Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[YoursTrue]

I have never changed facts. But if you want to continue you will at least have to follow the Ninth Commandment. Christians that cannot follow their own rulebook are not worth wasting my time.

By the way, when I used the word 'you' changed facts, I meant the great you as in evolutionists. How come you all don't have the same opinion based on the "facts"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if we're not evolved from modern apes, how do you know what ancestral apes looked like? Have pictures?

Why do you think that we need pictures?

Remember when I asked if you can be honest? Right now you are not being honest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly how and where was I "opening lying"? You just make those statements without proof. Please tell me where you think I was lying, thank you.

You repeated obviously false claims even after you were corrected. Now you may not understand how your claims were false but that is no excuse if you have been corrected. For example you continually used the word "conjecture". You can't support that false claim and if you asked politely I could have explained why it is wrong. Also do you understand that the Ninth Commandment is an order that covers a broader scope than just being a ban on lying?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So for decades they taught primordial soup origin. What happened? It disappeared?

Once again, you are admitting that you were wrong about evolution. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So why did scientists begin to figure maybe it wasn't primordial soup after all? Do you believe it was? Or do you go along with the ever-changing stream of so-called facts?

I am going to change topics until you admit that you were wrong about the last one. Why do you keep trying to change the topic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, when I used the word 'you' changed facts, I meant the great you as in evolutionists. How come you all don't have the same opinion based on the "facts"?

But we don't. Your inability to understand does not mean that facts have been changed. And if you are going to use a term how about "realist"? And we can call you a fantasist. Sound good?

 

[gnostic]

No,it's not. That's what evolution is. It's primarily one form of life becoming another distinctly different organism. An ape that morphs into a human would necessarily still have been able to have sexual activity with another recently morphed humanoid ape OR one that remained as an ape.

I seriously think you don’t understand what are the definition of apes in biology.

What creationists and any theist that don’t have qualifications in biology or biology-related fields, is that existing species of one genus (tribe and family) can evolve into species of another genus (or tribe and family).

For instance, the species of modern domestic cats (Felis catus) and the species of modern lions (Panthera leo), belonged to different genera and different subfamilies, but they do share common ancestry at the “family” level - the family Felidae.

The cats belonged to the genus Felis, and the subfamily Felinae.

The lions belonged to the genus Panthera and the subfamily Pantherinae. Other big cats, like tigers, leopards, jaguars, also belonged to the same genus, Panthera.

Now despite belonging to the same family, cats (of today) can no more evolved into lions than lions can anymore evolved into domestic cats.

All lions (as well as leopards, tiger, jaguars of the Panthera genus, cougars of the Puma genus, all lynx species of the Lynx genus, and so on with different genera and their respective species) and all cats are Felidae.

Back to the ape.

Biology described and explained that different sub-families, tribes and sub-tribes, genera and species (and subspecies) of the family Hominidae, which Hominidae are more commonly referred to as “great apes”.

The great apes include all living genera and species, that fall under Hominidae family, so orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (genus Gorilla), both bonobos and chimpanzees (genus Pan) and humans (genus Homo) are all “great apes”.

There are only two sub-families: Ponginae and Homininae.

All genera of Gorilla, Pan and Homo falls under the Homininae lineages, while the genus Pongo (eg orangutans) is the only one that belonged to the sub-family Ponginae.

Regardless of the species that the genera, tribes and sub-families they belonged to, they are all great apes, including the species Homo sapiens.

But chimpanzees cannot give birth to humans, and humans cannot give birth to chimpanzees. You are assuming that species can jump from one genus to the other genus, from one generation to the immediate next. That’s not how evolution work.

Nor did humans evolved from chimpanzees. A much older species than both the Homo species and Pan species, diverge at some point (between 5.5 and 6 billion years ago).

Your mistake is thinking that modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens (35-40,000 years ago, which is subspecies of Homo sapiens) were around during this divergence. The oldest Homo sapiens have only been around 200,000 years. Homo sapiens, like that of the Neanderthals and Denisovans diverge and evolved from the Homo heidelbergensis, and different points in times.

What is am saying, that modern humans and modern chimpanzees weren’t around at the time of this divergence. Scientists are not certain, which species exist before this divergence, but it could be the 7 million year old extinct Hominini species, the Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Scientists cannot confirmed this yet, because they required more fossils, more data.

