence). "Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it." Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, p. 613.

Darwinist: "Primates and rodents are part of one superorder of placentals called euarhontoglyres. Besides, it includes blunt-like, lagomorphs, and herto-wings ones."

Creationist: “This means that there are no evolutionary levels of development at all. Everyone and everything appeared at once, at the moment of God's creation of the world. Let me remind you that the Theory of Evolution began its journey with Darwin's bestseller "The Origin of Species". And since until now no one has descended from anyone (humankind is a subspecies of the monkey), then the Theory of Evolution is not right at the very beginning, already from the very title. Do you ask who has created the Eternally existing, Uncreated God? My dear, Evolutionism is not an option, here is its criticism, a song:

Homo Sapience came from common ancestor A between Homo Sapience and Homo Neanderthalensis.
The mythical creature A came from common ancestor B between Homo Erectus and creature A.
And so, on common ancestors C,D,E,F,G,,, until the Big Bang. Thus, the Homo Sapience has not come from anybody existing,
only from the common mythical ancestors.

You claim that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That is, mankind and monkeys both evolved from something that is neither.



Yet, many life forms have remained constant with little genetic variation for millions of years, as the fossil record proves. Crocs, velvet worms, cow sharks, horsetails, lice, brachiopods, ginkgo trees, duck-billed platypuses, coalacanths, and horseshoe crabs (to name a few).



This doesn't mean that man could not have evolved from monkeys because monkeys still exist.



The fossil record and DNA record shows a clear line of succession.



Evolution doesn't always make one smarter or better. For example, flightless birds on islands flew there, then lost the ability to fly (it takes energy to fly, so it makes more sense to breed out the ability to fly once flying is no longer necessary).

 

[Audie]

You claim that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That is, mankind and monkeys both evolved from something that is neither.



Yet, many life forms have remained constant with little genetic variation for millions of years, as the fossil record proves. Crocs, velvet worms, cow sharks, horsetails, lice, brachiopods, ginkgo trees, duck-billed platypuses, coalacanths, and horseshoe crabs (to name a few).



This doesn't mean that man could not have evolved from monkeys because monkeys still exist.



The fossil record and DNA record shows a clear line of succession.



Evolution doesn't always make one smarter or better. For example, flightless birds on islands flew there, then lost the ability to fly (it takes energy to fly, so it makes more sense to breed out the ability to fly once flying is no longer necessary).

Evoluyion is about what works: you cannot improve on the cockroach.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The theory of Evolution started badly. It began with the book The Origin of Species. However, the modern man did not descend from any of the known species. Not from monkeys, not from primates, not from rodents, not even from a single-celled amoeba a billion years ago. The modern man appeared directly from "common ancestors". Do not confuse these common ancestors with transitional forms! For example, Homo sapiens descended from a common ancestor (let us denote it by the letter A) between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal. In turn, this mythical chimera A descended from a common ancestor (let's call it chimera B) between chimera A and Homo Erectus. And so on. We are not descended from known species, but from a chain of chimeras that begin with the Big Bang. That is why I oppose the apparent wrongness of Darwinian Evolution.

Well you are certainly correct to oppose that silly strawman version of evolution.

Creationist: "So has a man already descended from monkeys, or is he still a monkey?"

Darwinist: "Man is another, smarter monkey. Humans and monkeys are in the same biological order, called primates."

Creationist: “From whom did man come? Not from primates. Because he is still a primate."

Darwinist: "primates evolved from rodents."

Creationist: "Is man already descended from rodents, or is he still a rodent?"

Darwinist: "He is already a primate, not a rodent. But sometimes he is not a fool to gnaw."

I don't even know how to respond to this nonsense.




I suggest you read up a bit on what biological evolution actually is about, before posting obvious bs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First of all, we are not from Chimps, because we are still a subspecies of Chimps.

//facepalm


I find it both hilarious and depressing that you actually think you are qualified for authoring papers about evolution.

Humans a subspecies of chimps........... lol, for crying out loud!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Homo Sapience came from common ancestor A between Homo Sapience and Homo Neanderthalensis.
The mythical creature A came from common ancestor B between Homo Erectus and creature A.
And so, on common ancestors C,D,E,F,G,,, until the Big Bang.

Until the "big bang"?
Where do you get this nonsense?

