Proof of evolution -at last-

[Valjean]

So you’re saying nobody claims this yet you claim this.

No. I'm saying nobody claims humans used to be apes.
I'm saying everyone familiar with human evolution and taxonomy says we are and always have been a species of ape.
It's accepted biology.

 

[Valjean]

My testimony isn’t hearsay and neither is the Bible. The gospels don’t contradict themselves they compliment each other.

When was Jesus crucified?
How many women went to Jesus' tomb?
What did they see when they got there?
What did they do when they left?
Different stories in different gospels.

Read some history and studies by Bibical scholars. No eyewitness to Jesus wrote any of the Bible. There are no first hand accounts of his words or deeds.

Who wrote Matthew?
Who wrote Mark?
Who wrote Luke?
Who wrote John?
All unknown.

The original manuscripts had no authors listed. The early Biblical compilations mentioned no authors. Authorship by the apostles was added later, to bolster the Gospels' credibility.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

My testimony isn’t hearsay and neither is the Bible. The gospels don’t contradict themselves they compliment each other.
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life —  that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us  —  what we have seen and heard we also declare to you, so that you may also have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭1:1-4‬ ‭CSB‬‬
Also like Hebrews 11

My turn!

The All is Mental; Spirit is Mind; The All is Spirit; Spirit is in All
As Above So Below; As Below So Above
Nothing Rests; Everything is in Motion; Everything Vibrates
Everything is Dual; Everything has Poles; Everything has its Pair of Opposites
Everything Flows to and fro; Everything has its Tides; Everything Rises and Falls; The Measure of the Pendulum to the Right equals its Measure to the Left
Every Cause has its Effect; Every Effect has Its Cause
Everything has its Masculine; Everything has its Feminine

Put positive energy out, and the outcome is positive energy!
Be the change you wish to see!
Aim to be a better 'you' tomorrow, than you were yesterday!
Aspire to be your best 'you'!
Positive begets positive, negative begets negative!
Energy of good intent runs cleaner and longer than energy of ill intent!

Edit for dating: "Micro-Book of Mark: 1:1" Written in the Holy (and hopefully better than last) year of 2022 when the Marching of the 19 soldiers had arrived at the final and third leg of their procession.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Abiogenesis is pretty much the opposite of creationism.
Abiogenesis holds that life arose naturally, by ordinary, observable, understandable chemical interactions.
Creationism holds that life arose by supernatural magic, ie: effect sans mechanism, through the intentional machinations of an invisible, omnipotent, uncreated being, with no objective evidence of existence.

When I was reading the Wikipedia page on Biogenesis when looking for the possible causes of Abiogenesis, in the main body of the article is the segment "Spontaneous Generation and its disproof".

When then glancing at the Wikipedia on Spontaneous Generation, is where I found the primitive idea of "maggots arising out of raw meat and fleas arising out of dust" without genetic progenitors.

I was just wondering if this idea of spontaneous generation of biogenesis is ever referenced and/or if it is recognized as synonymous to creationism?

Biogenesis - Wikipedia
Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

 

[ElishaElijah]

No. I'm saying nobody claims humans used to be apes.
I'm saying everyone familiar with human evolution and taxonomy says we are and always have been a species of ape.
It's accepted biology.

We don’t even have the same flesh as apes, think a little about the practical application of what you propose with evolution, how could this work? Even start with the ape community, they mate and have other apes. When did this transition happen to human? You can’t see the obvious problem with your theory?

*This was copied from an article and not my words*
No one has ever observed evolution, there are no transitional fossils at all, see my article on the missing transitional fossils here. Evolution either has to be drawn, illustrated, or animated, which means evolution is only true in a virtual world, or someone's imagination.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

We don’t even have the same flesh as apes, think a little about the practical application of what you propose with evolution, how could this work? Even start with the ape community, they mate and have other apes. When did this transition happen to human? You can’t see the obvious problem with your theory?

*This was copied from an article and not my words*
No one has ever observed evolution, there are no transitional fossils at all, see my article on the missing transitional fossils here. Evolution either has to be drawn, illustrated, or animated, which means evolution is only true in a virtual world, or someone's imagination.