 

[nPeace]

All conjecture -- human evolution | Stages & Timeline

Seems clear to me.
That we and the extinct hominins are somehow related and that we and the apes, both living and extinct, are also somehow related is accepted by anthropologists and biologists everywhere. Yet the exact nature of our evolutionary relationships has been the subject of debate and investigation since the great British naturalist Charles Darwin published his monumental books On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871). Darwin never claimed, as some of his Victorian contemporaries insisted he had, that “man was descended from the apes,” and modern scientists would view such a statement as a useless simplification—just as they would dismiss any popular notions that a certain extinct species is the “missing link” between humans and the apes. There is theoretically, however, a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. This ancestral species does not constitute a “missing link” along a lineage but rather a node for divergence into separate lineages. This ancient primate has not been identified and may never be known with certainty, because fossil relationships are unclear even within the human lineage, which is more recent. In fact, the human “family tree” may be better described as a “family bush,” within which it is impossible to connect a full chronological series of species, leading to Homo sapiens, that experts can agree upon.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that we need pictures?

Remember when I asked if you can be honest? Right now you are not being honest.

I was being funny, sorry you didn't think so. So let me be plainer about the matter. How do you know what ancestral apes looked like?

 

[YoursTrue]

Seems clear to me.
That we and the extinct hominins are somehow related and that we and the apes, both living and extinct, are also somehow related is accepted by anthropologists and biologists everywhere. Yet the exact nature of our evolutionary relationships has been the subject of debate and investigation since the great British naturalist Charles Darwin published his monumental books On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871). Darwin never claimed, as some of his Victorian contemporaries insisted he had, that “man was descended from the apes,” and modern scientists would view such a statement as a useless simplification—just as they would dismiss any popular notions that a certain extinct species is the “missing link” between humans and the apes. There is theoretically, however, a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. This ancestral species does not constitute a “missing link” along a lineage but rather a node for divergence into separate lineages. This ancient primate has not been identified and may never be known with certainty, because fossil relationships are unclear even within the human lineage, which is more recent. In fact, the human “family tree” may be better described as a “family bush,” within which it is impossible to connect a full chronological series of species, leading to Homo sapiens, that experts can agree upon.

Yes. And when I studied evolution, the primordial soup was the conjectured explanation for life evolving after that. And I accepted that, was a scholarship winner. I did not believe in the Bible at that time and that was the belief of the origin of life that I held onto until I began to read and study the Bible. But now the concept of the primordial soup has changed among scientists. In contrast to that, Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life." John 14:6.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was being funny, sorry you didn't think so. So let me be plainer about the matter. How do you know what ancestral apes looked like?

Fossil evidence. Did you watch that video that I linked? There are experts at reconstruction, not just for fossils, the same science is used by police to reconstruct faces of the bodies of victims that are found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. And when I studied evolution, the primordial soup was the conjectured explanation for life evolving after that. And I accepted that, was a scholarship winner. I did not believe in the Bible at that time and that was the belief of the origin of life that I held onto until I began to read and study the Bible. But now the concept of the primordial soup has changed among scientists. In contrast to that, Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life." John 14:6.

Overly simplistic explanations are almost always wrong. It was never a "soup". It was dumbed down to that for precollege classes. Now we are learning more and more about how life probably arose. But that is as separate topic. Moving the goalposts is an action that one takes when one has lost the argument. By moving it to abiogenesis, a separate but related topic, you were tacitly admitting that you were wrong about evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seems clear to me.
That we and the extinct hominins are somehow related and that we and the apes, both living and extinct, are also somehow related is accepted by anthropologists and biologists everywhere. Yet the exact nature of our evolutionary relationships has been the subject of debate and investigation since the great British naturalist Charles Darwin published his monumental books On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871). Darwin never claimed, as some of his Victorian contemporaries insisted he had, that “man was descended from the apes,” and modern scientists would view such a statement as a useless simplification—just as they would dismiss any popular notions that a certain extinct species is the “missing link” between humans and the apes. There is theoretically, however, a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. This ancestral species does not constitute a “missing link” along a lineage but rather a node for divergence into separate lineages. This ancient primate has not been identified and may never be known with certainty, because fossil relationships are unclear even within the human lineage, which is more recent. In fact, the human “family tree” may be better described as a “family bush,” within which it is impossible to connect a full chronological series of species, leading to Homo sapiens, that experts can agree upon.

What seems clear to you? That the word "conjecture" was abused? There is no doubt about that.

Didn't I already give you a slam dunk that you ran away from the proved it was not (for anyone with the ability to understand a not too advanced article) that we share a common ancestor with other apes? Fossil evidence is only one small part of the evidence for evolution. Unfortunately you do not even understand the concept of evidence and refuse to learn. I have offered to go over the concept with you multiple times. For some reason you run away.

 

[Thief]

thinking about Adam.....

and God said ....Let us make Man in our own image

that would be spiritual
but working through substance to get there

so the initial effort would have that crude and unruly condition
that snatch and grab that we see in primates

an alteration was needed
Man (as a primate) would overrun the resources before any spirit could gel

Chapter Two ......Genesis

the upgrade

 

[YoursTrue]

I seriously think you don’t understand what are the definition of apes in biology.

What creationists and any theist that don’t have qualifications in biology or biology-related fields, is that existing species of one genus (tribe and family) can evolve into species of another genus (or tribe and family).