Thus, the Homo Sapience has not come from anybody existing,
only from the common mythical ancestors.

Does your great-great-great-great grandfather still exist?
No? Is he therefor "mythical"?

 

[Colt]

It was thoughtful for Noah to collect 2 of every pointless, unrelated primate from around the globe so they could be preserved for us to have the evolution vs creation debate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory of Evolution started badly. It began with the book The Origin of Species. However, the modern man did not descend from any of the known species. Not from monkeys, not from primates, not from rodents, not even from a single-celled amoeba a billion years ago. The modern man appeared directly from "common ancestors". Do not confuse these common ancestors with transitional forms! For example, Homo sapiens descended from a common ancestor (let us denote it by the letter A) between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal. In turn, this mythical chimera A descended from a common ancestor (let's call it chimera B) between chimera A and Homo Erectus. And so on. We are not descended from known species, but from a chain of chimeras that begin with the Big Bang. That is why I oppose the apparent wrongness of Darwinian Evolution.

At school biology class we were told a piece of misleading information because Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein did not come from monkeys, "but rats!"

Do you believe that?! Here is the dialogue between the Creationist and the Darwinist; which is likely to happen in the future, after the publication of my promising paper on biology, e.g.
Adam and Eve in human genetics. New results.

Creationist: "So has a man already descended from monkeys, or is he still a monkey?"

Darwinist: "Man is another, smarter monkey. Humans and monkeys are in the same biological order, called primates."

Creationist: “From whom did man come? Not from primates. Because he is still a primate."

Darwinist: "primates evolved from rodents."

Creationist: "Is man already descended from rodents, or is he still a rodent?"

Darwinist: "He is already a primate, not a rodent. But sometimes he is not a fool to gnaw."

Creationist: “Since you are hinting that the signs of a rodent remain, then man is not descended from a rodent. Then he did not come from anyone at all, but appeared by a miracle, as it is written in the Bible. But, then, in your opinion, there are no people as such, since people are primates? Then the believer has no other option in Darwinism but to blaspheme Jesus Christ, to think of Godman as of a humanoid primate, hasn't he? A strange theory, difficult to fit with any of the religions. If man and macaque are at the same level of evolutionary development, then this is not a correct theory. Man is qualitatively and significantly developed in comparison with monkeys and macaques. For example, a person wrote explanatory books (he realized the laws of nature), but animals did not (they follow the laws, not knowing about their existence). "Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it." Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, p. 613.

Darwinist: "Primates and rodents are part of one superorder of placentals called euarhontoglyres. Besides, it includes blunt-like, lagomorphs, and herto-wings ones."

Creationist: “This means that there are no evolutionary levels of development at all. Everyone and everything appeared at once, at the moment of God's creation of the world. Let me remind you that the Theory of Evolution began its journey with Darwin's bestseller "The Origin of Species". And since until now no one has descended from anyone (humankind is a subspecies of the monkey), then the Theory of Evolution is not right at the very beginning, already from the very title. Do you ask who has created the Eternally existing, Uncreated God? My dear, Evolutionism is not an option, here is its criticism, a song:

Homo Sapience came from common ancestor A between Homo Sapience and Homo Neanderthalensis.
The mythical creature A came from common ancestor B between Homo Erectus and creature A.
And so, on common ancestors C,D,E,F,G,,, until the Big Bang. Thus, the Homo Sapience has not come from anybody existing,
only from the common mythical ancestors.

Wow! This is incredible. Where did you come up with this?

Theories of evolution existed prior to Darwin.

Humans are primates and share common ancestry with other existing primates (most closely with apes, bonobos, chimps and orangutans).

Modern humans and Neanderthals share a common ancestry. This means that the two branched off from a single ancestral group.

The evidence indicates that the Big Bang is many billions of years older than the Earth, so evolutionary lines of the fauna that originated and evolved on Earth could not have started at the Big Bang.

We share a common ancestry with rats and other mammals, by virtue of being mammals. Common ancestry with rats does not mean we descended from rats.

Common ancestry does not mean that everything appeared at once. I am not even sure how that conclusion could be drawn from the data unless the person drawing the conclusion knew nothing about the subject they were concluding on.

Your conclusion makes no sense. Your premises also do not make sense.