All of the above are apes. You're failing to understand the definition of the word 'ape' versus 'chimp' or 'homo' as well as 'monkey'. Each have their own definition and placement within our great big family. Don't neglect the now extinct members, homo erectus and neanderthal and of course what was previously referred to as 'Cro-Magnon man'.

Then we must avoid one of the overused arguments our side likes to employ, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence." If you want to argue how all life came from the seas first before fauna was on the land. Seas of very different nature than we recognize. Eventually we arrive at the Abiogenesis studies of swamp muck and the corpuscles that were the first signs of life on this 3rd rock from the Sun.

 

[ElishaElijah]

All of the above are apes. You're failing to understand the definition of the word 'ape' versus 'chimp' or 'homo' as well as 'monkey'. Each have their own definition and placement within our great big family. Don't neglect the now extinct members, homo erectus and neanderthal and of course what was previously referred to as 'Cro-Magnon man'.

Then we must avoid one of the overused arguments our side likes to employ, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence." If you want to argue how all life came from the seas first before fauna was on the land. Seas of very different nature than we recognize. Eventually we arrive at the Abiogenesis studies of swamp muck and the corpuscles that were the first signs of life on this 3rd rock from the Sun.

Well you can classify yourself as an ape if you like but that’s not me so…
Definition of APE

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

"Did you know that there are 5 different types of apes (6 if we include humans)?

Yes, we are members of the group of great apes, which is part of the family of primates known as the Hominidae.

However, in traditional use, the term “apes” excludes humans. In this post, we’ll look at the 5 different types of apes, except humans."

Source: https://animalstart.com/types-of-apes/

 

[ElishaElijah]

"Did you know that there are 5 different types of apes (6 if we include humans)?

Yes, we are members of the group of great apes, which is part of the family of primates known as the Hominidae.

However, in traditional use, the term “apes” excludes humans. In this post, we’ll look at the 5 different types of apes, except humans."

Source: https://animalstart.com/types-of-apes/

Well it’s a bogus assumption to believe or classify humans in the same category as apes or any animal seen as we are in a totally different class, made in the image of God our Creator. He gave us authority and rule over the animal kingdom as we see right now in the Earth.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I would claim that yours is the bogus claim. As we do not rule the animal kingdom. Without our tools, the cattle would trample us without slowing down. Why couldn't the image we were created within, His image as you call it, be the image all life was created in? A cell or even an atom resembles what the Monad is described as, a single point surrounded by a circle representing The All Spirit in its resting state.

Well it’s a bogus assumption to believe or classify humans in the same category as apes or any animal seen as we are in a totally different class, made in the image of God our Creator. He gave us authority and rule over the animal kingdom as we see right now in the Earth.

Your dilution of the supremacy and perfection of Spirit is unnecessary. All is Mind. Mind is Spirit. The All is Spirit and Spirit is within All.

To apply human traits or agency to Spirit is a reversal of roles.
All that matters is matter, so all matter matters, and yet it really doesn't matter, because all of it is on some level, matter.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I would claim that yours is the bogus claim. As we do not rule the animal kingdom. Without our tools, the cattle would trample us without slowing down. Why couldn't the image we were created within, His image as you call it, be the image all life was created in? A cell or even an atom resembles what the Monad is described as, a single point surrounded by a circle representing The All Spirit in its resting state.

Can’t take this as a serious comment

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Can’t take this as a serious comment

How oddly easy it is to discover your inadequacies. All I have done is exhibit a similar style of reasoning and logic to your own. However, I don't doubt Spirit as you do. I know to attribute Spirit with any 'need' 'desire' 'purpose' or agency to change alter improve or maintain The All is futile.

You attempt, but cannot limit the unlimited. For infinity does not cease. As eternity did not begin. Thus, nothing but everything is The All and nothing can be taken from or added to The All.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?
.

Science provides insight into mechanisms. It's up to you to provide meaning that will inspire your life.

Are you interested in evidence?

