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

[YoursTrue]

Yes, humans ARE animals.

1. We are living things.
2. Our cells have a bilipid membrane, but not cell wall.
3. The cells are surrounded by an extracellular matrix of glycoproteins and collagen.

So we are animals.

But, even further, we have spines, so we are vertebrates.

We maintain bodily temperature, have specialized teeth, and give birth after development in a uterus along with a placenta. So we are placental mammals (as opposed to marsupial mammals).

We have a collar bone, flat finger nails, eye sockets made from bone, stereoscopic vision, and an enlarged cerebral cortex. So we are primates.

We also have color vision, lack of cheek pouches, no tail, a fused frontal bone (forehead), downward pointed nostrils, and a broad chest. So...wait for it....we *are* apes.

Might as well say we're plants. I don't believe humans descended from an Unknown Ape Ancestor in the spirit of "survival of the fittest," like the little genetic difference evolved that way. There absolutely is no proof of that. Therefore...I believe something else. You can swear up and down that humans are animals descending from other animals, I no longer believe that. And...have a nice day. It was a pretty nice day here with spats of heavy rain. Some streets were flooded.

 

[Polymath257]

Might as well say we're plants.

But we aren't. We don't have cell walls, for example. We don't have chloroplasts in our cells. So we are not plants. Nor are we fungi. We are animals.

I don't believe humans descended from an Unknown Ape Ancestor in the spirit of "survival of the fittest," like the little genetic difference evolved that way. There absolutely is no proof of that.

Except for all of the fossils. And all of the genetics. And all of the comparative anatomy.

Therefore...I believe something else.

No, you believe something else because you *reject* the evidence. Not because it isn't there.

You can swear up and down that humans are animals descending from other animals, I no longer believe that. And...have a nice day. It was a pretty nice day here with spats of heavy rain. Some streets were flooded.

Yep, rain happens.

If you look at all the different things that are alive (plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc) and look at their commonalities and their differences and then ask where humans fit in, it is obvious that we are animals. There really isn't another way to interpret the evidence. We are vertebrates (we have a backbone). We are mammals (warm blooded and have placentas).

 

[YoursTrue]

Simply false. The planets move and they are not alive. All that is required is a force. Forces produce changes in velocity (speed and direction of movement).


I say that life isn't necessary for movement. In fact, movement withiut life is common.

Evolution is not about individuals changing. It is about *populations* changing. Each generation is slightly different than its parents. Those difference add up over time and generations to produce larger changes.



What happens to the electricity when you turn off the light?

Why don't you say? Where does it go? Do you know? Is life from the getgo, in the first thing, like electricity? Gotta come from somewhere to make the lightbulb shine, doesn't it? We're talking about life here though. You think maybe life in an organism and electricity evolved?? Where was it? Hanging around? Now you ask an interesting question, so since you seem to know, where does life go when the plant or animal dies? Ok where does the electric go when the lightbulb is turned off? Did it come about by itself, kind of?

 

[YoursTrue]

But we aren't. We don't have cell walls, for example. We don't have chloroplasts in our cells. So we are not plants. Nor are we fungi. We are animals.


Except for all of the fossils. And all of the genetics. And all of the comparative anatomy.


No, you believe something else because you *reject* the evidence. Not because it isn't there.



Yep, rain happens.

If you look at all the different things that are alive (plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc) and look at their commonalities and their differences and then ask where humans fit in, it is obvious that we are animals. There really isn't another way to interpret the evidence. We are vertebrates (we have a backbone). We are mammals (warm blooded and have placentas).

No, the fossils prove something was alive. Plant and ape fossils do not prove they evolved one to the other. Then evolutionists have to go to the so-called different branches, right? As if each branch started by chance element and then somehow with continuing life. It's been interesting discussing this.

 

[YoursTrue]

But we aren't. We don't have cell walls, for example. We don't have chloroplasts in our cells. So we are not plants. Nor are we fungi. We are animals.


Except for all of the fossils. And all of the genetics. And all of the comparative anatomy.


