Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[YoursTrue]

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.

So then, according to you, a population evolved,not just one male and one female, even though they had to have sexual interchange to continue. Yet which populations of different genres of animals do you see (or know of) evolving and procreating in the miniscule but distinctive changes moving on to a different form? Another point: would you say that since the populations of various kinds do not reproduce in a sustaining way (not speaking of mules, but of continuing reproduction), the interlinking population must have either remained the same within their kind, or died out. Since evolution was not my major, and since you are so convinced evolution is the way life continues, how do you explain the fact that populations of different kinds do not intermingle sexually in a sustaining way?

 

[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.

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I do agree that chimpanzees cannot give birth to humans. And similarly I do not see, according to evolution, that one species jumps to another even in the smallest incremental generational population changes.
Here is my point -- the conundrum: how do you explain that genetic changes were sexually transmitted from one genus to another, yet (the interlinking generations) are not operative today in terms of sexual activity between one distinctively different population to another? Do evolutionists posit this must be so but the fossil record has not yet been discovered? Another question -- is it possible the conjecture of this could change, just as the primordial soup idea changed?

 

[YoursTrue]

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

then find a suitable female?

Now that you mention this, Eve was not created as Adam was. She was made from Adam's rib. And as I refresh myself with the Genesis account, the animals, too, were created from the ground. (How did Moses know the animals and humans had elements from the ground?)
Genesis 2:19-22
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.20The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adamb no suitable helper was found. 21So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he slept, He took one of the man’s ribsc and closed up the area with flesh. 22And from the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man, He made a woman and brought her to him.
Again, I am in awe of the fabulous information in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Not what I said or implied. You can do better than this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I do agree that chimpanzees cannot give birth to humans. And similarly I do not see, according to evolution, that one species jumps to another even in the smallest incremental generational population changes.
Here is my point -- the conundrum: how do you explain that genetic changes were sexually transmitted from one genus to another, yet (the interlinking generations) are not operative today in terms of sexual activity between one distinctively different population to another? Do evolutionists posit this must be so but the fossil record has not yet been discovered? Another question -- is it possible the conjecture of this could change, just as the primordial soup idea changed?

But we have seen speciation time after time on the Earth. So that claim is wrong. There are thousands of examples of Cichlid evolution alone. And before you claim "but they are still Cichlids" do not forget that you are still an ape.

By the way, your conundrum is false. Evolution does not happen that way. At least not with vertebrates.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

The topic you bring out is about conjecture, as if scientists were not (are not guessing when it comes to logistics of evolution. Yet may I ask why it seems you are evading the fact that scientists are revising their theory about the primordial soup, once taught as fact and necessary to absorb as truth if one wanted to pass tests about the veracity of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then, according to you, a population evolved,not just one male and one female, even though they had to have sexual interchange to continue. Yet which populations of different genres of animals do you see (or know of) evolving and procreating in the miniscule but distinctive changes moving on to a different form? Another point: would you say that since the populations of various kinds do not reproduce in a sustaining way (not speaking of mules, but of continuing reproduction), the interlinking population must have either remained the same within their kind, or died out. Since evolution was not my major, and since you are so convinced evolution is the way life continues, how do you explain the fact that populations of different kinds do not intermingle sexually in a sustaining way?

What do you mean by "different form"? You once again seem to think that there is a large difference between us and other apes. Evolution is a slow steady process. It typically takes millions of years and the change in generation to generation will often be undetectable.

By the way, "kind" is a bogus term. It should not be used. Creationists cannot define it properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The topic you bring out is about conjecture, as if scientists were not (are not guessing when it comes to logistics of evolution. Yet may I ask why it seems you are evading the fact that scientists are revising their theory about the primordial soup, once taught as fact and necessary to absorb as truth if one wanted to pass tests about the veracity of evolution?

Sorry, but I do not mix abiogenesis and evolution. That was a dishonest attempt to move the goal posts. If you want to discuss it you need to first admit that you were wrong about evolution. Every time that you bring the subject up you are admitting that you are wrong whether you realize it or not.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not what I said or implied. You can do better than this.