 

[ElishaElijah]

How oddly easy it is to discover your inadequacies.

Does mankind rule over the animals? Yes without dispute we do yet you say we don’t. How is that a rational thought you had?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Does mankind rule over the animals? Yes without dispute we do yet you say we don’t. How is that a rational thought you had?

In the following four scenarios assume your toolkit/weapons are broken or were lost, leaving you with only the clothes and shoes you were wearing:

¹Would you mind showing a watering hole full of Crocodiles who rules who?

²Would you mind applying authority to show a pod of Hippos precisely where they belong in your dictatorship?

³Would you have any arguments if I asked you to enforce CPS (Cub Protective Service) on a mother bear?

⁴Would you do me a favor and go to Northern Canada and when you hear a wolf pack begin to howl their territory, howl in challenge of that territory claim, please?

Attempt none of the prior scenarios ANYWHERE outside of the safety of your man-made domicile which was crafted with the purpose in mind, that the animal kingdom can be a ruthless place.

I wonder if she would dispute your reign?

Many people underestimate the capabilities of Cougars. A fully grown Puma can carry a 113 kg (250 lbs.) buck up into a tree. If they don't get the drop on you, not too difficult to intimidate out of fighting for their meal, but the challenge is Ghost Cat's evolved traits and techniques for optimal stealth to silently stalk their stonks.

 

[ElishaElijah]

In the following four scenarios assume your toolkit/weapons are broken or were lost, leaving you with only the clothes and shoes you were wearing:

¹Would you mind showing a watering hole full of Crocodiles who rules who?

²Would you mind applying authority to show a pod of Hippos precisely where they belong in your dictatorship?

³Would you have any arguments if I asked you to enforce CPS (Cub Protective Service) on a mother bear?

⁴Would you do me a favor and go to Northern Canada and when you hear a wolf pack begin to howl their territory, howl in challenge of that territory claim, please?

Attempt none of the prior scenarios ANYWHERE outside of the safety of your man-made domicile which was crafted with the purpose in mind, that the animal kingdom can be a ruthless place.

I wonder if she would dispute your reign?

Many people underestimate the capabilities of Cougars. A fully grown Puma can carry a 113 kg (250 lbs.) buck up into a tree. If they don't get the drop on you, not too difficult to intimidate out of fighting for their meal, but the challenge is Ghost Cat's evolved traits and techniques for optimal stealth to silently stalk their stonks.

Yet mankind rules over all these animals, have a good one though, this line of reasoning is just too ridiculous to continue.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Strictly speaking you are correct. Consider this from evolution-outreach...

It is correct. No where in the theory of evolution does it claim, predict, postulate or show dependence on life arising in any particular way.

[ Biological evolution and abiogenesis are distinct branches of science, although they are closely related in the context of a holistic evolutionary conceptual framework
.Mar 11, 2010 ]
Note the latter part of that sentence.

I would have appreciated that you provided a complete reference, but never-the-less, this is an opinion stating that a scientific perspective regarding natural phenomenon and not an endorsement claiming that abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution. One natural process (biological evolution) is dependent on another (the existence of life) and that life had an origin. From a scientific perspective, that origin, while unknown, would be hypothesized as a natural phenomenon. That is all that quote means.

However to put it into perspective for you...all the natural evolutionists I have came across include abiogenesis in the broader theory. Why?

I have never come across a biologist that considers abiogenesis to be part of the basis of the theory of evolution. I have no idea how many you have met, nor do I know whether it would be representative of the group as a whole. I cannot imagine any of them claiming what you say. More likely, I would accept that you are mistaken or did not understand.

Consider this definition from the oxford languages dictionary...

[ the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. ]

"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

and this from biologyonline.com

[ The modern hypothesis of abiogenesis holds that the primitive life on Earth originated from lifeless matter and it took millions of years to transpire. This theory is the widely-accepted premise on the origin of life.Feb 27, 2021 ]

[ The terms abiogenesis and biogenesis were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley 1825–1895. He proposed that the term abiogenesis be used to refer to the process of spontaneous generation whereas the term biogenesis, to the process where life arises from similar life.Feb 27, 2021 ]

Huxley was a proponent of Darwin's natural evolution.