No, you believe something else because you *reject* the evidence. Not because it isn't there.



Yep, rain happens.

If you look at all the different things that are alive (plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc) and look at their commonalities and their differences and then ask where humans fit in, it is obvious that we are animals. There really isn't another way to interpret the evidence. We are vertebrates (we have a backbone). We are mammals (warm blooded and have placentas).

Yes, rain happens. And so there is a huge difference between animals and humans. And add plant life in the comparison.

 

[night912]

So because I don't agree with the idea that you can't have evolution without considering that there MUST BE a beginning means I don't know what it is? Hmmm, we disagree there. Just like I do not accept the idea that humans are animals (I'm sure you do), I don't accept the idea that evolution does not include the theory or idea of "abiogenesis." Anyway, enjoy the day or night. Yes, humans are in a different category than -- apes, gorillas, and insects, etc. (Anyway.) You can say you're an animal, I can say you're an animal, but our words have different meanings. (Bye for now...)

No, you don't understand because you think that evolution must include abiogenesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

Life is a chemical process. When oxygen is no longer accessible to the tissues, the chemical processes of life stop. That is what it means to die.


Living things are what evolve. They do so by changes to their genetics over generations.


No, once again, life is a process, not a thing. The processes stop. it is that simple.



Individuals die. Those that reproduce make new individuals. Over the course of generations, the characteristics of the individuals in a population change to become more adapted to the environment. That *is* evolution.

I know some animals interbreed. This does not mean evolution of the phylum kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you don't understand because you think that evolution must include abiogenesis.

Yes, I do. Without a beginning and knowing the beginning, you can't have evolution because just to say something looks like something else in Darwinian terms doesn't mean all these different kinds emerged or evolved. A beginning is necessary and without life, there is no theoretical evolution. Looks or no looks.

 

[YoursTrue]

But we aren't. We don't have cell walls, for example. We don't have chloroplasts in our cells. So we are not plants. Nor are we fungi. We are animals.


Except for all of the fossils. And all of the genetics. And all of the comparative anatomy.


No, you believe something else because you *reject* the evidence. Not because it isn't there.



Yep, rain happens.

If you look at all the different things that are alive (plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc) and look at their commonalities and their differences and then ask where humans fit in, it is obvious that we are animals. There really isn't another way to interpret the evidence. We are vertebrates (we have a backbone). We are mammals (warm blooded and have placentas).

Does soil and human flesh have some things in common, by the way?

 

[YoursTrue]

So you agree your argument rests on a logical fallacy?
Why are you still making the argument then?


False.



Sorry, but I don't believe you knew the first thing about evolution. You certainly display a complete lack of understanding of it now.


You agree with something you didn't understand then. How does that even work?

Here's a good example of your misunderstanding of evolution right here ... animals don't "morph into other forms" in evolution. Strange how you don't know that at this point in this incredibly lengthy discussion.

Evolution is a fact of life. It is the backbone of biology. It happens. The theory of evolution is the explanation that describes how it happens.


Of course, none of this addresses my claim that your arguments are fallacious, which you did seem to acknowledge. So that leads me to the question, why continue to knowingly make fallacious arguments?

Whether it's short or long time, yes, in (the theory) of evolution of the Darwinian kind, they morph. Long and short of it.

 

[Polymath257]

Does soil and human flesh have some things in common, by the way?

Sure. But you can pick any two things and there is likely to be *something* in common.

In this case, soil and flesh are both made out of atoms.

But there is a very wide variety of types of soil, so saying anything more than that would require you to be more precise in your question.

 

[Polymath257]

Whether it's short or long time, yes, in (the theory) of evolution of the Darwinian kind, they morph. Long and short of it.

No individual 'morphs'. Populations change in their characteristics over time. But you don't get sudden changes, and each stage is similar to the ones before and after.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I do. Without a beginning and knowing the beginning, you can't have evolution because just to say something looks like something else in Darwinian terms doesn't mean all these different kinds emerged or evolved. A beginning is necessary and without life, there is no theoretical evolution. Looks or no looks.

