Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[Polymath257]

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

OK, so *something* alive 10 million years ago was an ancestor of humans today and *something* alive 10 million years ago was the ancestor of chimps today.

Also, neither humans nor chimps lived 10 million years ago.

So, whatever the ancestors were, they *changed* into modern humans and chimps. That is evolution.

Your article only shows there is debate about the specifics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Argument over the details of hominid evolution among scientist tells us about the views of some scientists. It tells us nothing about your view on the ancestry of living things.

Are we to infer that you recognize that humans and other apes share a common ancestry 10 million years ago and you are up in the air over the details of the connections since then?

 

[Polymath257]

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

Once again, *something* alive 10 million years ago was an ancestor of modern chimps. And whatever it was, it was NOT a chimp.

An, again, nobody says that modern humans evolved from chimps. Nor do they claim that Homo erectus evolved from chimps.

The claim is that there was a common ancestor to both chimps and Homo erectus. That ancestor was NOT a chimp and it was NOT a Homo erectus.

 

[rational experiences]

Men said I look at the ape claim most of my man body is the apes biology.

Comparing.

Lying.

A human by biology is one whole exact self not an ape.

We might own similar biology chemistry but we are a whole body not just some extra cell mass or data.

Science infers it as just extra data or just some extra cells added onto the ape. As if they could add in some small mass of input and the ape would develop into the human.

Mr destroyer is told you are not God history in any term.

Truth.

Who uses scientific human group cult mentality to over lord rational natural humans.

By wielding science human statements not natural life as the utmost truth.

If you ask men why did you choose to change your previous scare tactic title satanist to scientist?

Why did rich men satanic book dead pyramid temple supporters hide and hide their riches? The exact same human behaviours witnessed today.

To be able to reapply the same behaviours.

If you ask him what is his intention in wanting to believe his comparing biology for? As a human man exact place in biology.

I will time shift earths mass myself then put it all back so it shouldn't de evolve life's forms. I'm trying to data place all earth history in orders.

The thesis is de evolve first then water cool. Deformed biology as attacked.

No he says you lie. I'm not lying about what I believe. Looks at ape first not self.

Is what he using his thoughts only against reality.

Oh and his first thesis is to make earths mass disappear. Disappear is an exact status. A hole.

His thesis no..
Cloud mass covers the mountain and made it disappear from sight the thesis he references.

The relativity as the mountain face was melting disintegrating to its first dust... particles returned earth dust first. By invention.

As we began as dusts and not humans first says God theists.

 

[rational experiences]

In theism of men said when God mass was opened fusion disappeared and disappearing... water owning microbiology went inside of stone rock mass then sealed and returned stone from leaving.

God earth.

Dusts by the way reacting converting opening sin holes. Sink holes.

Why they claim life began with god in microbiology. Inside of stones mass itself inside fused rock.

It's why a human necklace was found in coal. It was why human artefacts machine parts are found fused inside earths mass.

The exact same human theist theorising life's destruction.

Only a human sacrificed biology learnt how evil their theist science brother is. I became psychic as i nearly died as a baby. Maybe your brother life sacrificed told the same story. Maybe he said his life was a miraculous baby as he nearly hadn't existed.

In DNA human biology. Fathers life body gone removed..
A miracle to live in his mother's life cell.

Scientists are Satanists.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Let me put it this way to you: there is no way you can tell when life began. That's it. Period.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

so? it does not prove or verify the theory of evolution at all. Heritable traits that can be observed, etc., is not evolution. But if you want to say it is, at this point, all I can say is: go for it. But it really does not mean evolution of the Darwinian kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, so *something* alive 10 million years ago was an ancestor of humans today and *something* alive 10 million years ago was the ancestor of chimps today.

Also, neither humans nor chimps lived 10 million years ago.

So, whatever the ancestors were, they *changed* into modern humans and chimps. That is evolution.

Your article only shows there is debate about the specifics.

Sorry, you're not convincing me at this point in my life. As I have said, I used to believe that the ToE was true. Didn't really matter what anyone said, including scientists. I fell for it all, or shrugged my shoulders if it didn't make sense. I did well in school, followed the theories and speculation. I didn't question it. But now I do not believe that life evolved to forms by so-called natural selection because I believe what Genesis says about creation. It's a long process, but that's the general gist of it. Bats remain bats, birds remain birds, and the fossil record does not prove otherwise. Chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, you're not convincing me at this point in my life. As I have said, I used to believe that the ToE was true. Didn't really matter what anyone said, including scientists. I fell for it all, or shrugged my shoulders if it didn't make sense. I did well in school, followed the theories and speculation. I didn't question it. But now I do not believe that life evolved to forms by so-called natural selection because I believe what Genesis says about creation. It's a long process, but that's the general gist of it. Bats remain bats, birds remain birds, and the fossil record does not prove otherwise. Chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, etc.

And how many times have you been told that there is no change of kinds in evolution.

You are still an ape, you are still a primate, you are still a mammal, you are still a vertebrate, you are still a chordate, you are still a eukayote. There has been no change of kind in your evolutionary history.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

so? it does not prove or verify the theory of evolution at all. Heritable traits that can be observed, etc., is not evolution. But if you want to say it is, at this point, all I can say is: go for it. But it really does not mean evolution of the Darwinian kind.