You could fill the pages with definitions. So what? You have not shown that the theory of evolution requires abiogenesis, when all it requires is life, heritable variation and natural selection.

It is clearly not mentioned in the theory of evolution.

Why consider abiogenesis a part of the broader context of evolutionary theory? Because the natural evolution we are discussing concerns life arising from earlier life all the way down and is a bid for getting rid of intelligent design. Now at some point we must conclude, going backward in time that life arose from what we might reasonably conclude is non-life. So what did this first life evolve from and how? That is a question that concerns all natural evolutionists. Do natural evolutionists simply say nothing? Or it didn't evolve? Is that how they conclude the theory?
Not if they wish to be rid of intelligent design.

It seems like you are drifting further and further from the point. A theory of evolution can be devised, evolution can be studied and predictions and understanding can occur without knowing how life formed.

Specifically, no it isn’t. The evolution of life after life has somehow become existent and the creation of life before its existence involve different arguments about different processes. However as pointed out above the two are intimately connected in the naturalists bid to get rid of intelligent design.

Intelligent design failed, because it was religion disguised as science. None of its claims hold up to scrutiny. And the motives of the movement were to get state-sponsored support of religion in the public square and not to discover a designer.

Generally speaking the theory of evolution IS about how life first arose and then evolved. Abiogenesis is as much a part of natural evolutionist theory as natural selection is.

No it is not. Your speculation isn't evidence that it is. All you have offered beyond that are definitions and opinions, but you cannot show where it is based on life forming in any particular way.

Why? Because if life was intelligently created with a purpose of propagating then anything after that creation would not be natural. And no natural evolutionist would like that. And then of course one would also simply be pushing the question further down the line by asking where the intelligence that existed which created life came from itself?
No abiogenesis, no natural evolution.

Unsupported speculation. And you will have to explain this to the creationists that do recognize evolution.

Evolutionary theory presumes as axiomatic that life arose from non-life in an undirected process.

Your opinion, but not a fact or supported by facts.

I would bet that you would be hard pressed to find a proponent of abiogenesis that wasn’t a natural evolutionist.

Who cares. It is irrelevant. It is neither support or evidence against your claim. I would bet that you would be hard pressed to find a proponent of abiogenesis that supports the idea that life was formed by pixies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yet mankind rules over all these animals, have a good one though, this line of reasoning is just too ridiculous to continue.

I disagree in the interpretation. I do not think dominion means rule, but stewardship. I don't think the animals agree either. Just watch someone walk into a pride of lions and explain to them that he rules them.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

We don't share languages for civil discourse, and we cannot share territories without risking the safety of our species, hence the reason we forced predators to the outskirts of the most remote areas of wilderness. We cannot command or control them, so we must ostracize and starve them?

So, If our definition of 'rule over' here is equivalent to driving a species the brink of extinction, and in some cases effectively causing the extinction of other species. In that case, I suppose we 'rule' about as efficiently as one could expect. With a hearty dose of malevolence. What a 'good design' that results in such a malign challenge. (sarcasm). Just don't get caught in the wilderness unprepared, without our technologies and/or tools. Follow the simple guidelines of survival, and don't lose/let your defense apron/tool break and you should be fine.

For a comedic angle of domestication of the Felis species; Who rules who? Who feeds who? Who cleans up who's feces?
I have 2 cats, and I'm pretty sure they're taking advantage of my empathetic tendencies to get their way from me. Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap!
I could refuse to take care of them, but then I would have to witness my "cyute wittow kitties" suffering, and I doubt I could bear that without breaking down to their sovereignty again. I call domesticated pets a master/slave relationship, and it isn't necessarily beneficial to any of the involved parties.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I disagree in the interpretation. I do not think dominion means rule, but stewardship. I don't think the animals agree either. Just watch someone walk into a pride of lions and explain to them that he rules them.

So do lions rule over humans now? This is too funny, you really made this comment.