More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

You almost sound like you are getting it and then you demonstrate that you do not. Never ever say "no evidence" when it comes to evolution because you simply do not know if there is evidence or not. And birds are dinosaurs. The non-avian dinosaurs went extinct a 65 million years ago. The only dinosaurs that survived were the birds:

Bird - Wikipedia

Birds are a group of feathered theropod dinosaurs and constitute the only living dinosaurs.

Now again -- I get it. I get that there is no proof whatsoever that birds are dinosaurs. What is called evidence by virtue of fossils is not establishing that dinosaurs evolved into (became) birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

You almost sound like you are getting it and then you demonstrate that you do not. Never ever say "no evidence" when it comes to evolution because you simply do not know if there is evidence or not. And birds are dinosaurs. The non-avian dinosaurs went extinct a 65 million years ago. The only dinosaurs that survived were the birds:

Bird - Wikipedia

Birds are a group of feathered theropod dinosaurs and constitute the only living dinosaurs.

I don't know if there is no evidence for evolution? OK, do you know if there IS evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue
The ToE is not a big mess but it is highly complex in its details. On top of that, there are many hypotheses. But this is the characteristic of not only all scientific fields but also serious theology, which includes Christianity. That's why there are so many debates and discussion within Christianity itself.

So highly complex that not only are the big, dark holes (ala Behe's box) in the theory and calculations, but -- in reality, also according to the scientist quoted earlier associated with a natural museum. And from my peerings into the works and minds of evolutionists as they relay the evidence trying to pair it with the theory, no -- or yes -- it doesn't add up. Meaning there is nothing to ascertain that God did not initiate life, the cause of life, or that he did not use minerals and genetics to do as He will when creating life according to His will. So while this may sound like a sweeping statement, I have not seen anything whatsoever in scientific theorums that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (or conjecture) that the lifeforms we see on earth today came about as a result of the mechanics of evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

According to what I understand, apes remain apes. Gorillas still remain gorillas. (Fish remain fish.) The rest is conjecture regarding evolution as in discovering fossil remains. No proof of evolving from disosaurs to birds.

Ah no!
So tell us how you explain what the fossils mean. They exist, deposited in layers of rock made during different time periods so using you favorite sources please explain them.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't know if there is no evidence for evolution? OK, do you know if there IS evidence?

Explain what kind of evidence you are even willing to consider.

 

[Bear Wild]

So highly complex that not only are the big, dark holes (ala Behe's box) in the theory and calculations, but -- in reality, also according to the scientist quoted earlier associated with a natural museum. And from my peerings into the works and minds of evolutionists as they relay the evidence trying to pair it with the theory, no -- or yes -- it doesn't add up. Meaning there is nothing to ascertain that God did not initiate life, the cause of life, or that he did not use minerals and genetics to do as He will when creating life according to His will. So while this may sound like a sweeping statement, I have not seen anything whatsoever in scientific theorums that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (or conjecture) that the lifeforms we see on earth today came about as a result of the mechanics of evolution.

How does you source Behe explain fossils?

Explain how you peer into the works and minds of evolutionists.

The evidence does ad up and every year there is more evidence that supports evolution so it is adding up.

The theory of evolution does not even research how life initiated that is another theory entirely,

Whiskey comes in proof not science.

Which god of all the gods out their actually started life? Remember yours is just one of many.

Explanation's please for us believers in evolution unless you know that evolution is correct and you just do not want to admit it.
How do you know a goddess did not start life?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now again -- I get it. I get that there is no proof whatsoever that birds are dinosaurs. What is called evidence by virtue of fossils is not establishing that dinosaurs evolved into (became) birds.

Now you have demonstrated that you do not even have a ninth grader's level of scientific literacy. There is no "proof" in the sciences. It is all evidence based. But we can show your ideas to be wrong. You keep claiming that God is a liar. Why would you do that as a Christian?

Now there is "proof" that meets the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and the fossils are good enough alone for that. And there are tons more evidence than just the fossils. Why do you keep ignoring the other endless evidence.

What do yo say that we take a little break and go over the idea of evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know if there is no evidence for evolution? OK, do you know if there IS evidence?

There is endless evidence. For you to say that there is no evidence means one of two things. Either you have no idea what is and what is not evidence, or you are lying.

I do not think that you are lying. You are merely clueless when it comes to the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So again -- you believe that the present population (or type) of homo sapiens will evolve to -- another type of homo sapien or something different but closely connected to homo sapiens. Right? I mean maybe eventually they could develop wings? Or legs like kangaroos? I'm not being particularly funny, those are serious questions for you to consider.
Apprise me, please. I don't remember, maybe you can help in a few words. Are Neanderthals considered "homo sapiens"?

Homo neanderthalensis is so closely related to Homo sapiens that they are sometimes called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and we are called Homo sapiens sapiens. And given enough time we will run into an event that will separate our species. We will eventually speciate as a result. That is if we do not go extinct first. But they will always be humans, just as you and I are still apes. You cannot evolve out of your heritage.

 

[GardenLady]

He just said that it's a big mess regarding conclusions of science and what it means.

No. The plethora of different hominin fossils makes it difficult to sort out the process of human descent. The "mess" is the very large and diverse amount of evidence that needs to be sorted out.

 

[GardenLady]

What was the "last species" to evolve, according to the theory?

Maybe the one that is evolving right now as you are reading this. Evolution isn't something that happened. It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. It is a fundamental process of life.

 

[GardenLady]

Homo neanderthalensis is so closely related to Homo sapiens that they are sometimes called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and we are called Homo sapiens sapiens.