I did not say that it does. And have not. I merely clarified and corrected your statement.

The evidence of genetics does, however, support the theory and what we see regarding traits in populations is explained by the theory.

You often qualify evolution with the epithet "Darwinian". What other sorts of biological evolution are you trying to differentiate by applying that epithet?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let me put it this way to you: there is no way you can tell when life began. That's it. Period.

Let me put it to you this way. I would appreciate answers to my questions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

That article deals only with the how. Not the when. Or the if, for that matter.

The article treats it as a fact that humans and chimps share ancestors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It does not.

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.

With hypothesis concerning the exact evolutionary path the human lineage took.
There is no doubt that there is a human lineage that starts with a common ancestor with chimps.
Neither does the article cast any doubt on that. Au contraire: it treats it as fact.

The article does not say what you would like it to say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Genetics prove that humans and animals have DNA.

...and share ancestry.

This again does not mean they evolved from chimpanzee to homo erectus.

Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. The genetics doesn't support that either.
Humans share ancestors with chimpanzees. The genetics does support that. In fact, you could say that genetics proves that (insofar that anything can be "proven" in science - it doesn't get much better then this)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me put it this way to you: there is no way you can tell when life began. That's it. Period.

At least 3.8 billion years ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so? it does not prove or verify the theory of evolution at all.

It proves common ancestry of species (insofar that anything in science can be "proven").

Heritable traits that can be observed, etc., is not evolution. But if you want to say it is, at this point, all I can say is: go for it. But it really does not mean evolution of the Darwinian kind.

It actually does. Descend with modification followed by selection. So whenever heritable traits mutate and get passed on to the next generation, that's by definition evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But now I do not believe that life evolved to forms by so-called natural selection because I believe what Genesis says about creation.

Right. The crux of it all. The bottom line.

"I don't believe the science"
Why?
"because I have other a priori beliefs"

So it has nothing to do with evidence and everything with you simply believing something else.

This is the equivalent of saying "my evidence against evolution is that I don't believe it".

Bats remain bats, birds remain birds, and the fossil record does not prove otherwise. Chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, etc.

We've been over this a bazillion times before.

If bats would not remain bats, if birds would not remain birds,.... then evolution would be FALSIFIED

Homo Sapiens: still apes, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes,.....

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, you're not convincing me at this point in my life. As I have said, I used to believe that the ToE was true. Didn't really matter what anyone said, including scientists. I fell for it all, or shrugged my shoulders if it didn't make sense. I did well in school, followed the theories and speculation. I didn't question it. But now I do not believe that life evolved to forms by so-called natural selection because I believe what Genesis says about creation. It's a long process, but that's the general gist of it. Bats remain bats, birds remain birds, and the fossil record does not prove otherwise. Chimpanzees remain chimpanzees, etc.

And so that is a *hypothesis*. Now, how can we *test* that hypothesis?

How about by looking at the fossil record?

Do we find any chimps, gorillas, or humans from records 10 million years old? No.

Do we find *other* types of apes from that time period? yes.

Do we know that living things reproduce and have mutations? Yes.

So, if there are no chimps 10 million years ago, and there *are* chimps today, and if everything today is descended from something 10 million years ago, then *something* that was not a chimp evolved into modern chimps.

That shows your hypothesis is wrong.

And it isn't limited to chimps. The same basic facts hold for most other species. if you go back 30 million years, there were no modern giraffes, no modern rhinos, no modern elephants, etc.

Instead, there were *other* species.

And, again, if everything alive today is descended from something alive then, then *some* ancestor of giraffes was not a giraffe, *some* ancestor of elephants was not an elephant, etc.

And the range of species that was alive 30 million years ago was *very, very* different than what is alive today.

So, even if you want to say that we don't have *all* the fossils from that time (and we don't), there is still the fact that *no* modern giraffes, elephants, rhinos, chimps, humans, etc are present in 30 million year old rocks. NONE.

So, your hypothesis is shown to be wrong.

Now, what you want to do with that is up to you. If you think that your faith is more important than the evidence, than you will continue to believe as you do. many people take that approach. But scientists do not. For them (us), the evidence is more important than faith.

 

[metis]

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.

Yes, "specifics" is the operative word.

As a matter of fact, not conflation, it clearly states that fossils aren't compatible with known stories of human evolution.

There are numerous hypotheses within the scientific community with some of the details, but that in no way undermines the overall knowledge that we have about human evolution. As a matter of fact, we know much more objective information about human evolution than we know about God, and yet you and I still do believe in God even if of some of our "detailed" hypotheses don't match.

 

[metis]

As I have said, I used to believe that the ToE was true. Didn't really matter what anyone said, including scientists. I fell for it all, or shrugged my shoulders if it didn't make sense. I did well in school, followed the theories and speculation. I didn't question it. But now I do not believe that life evolved to forms by so-called natural selection because I believe what Genesis says about creation

So, you reject that which has insurmountable evidence and even stands to plain old common sense [all material items appear to change over time], and instead you believe in an interpretation of the Bible which is not objectively correct but also is an interpretation that most Christian theologians no longer accept.

To put it another way, you have used religion as a source of darkness instead of being enlightening. Fortunately, most Christian denominations do accept known science and also accept God being our Creator.