Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[gnostic]

The account in Genesis does say that first came plants, then came animals.

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.

There are possible two possibilities as to why YoursTrue wrote what he wrote:

1. YoursTrue never understood the evolution of animals for plants, so he wrote that out of misunderstanding (hence his ignorance on the subject).
2. YoursTrue Is using strawman, so he wrote in a very clumsy attempt to mislead us with misinformation (hence he does what many creationists do, use deception).

You are better at biology than me, Dan, but we both know that no biologists have claimed “animals evolve from plants”.

But I think it is “both”, he doesn’t understand the subject (Evolution), so he makes things up.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

Some people equate DNA differences as if somehow there is (was) a DNA link, albeit currently missing, between chimpanzees and humans, let me clarify, as if biologically by "natural selection" humans emerged from whatever animal they don't have proof of. Maybe I'm not explaining it properly but maybe you know what I mean. In other words, it's all suggestions as if somehow that must have happened somehow. ... that's one thing about why I mention Darwinian concept of evolution and why I no longer "see it". What I do see is that there are gaps in DNA combinations between chimpanzees and humans. And other forms without proof of in-betweens somehow emerging or evolving. Hope that helps to explain why I no longer believe evolution but rather believe that God is the cause of life. Do I think He created DNA? Yes. Do I think He made deformities? No.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

So let me ask you this, Metis, is God the creator of deformities?

 

[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.

...

Did I say something other than God and his Son and the angels may have been alive 10 million years ago? I don't think so. If I did please show.

 

[Polymath257]

Did I say something other than God and his Son and the angels may have been alive 10 million years ago? I don't think so. If I did please show.

We have plenty of fossils from that time period and before. And getting the age of the fossils doesn't depend on evolutionary theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some people equate DNA differences as if somehow there is (was) a DNA link, albeit currently missing, between chimpanzees and humans, let me clarify, as if biologically by "natural selection" humans emerged from whatever animal they don't have proof of. Maybe I'm not explaining it properly but maybe you know what I mean.

We know what you mean. Sort of.
Primarily, we know that you argue from a position of ignorance and strawmen.

What I do see is that there are gaps in DNA combinations between chimpanzees and humans.

Please.
First, that doesn't even make any sense "DNA combinations between chimps and humans" is utter word salad.
Secondly, you wouldn't recognize human OR chimp DNA if it came up and hit you upside the head while wearing a T-shirt saying "I'm Chimp/human DNA!"

And other forms without proof of in-betweens somehow emerging or evolving. Hope that helps to explain why I no longer believe evolution but rather believe that God is the cause of life. Do I think He created DNA? Yes. Do I think He made deformities? No.

Consider 2 orphans of unknown origins.
DNA testing can tell us that they are cousins.
Because DNA allows us to determine kinship / shared ancestry.

It matters not if the ancestors are known or not.
If you had the slightest clue, you'ld understand this.
And you wouldn't be writing word salad like above.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have plenty of fossils from that time period and before. And getting the age of the fossils doesn't depend on evolutionary theory.

Not saying they do, although time lines and dating can be controversial. And there are no documents demonstrating the form of a being with burgeoning DNA changes evolving to different forms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not saying they do, although time lines and dating can be controversial. And there are no documents demonstrating the form of a being with burgeoning DNA changes evolving to different forms.

Please be specific with claims. How are any time lines controversial? This is a science based discussion so sources that follow the scientific method should be used.

 

[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.

Once again, just for clarification purposes--did I say there was something alive 10 million years ago that gradually evolved to become apes or humans? I don't think so but please let me know if you think and can show that I said that. If I did, I'll look at it, but I don't think I said that there was something alive 10 million years ago that became (evolved to) chimpanzees or humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have plenty of fossils from that time period and before. And getting the age of the fossils doesn't depend on evolutionary theory.

Didn't say the theory depends on the age of the fossil. Although theoreticians may think it does.

 

[Polymath257]

Not saying they do, although time lines and dating can be controversial. And there are no documents demonstrating the form of a being with burgeoning DNA changes evolving to different forms.

What does that even mean? Seriously, think thorugh exactly what you are asking and see if it makes sense.

Once again, just for clarification purposes--did I say there was something alive 10 million years ago that gradually evolved to become apes or humans? I don't think so but please let me know if you think and can show that I said that. If I did, I'll look at it, but I don't think I said that there was something alive 10 million years ago that became (evolved to) chimpanzees or humans.

Yes, everything alive today is descended from something alive 10 million years ago. And *that* means the ancestor from that time period was different than the modern form since there were no chimps 10 million years ago.

The alternative is special creation. And if you want to claim that, you need to provide solid evidence. And you need to do that for *all* the species that were not around 10 million years ago but are now.