For instance, the species of modern domestic cats (Felis catus) and the species of modern lions (Panthera leo), belonged to different genera and different subfamilies, but they do share common ancestry at the “family” level - the family Felidae.

The cats belonged to the genus Felis, and the subfamily Felinae.

The lions belonged to the genus Panthera and the subfamily Pantherinae. Other big cats, like tigers, leopards, jaguars, also belonged to the same genus, Panthera.

Now despite belonging to the same family, cats (of today) can no more evolved into lions than lions can anymore evolved into domestic cats.

All lions (as well as leopards, tiger, jaguars of the Panthera genus, cougars of the Puma genus, all lynx species of the Lynx genus, and so on with different genera and their respective species) and all cats are Felidae.

Back to the ape.

Biology described and explained that different sub-families, tribes and sub-tribes, genera and species (and subspecies) of the family Hominidae, which Hominidae are more commonly referred to as “great apes”.

The great apes include all living genera and species, that fall under Hominidae family, so orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (genus Gorilla), both bonobos and chimpanzees (genus Pan) and humans (genus Homo) are all “great apes”.

There are only two sub-families: Ponginae and Homininae.

All genera of Gorilla, Pan and Homo falls under the Homininae lineages, while the genus Pongo (eg orangutans) is the only one that belonged to the sub-family Ponginae.

Regardless of the species that the genera, tribes and sub-families they belonged to, they are all great apes, including the species Homo sapiens.

But chimpanzees cannot give birth to humans, and humans cannot give birth to chimpanzees. You are assuming that species can jump from one genus to the other genus, from one generation to the immediate next. That’s not how evolution work.

Nor did humans evolved from chimpanzees. A much older species than both the Homo species and Pan species, diverge at some point (between 5.5 and 6 billion years ago).

Your mistake is thinking that modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens (35-40,000 years ago, which is subspecies of Homo sapiens) were around during this divergence. The oldest Homo sapiens have only been around 200,000 years. Homo sapiens, like that of the Neanderthals and Denisovans diverge and evolved from the Homo heidelbergensis, and different points in times.

What is am saying, that modern humans and modern chimpanzees weren’t around at the time of this divergence. Scientists are not certain, which species exist before this divergence, but it could be the 7 million year old extinct Hominini species, the Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Scientists cannot confirmed this yet, because they required more fossils, more data.

Here is what I am saying: for a line of apes and humans or any animal to exist, they must procreate. Evolving in the concept, they still must procreate, even in the tiniest of incremental changes. Sexual reproduction is necessary for primates to continue, lemurs in their form, apes in theirs, humans in theirs. That requires a male and female at the progressive stages. So going over it again, for evolution to hold true, the species and purported changes evolving to another form of species such as apes (not mutations), must necessarily involve sexual interchange of matter between a male and female.

 

[YoursTrue]

What seems clear to you? That the word "conjecture" was abused? There is no doubt about that.

Didn't I already give you a slam dunk that you ran away from the proved it was not (for anyone with the ability to understand a not too advanced article) that we share a common ancestor with other apes? Fossil evidence is only one small part of the evidence for evolution. Unfortunately you do not even understand the concept of evidence and refuse to learn. I have offered to go over the concept with you multiple times. For some reason you run away.

We share common elements with the soil also. This does not prove that soil miraculously and slowly grew or evolved into animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is what I am saying: for a line of apes and humans or any animal to exist, they must procreate. Evolving in the concept, they still must procreate, even in the tiniest of incremental changes. Sexual reproduction is necessary for primates to continue, lemurs in their form, apes in theirs, humans in theirs. That requires a male and female at the progressive stages. So going over it again, for evolution to hold true, the species and purported changes evolving to another form of species such as apes (not mutations), must necessarily involve sexual interchange of matter between a male and female.

It takes a population, not just one male and one female. Populations evolve. Individuals do not. How new languages arise are fairly analogous to how life evolves. Once again a population is involved and it is the change in the population as a whole, not just two individuals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We share common elements with the soil also. This does not prove that soil miraculously and slowly grew or evolved into animals.

Perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence before you move on.

 

[Thief]

Here is what I am saying: for a line of apes and humans or any animal to exist, they must procreate. Evolving in the concept, they still must procreate, even in the tiniest of incremental changes. Sexual reproduction is necessary for primates to continue, lemurs in their form, apes in theirs, humans in theirs. That requires a male and female at the progressive stages. So going over it again, for evolution to hold true, the species and purported changes evolving to another form of species such as apes (not mutations), must necessarily involve sexual interchange of matter between a male and female.

and if there is an interference.....
a chosen specimen
altered form

then find a suitable female?

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence before you move on.

So then is the fact that we as humans have elements the soil has evidence that we evolved?