Yes, and H neanderthalensis and H sapiens sapiens interbred, a common definition of being of the same species. I have posted here before that I have small percentages of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, as do many people of northern European descent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and H neanderthalensis and H sapiens sapiens interbred, a common definition of being of the same species. I have posted here before that I have small percentages of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, as do many people of northern European descent.

Not me! I'm Scandahoovian!!

Seriously I have not had my DNA tested that way but I am likely just a little bit Neanderthal too.

 

[metis]

So highly complex that not only are the big, dark holes (ala Behe's box) in the theory and calculations, but -- in reality, also according to the scientist quoted earlier associated with a natural museum.

Depends on what you mean by "big dark holes" in terms of what you may be referring to, plus let me add that there's also plenty of "big dark holes" when it comes to dealing with the Creation accounts as well.

And from my peerings into the works and minds of evolutionists as they relay the evidence trying to pair it with the theory, no -- or yes -- it doesn't add up. Meaning there is nothing to ascertain that God did not initiate life, the cause of life, or that he did not use minerals and genetics to do as He will when creating life according to His will

Again, we in this area of science do not assume that God (or Gods) don't exist as we can't observe nor test for God(s).

So while this may sound like a sweeping statement, I have not seen anything whatsoever in scientific theorums that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (or conjecture) that the lifeforms we see on earth today came about as a result of the mechanics of evolution.

We do know that the "mechanics of evolution" do entail mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. We also know that new species developed over time, such as the evidence can be seen if you google "speciation". What we don't know scientifically is how it all started and/or whether God or Gods were behind it all.

It is important not to have a double-standard, thus if we can question aspects of the ToE, which we do in science all the time btw, then theists should do the same in regards to Divine creation.

For a quick example, how exactly does a theist supposedly know it's not Gods that were behind this all? Try and deal with this question objectively and see how far you get.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So highly complex that not only are the big, dark holes (ala Behe's box) in the theory and calculations, but -- in reality, also according to the scientist quoted earlier associated with a natural museum. And from my peerings into the works and minds of evolutionists as they relay the evidence trying to pair it with the theory, no -- or yes -- it doesn't add up. Meaning there is nothing to ascertain that God did not initiate life, the cause of life, or that he did not use minerals and genetics to do as He will when creating life according to His will. So while this may sound like a sweeping statement, I have not seen anything whatsoever in scientific theorums that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (or conjecture) that the lifeforms we see on earth today came about as a result of the mechanics of evolution.

Just because someone that has been shown to be a fool (Behe in this case) has made a claim does not mean that there are "holes" in the theory. All of Behe's claims of Irreducible Complexity that he has made have been refuted. Most of them before he even published his work. By the way, that was not a science that he did either. To be science one must follow the scientific method. He did not do so when he published his work.

Please quote and link when making such claims. Vague claims only get vague refutations. No one on the evolution side is afraid to discuss actual evidence and proper claims.

And please, no more claims of "holes" until you can properly support your work. Tell me, as a Christian do you think that you should obey the Ninth Commandment? This is a very serious question.

 

[GardenLady]

Not me! I'm Scandahoovian!!

Irish/Scottish/English here.

 

[GardenLady]

Not to mention it doesn't take science to show you are related to your grandmother.

Let me tell you about my friend. She did the ancestry dot com thing. As a result, she learned that the person she always thought was her father, who married her mother 2 years before my friend was born, was NOT her father. So she was not related to the person she had considered her paternal grandmother. Her two siblings then did ancestry dot com and the results showed both of them were her half-siblings.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, and H neanderthalensis and H sapiens sapiens interbred, a common definition of being of the same species. I have posted here before that I have small percentages of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, as do many people of northern European descent.

Everyone Has Neanderthal DNA In Their Genome, New Genetic Analysis Shows

Starting about 200,000 years ago, humans began moving out of Africa. As the current theory goes, they never looked back. Those who reached Europe mated with Neanderthals, human relatives residing on the continent. Echoes of this tryst show up today in the genomes of those of European and Asian descent — those populations are a few percent Neanderthal by DNA. It also explains why Africans were thought to have little to no Neanderthal DNA, as their ancestors never met the lineage.

But new research suggests the world travels of early humans didn’t play out this neatly. Using their own DNA analysis method, a team of geneticists found that humans with European ancestry have a higher percentage of Neanderthal DNA in their genome than previously thought. And, more surprisingly, modern humans with African ancestry had about 17 times as much Neanderthal DNA than earlier tests revealed. The results were published in the journal Cell.

Everyone Has Neanderthal DNA in Their Genome, New Genetic Analysis Shows

 

[YoursTrue]

No. The plethora of different hominin fossils makes it difficult to sort out the process of human descent. The "mess" is the very large and diverse amount of evidence that needs to be sorted out.

It's a big mess.

Maybe the one that is evolving right now as you are reading this. Evolution isn't something that happened. It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. It is a fundamental process of life.

No real substantial proof. That is conjecture in the way that someone believes life evolved from one cell moving onward to plants and animals. There is no real proof that apes or humans are currently evolving at all. Just because humans can produce varied skin colors, or lengths of arms and legs, does not mean or prove the theory of evolution. And because someone says humans are apes does not mean that humans are apes except to those that think and believe humans are apes having evolved from some Unknown Common Ancestor of -- apes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let me tell you about my friend. She did the ancestry dot com thing. As a result, she learned that the person she always thought was her father, who married her mother 2 years before my friend was born, was NOT her father. So she was not related to the person she had considered her paternal grandmother. Her two siblings then did ancestry dot com and the results showed both of them were her half-siblings.

Don't you believe that everyone is related to everyone else? Of course there ARE genes missing in a manner of speaking between humans and bonobos, of course. Too bad they haven't found the Unknown Common Ancestor yet to solve these little quibbles.