 

[Polymath257]

Didn't say the theory depends on the age of the fossil. Although theoreticians may think it does.

I didn't ask that way around. I said that the age does not depend on evolutionary theory. Nothing about evolutionary biology is required to determine the ages.

Instead, evolutionary theory is supported by the ages discovered. Knowing what was alive 10 million years ago (and other times) and comparing to what is alive today is part of the evidence for evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some people equate DNA differences as if somehow there is (was) a DNA link, albeit currently missing, between chimpanzees and humans, let me clarify, as if biologically by "natural selection" humans emerged from whatever animal they don't have proof of. Maybe I'm not explaining it properly but maybe you know what I mean. In other words, it's all suggestions as if somehow that must have happened somehow. ... that's one thing about why I mention Darwinian concept of evolution and why I no longer "see it". What I do see is that there are gaps in DNA combinations between chimpanzees and humans. And other forms without proof of in-betweens somehow emerging or evolving. Hope that helps to explain why I no longer believe evolution but rather believe that God is the cause of life. Do I think He created DNA? Yes. Do I think He made deformities? No.

What do you mean by DNA differences? Similarities in genes and sequence is evidence of a relationship. That evidence is not the only evidence.

By Darwinian concept, do you mean gradual change in populations driven by selection of the environment? You can just call it evolution. Darwin and his work was important and powerful, but we have moved on. It just looks like you are trying to deny science with word play using your own version of "ism". As if it isn't science or that science is stuck in the reality of 150 years ago. Neither of which is correct. Darwin is not the leader of a religion called Darwinism.

Do you drive or use a car, truck, van? Did you need to know or see the very first automobile built in order to use one today? There is no video. None of us alive today were there to see it. Apply your logic to the history of the automobile and see how sound it is.

Are there things about automobiles that show relationships between the different kinds or vehicles of the past?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not saying they do, although time lines and dating can be controversial. And there are no documents demonstrating the form of a being with burgeoning DNA changes evolving to different forms.

What does this mean?

Are you saying that if humans that had not yet evolved at the time were not there 10 million years ago taking notes and video, it didn't happen?

There is no DNA evidence from the fossil record, but no one is claiming they are using some sort of ancient DNA to show modern relationships. The sequence, gene and genome comparisons are on existing DNA and they do support the evolution and relationships of man and other hominids. There is other evidence besides DNA. Pointing out what no one is claiming about DNA is not going to help you minimize its value or lead it to rejection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Once again, just for clarification purposes--did I say there was something alive 10 million years ago that gradually evolved to become apes or humans? I don't think so but please let me know if you think and can show that I said that. If I did, I'll look at it, but I don't think I said that there was something alive 10 million years ago that became (evolved to) chimpanzees or humans.

No. You seemed to avoid a direct answer to the question entirely.

I would be interested in your answer to his questions?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. You seemed to avoid a direct answer to the question entirely.

I would be interested in your answer to his questions?

some things are left open to the listener to consider. If I thought life evolved by natural selection from whatever it is conjectured to have come from I'd say so. Because I'm speaking to you, I can only hope you'd understand. Beyond that I'll just say that I hope you have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does that even mean? Seriously, think thorugh exactly what you are asking and see if it makes sense.



Yes, everything alive today is descended from something alive 10 million years ago. And *that* means the ancestor from that time period was different than the modern form since there were no chimps 10 million years ago.

The alternative is special creation. And if you want to claim that, you need to provide solid evidence. And you need to do that for *all* the species that were not around 10 million years ago but are now.

The mechanics of life do not depend on what some think they should be. For instance, God is the originator of life, and allows it to continue, but he does not foreordain deformities. The Bible says He will do away with death and I believe that. Revelation 21:1-5.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not saying they do, although time lines and dating can be controversial.

In the minds of creationists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The mechanics of life do not depend on what some think they should be. For instance, God is the originator of life, and allows it to continue, but he does not foreordain deformities. The Bible says He will do away with death and I believe that. Revelation 21:1-5.

What do you mean with that comment concerning "deformities"?

 

[Polymath257]

The mechanics of life do not depend on what some think they should be. For instance, God is the originator of life, and allows it to continue, but he does not foreordain deformities. The Bible says He will do away with death and I believe that. Revelation 21:1-5.

Not responsive to the question. The mechanics of life is that living things reproduce. And everything alive today had an ancestor 100 years ago, and a different ancestor 10,000 years ago, and a different ancestor 10 million years ago. The line of descent is unbroken into the past.

Do you believe that everything alive today is descended from something alive 10 million years ago?

if not, why not? What *do* you think happened?

If so, then you have to admit that modern chimps are descended from primates that were not chimps.