Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[Polymath257]

In reference to your statement that given enough time, humans would develop into something different than the present form, one point is that there are apparently, as I've read, only a few genes different between gorillas and humans. In other words, that difference makes the difference. And -- no one know what the in-between is, or perhaps better put, how the genes developed from some "unknown common ancestor" to the gorillas, bonobos, monkeys, etc., despite their closeness of genes the gap is -- rather signifcant.

But we *do* know, in general, how genes change. They duplicate, then mutate. We even know specific mutations that occurred in the human line (concerning growth of the throat and head, mostly). We don't know for gorillas and chimps because those species are far less studied.

 

[YoursTrue]

But we *do* know, in general, how genes change. They duplicate, then mutate. We even know specific mutations that occurred in the human line (concerning growth of the throat and head, mostly). We don't know for gorillas and chimps because those species are far less studied.

I'm surprised because believers in evolution say that humans or homo erectus are close genetically to bonobos and gorillas, don't they?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not responsive to the point. Was there a time in the past when there were living things and no gorillas or chimpanzees?

Yes. I thought I was responsive to the point, sorry. The account in Genesis does say that first came plants, then came animals.

Are all living things now descendants of living things from that time in the past?

I do not believe so, if by your question you mean did all living things evolve from that which purportedly started in the past, moving on (evolving) by natural selection? Since I wasn't there -- to observe how it happened -- I can only say that it no longer seems credible to me that animals evolved from plants or other organisms. (especially by 'natural selection').

 

[Polymath257]

I'm surprised because believers in evolution say that humans or homo erectus are close genetically to bonobos and gorillas, don't they?

Well, closer to chimps and bonobos. Gorillas are a slightly different side branch.

But we don't have genetics on H. erectus, so determining the exact mutations involved between us and H erectus or between H erectus and, say autralopithecines, or between these and chimps and/or bonobos is simply not possible.

But, like I said, we *do* know several specific genes that are different in humans and chimps. And those are related to, for example, the development of the throat (so that speech is possible).

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. I thought I was responsive to the point, sorry. The account in Genesis does say that first came plants, then came animals.

Which is incorrect according to the fossil record. Land plants came before land animals, but that isn't true of water varieties, both of which have unicellular precursors.

I do not believe so, if by your question you mean did all living things evolve from that which purportedly started in the past, moving on (evolving) by natural selection? Since I wasn't there -- to observe how it happened -- I can only say that it no longer seems credible to me that animals evolved from plants or other organisms. (especially by 'natural selection').

Huh? Who said that animals evolved from plants? Animals, plants, and fungi are different kingdoms and all evolved out of one-celled precursors.

So, you think that some things alive today did not have ancestors 10 million years ago?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you accept that there was a geological epoch called the Miocene that began about 23 million years ago and ended about 5.3 million years ago, and that many species of apes lived during the Miocene epoch? Do you also accept that there were no chimpanzees during the Miocene epoch (no fossil chimpanzees have been found in Miocene rocks)? Do you also accept that modern chimpanzees are descended from ancestors that lived during the Miocene epoch? If so, what do you think these ancestors were?

Hi. Here is something to think about: Evolutionary Dispute: Most Human Origins Stories Are Not Compatible With Known Fossils
In fact... scientists are far from agreeing on a scientific basis. Interesting article.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which is incorrect according to the fossil record. Land plants came before land animals, but that isn't true of water varieties, both of which have unicellular precursors.



Huh? Who said that animals evolved from plants? Animals, plants, and fungi are different kingdoms and all evolved out of one-celled precursors.

So, you think that some things alive today did not have ancestors 10 million years ago?

once again, scientists are rather divided about the Darwinian concept.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi. Here is something to think about: Evolutionary Dispute: Most Human Origins Stories Are Not Compatible With Known Fossils
In fact... scientists are far from agreeing on a scientific basis. Interesting article.

Just for the record: you do understand that that article deals with reconstructing the evolutionary path, the evolutionary history of how humans evolved, right?

Note how the article treats it as fact that humans and chimps both evolved from a common ancestor that lived some 7 million years ago.

 

[metis]

Hi. Here is something to think about: Evolutionary Dispute: Most Human Origins Stories Are Not Compatible With Known Fossils
In fact... scientists are far from agreeing on a scientific basis. Interesting article.