We know life exists. Evolution describes how living things change over time.

Abiogenesis investigates how life got started. That is a very different subject.

Even if life got started by some deity breathing 'life' into the first cells, evolution is *still* how life changed since that time.

Just like you don't need to know how planets formed to know how to calculate their orbits, you don't need to know how the first life arose to know that since that time species have changed. And that is evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

I am saying that however any plant or animal or human came about, the basic undertaking is not simple mechanics, as in mechanical engineering i.e., evolution and "survival of the fittest." Now you're a bright enough person, so I expect that with or without the theory of evolution as it stands today, life is greater than that. No matter how the process works.

The way genetics can change and alter the phenotypic expression (what an organism looks like is anything but simple. It is an amazing creative process that has more than enough ability to create all that is around us including humans. It is not simple mechanics nor is it mechanical engineering.

Now please help me understand why you evade my question on fossils. You deny them as evidence but refuse to explain them. Please help me understand your explanation for fossils and the various life forms they represent or accept that they are clear evidence supporting evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

Whether it's short or long time, yes, in (the theory) of evolution of the Darwinian kind, they morph. Long and short of it.

They do not just morph what ever that is. The truth is that there is no evidence that will convince you because you do not want to accept the evidence and it implications. You wont even give your explanation on the evidence.

Why does it bother you so much to be related to other apes and other life in general? Do you think that makes you a lesser person? Truthfully when you watch gorillas work as a family so peacefully it is rather inspiring. Compare that to humans that seem to want to kill each other.

 

[night912]

Yes, I do. Without a beginning and knowing the beginning, you can't have evolution because just to say something looks like something else in Darwinian terms doesn't mean all these different kinds emerged or evolved. A beginning is necessary and without life, there is no theoretical evolution. Looks or no looks.

And you once again proved that you don't understand. The Theory of Evolution deals only with established lifeforms, not with the origin of how lifeforms began. It's the same as driving a car. Knowing how to drive a car has nothing to do with knowing how a car was made.

Perhaps a biblical analogy can help you understand. The teachings of Jesus regarding how one is saved, has nothing to do with Genesis 1, how the world was created.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me ask you this: do you think life exists outside the body? Or a body, including plants?

Your question makes no sense to me.

It's like asking "do you believe wood can exist without trees?"

 

[rational experiences]

Spiritual human teachers proved we never owned death.

By disappearing in bodily human form in a particular cause.

Reappeared were living after then died.

Reason. God. Stone. Gas mass that never owned sun metal. As the sun attacked converted earth mass and placed metal into form.

A human can claim I gained bodily evidence of under skin tissue a radiation effect that unnaturally cooled an influx of radiation penetrating the bio body that cooled.

Metal that once stone held inside of its own fusion.

Men in science said their proof that creation God was not human was in the saviour presence.

Saviour ice reforming end of each year.
Water as mass.
God stone spirit returning out of wandering star. Aster oid.

Lesser radiation allowed bodily de man ifestation.

As water existed created held to earths ground.

Nature garden oxygenating.

Human life knows what it depends upon to be their owned higher form.

Stated the garden nature was evicted. So was I bodily evicted.

Common sense.

That status is not evolution.

Science converting dusts was stopped.

Ground evaporation was lessened.

Nature garden however could not return. The ground state removed.

If science says human form lived mutated then what change would allow it to disappear?

Not evolution.

As water mass exists. So does oxygenation.

Only radiation lessening would allow for change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whether it's short or long time, yes, in (the theory) of evolution of the Darwinian kind, they morph. Long and short of it.

No. They. Do. Not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I do. Without a beginning and knowing the beginning, you can't have evolution because just to say something looks like something else in Darwinian terms doesn't mean all these different kinds emerged or evolved. A beginning is necessary and without life, there is no theoretical evolution. Looks or no looks.

No, you clearly do not.

As I and several other posters pointed out just a couple of days ago, all you need for evolution to occur is LIFE. That's it. You don't even need to know how that life arrived or where it came from.