Please do not conflate details with the overall big picture, thus the article should be taken in that context.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi. Here is something to think about: Evolutionary Dispute: Most Human Origins Stories Are Not Compatible With Known Fossils
In fact... scientists are far from agreeing on a scientific basis. Interesting article.

Do you think that debate, discussion and different approaches by scientists over the details of the evolution of a specific group or species refutes the theory?

It has been pointed out to you in the past that considering a lack of consensus over details is no logical basis to reject a theory.

What do you want the recognition of this article to convey to those of us here?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

once again, scientists are rather divided about the Darwinian concept.

What do you mean by "Darwinian concept"? Do you think there are significant divided camps among scientists of those that do not think living things today had ancestors in the remote past and those that do?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. I thought I was responsive to the point, sorry. The account in Genesis does say that first came plants, then came animals.

I do not believe so, if by your question you mean did all living things evolve from that which purportedly started in the past, moving on (evolving) by natural selection? Since I wasn't there -- to observe how it happened -- I can only say that it no longer seems credible to me that animals evolved from plants or other organisms. (especially by 'natural selection').

Why do you think that animals evolved from plants? That isn't an idea promoted in science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi. Here is something to think about: Evolutionary Dispute: Most Human Origins Stories Are Not Compatible With Known Fossils
In fact... scientists are far from agreeing on a scientific basis. Interesting article.

If two witnesses disagree over the details of an auto accident, do you consider that disagreement to mean the accident did not take place?

 

[Polymath257]

once again, scientists are rather divided about the Darwinian concept.

Darwin wrote before the science of genetics was discovered. His basic idea (mutation and natural selection) is correct, but the details needed to be updated when we learned about DNA and how it works.

No, scientists are not 'divided' about evolution. There is debate about some of the specifics, but not about the overall theory.

Also, you did not answer my question. Do living things today have ancestors that lived 10 million years ago? Science says yes. And that means that chimps and humans are descended from animals that were not chimps or humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

If two witnesses disagree over the details of an auto accident, do you consider that disagreement to mean the accident did not take place?

Life took place. It takes place. But now that I think about it, how do you know when life began? Forget how right now. Concentrate on when you think life began.

 

[YoursTrue]

Darwin wrote before the science of genetics was discovered. His basic idea (mutation and natural selection) is correct, but the details needed to be updated when we learned about DNA and how it works.

No, scientists are not 'divided' about evolution. There is debate about some of the specifics, but not about the overall theory.

Also, you did not answer my question. Do living things today have ancestors that lived 10 million years ago? Science says yes. And that means that chimps and humans are descended from animals that were not chimps or humans.

Yes I answered your question. The scientific jury is hung when it considers when and how.
Evolutionary Dispute: Most Human Origins Stories Are Not Compatible With Known Fossils

 

[YoursTrue]

Please do not conflate details with the overall big picture, thus the article should be taken in that context.

I did not conflate anything. The article clearly states that the scientific jury is hung on the origin of man in its specifics, that's for sure. I didn't conflate or make it up. As a matter of fact, not conflation, it clearly states that fossils aren't compatible with known stories of human evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Darwin wrote before the science of genetics was discovered. His basic idea (mutation and natural selection) is correct, but the details needed to be updated when we learned about DNA and how it works.

No, scientists are not 'divided' about evolution. There is debate about some of the specifics, but not about the overall theory.

Also, you did not answer my question. Do living things today have ancestors that lived 10 million years ago? Science says yes. And that means that chimps and humans are descended from animals that were not chimps or humans.

Genetics prove that humans and animals have DNA. This again does not mean they evolved from chimpanzee to homo erectus.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Life took place. It takes place. But now that I think about it, how do you know when life began? Forget how right now. Concentrate on when you think life began.

Before we start moving to your questions, can you answer mine? I don't want to lose track of them or have to repeat myself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Genetics prove that humans and animals have DNA. This again does not mean they evolved from chimpanzee to homo erectus.

Actually, chemical analysis shows us that humans, other animals, plants, bacteria, fungi and viruses have DNA. Genetics shows us that the structure and arrangement of this DNA is the molecular basis of heritable traits that can be observed, tracked and associated with regions of that DNA.