Humans have elements the soil has. You know more about evolution than I do now, since I never studied it as deeply as you seem to have. Therefore, I ask you this: according to the primordial soup idea, soil must have emerged, come about, from the soup. Would you say that is true?

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by "different form"? You once again seem to think that there is a large difference between us and other apes. Evolution is a slow steady process. It typically takes millions of years and the change in generation to generation will often be undetectable.

By the way, "kind" is a bogus term. It should not be used. Creationists cannot define it properly.

You say humans are apes. Yet apes and humans cannot have sexual relations that make a baby, lol -- sorry I'm not using the terms you believe are accurate in the language of evolution -- you are way above me in this. And perhaps we can leave it at that right now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but I do not mix abiogenesis and evolution. That was a dishonest attempt to move the goal posts. If you want to discuss it you need to first admit that you were wrong about evolution. Every time that you bring the subject up you are admitting that you are wrong whether you realize it or not.

What do you mean by "different form"? You once again seem to think that there is a large difference between us and other apes. Evolution is a slow steady process. It typically takes millions of years and the change in generation to generation will often be undetectable.

By the way, "kind" is a bogus term. It should not be used. Creationists cannot define it properly.

There IS a large difference between humans and apes. A really large difference. Apes are stuck in their position, they are not evolving into some other ape-form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humans have elements the soil has. You know more about evolution than I do now, since I never studied it as deeply as you seem to have. Therefore, I ask you this: according to the primordial soup idea, soil must have emerged, come about, from the soup. Would you say that is true?

You can't ask a question based upon a strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say humans are apes. Yet apes and humans cannot have sexual relations that make a baby, lol -- sorry I'm not using the terms you believe are accurate in the language of evolution -- you are way above me in this. And perhaps we can leave it at that right now.

Right, that is because there are different species of apes. Chimpanzees and gorillas cannot breed and have babies either. Orangutans cannot breed with chimps, or gorillas, or man. Once the difference gets too large, even though one can see the group that several species belong to they will not be able to interbreed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Right, that is because there are different species of apes. Chimpanzees and gorillas cannot breed and have babies either. Orangutans cannot breed with chimps, or gorillas, or man. Once the difference gets too large, even though one can see the group that several species belong to they will not be able to interbreed.

I love it -- "once the difference gets too large!" Great! And what proof do you have of this? Evidence -- proof -- fossils? Anything? lol. Sorry, I laugh when something is so ridiculous, it's a personal quirk or failing on my part.

 

[YoursTrue]

You can't ask a question based upon a strawman.

How is it a strawman? That's what was taught in the subject of evolution. Primordial soup as the basis for emergence of life. Stop hurting yourself by making vain arguments against reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love it -- "once the difference gets too large!" Great! And what proof do you have of this? Evidence -- proof -- fossils? Anything? lol. Sorry, I laugh when something is so ridiculous, it's a personal quirk or failing on my part.

Fossils, DNA, ERV's. embryology, homologous structures, the list goes on and on. You are only looking at one small part of the evidence.

And you do not even understand the concept of evidence. How are you going to understand what is or what is not "proof"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is it a strawman? That's what was taught in the subject of evolution. Primordial soup as the basis for emergence of life. Stop hurting yourself by making vain arguments against reality.

Because that was never thought to be the case. It is over simplified.

And once again, you keep admitting that you are wrong about evolution every time that you bring it up. Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, it would have occurred if God made the first life. If the first life was from outer space. If the first life was made by little green pixies. It really does not apply to the debate at all which is why you are admitting that you are wrong by shifting the goal posts this far.

Don't worry, once you get evolution down we can revisit this topic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because that was never thought to be the case. It is over simplified.

And once again, you keep admitting that you are wrong about evolution every time that you bring it up. Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, it would have occurred if God made the first life. If the first life was from outer space. If the first life was made by little green pixies. It really does not apply to the debate at all which is why you are admitting that you are wrong by shifting the goal posts this far.

Don't worry, once you get evolution down we can revisit this topic.

It was taught for years in school that the primordial soup was the basis for life forms coming out of that, so stop kidding, lying, and subterfuging about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was taught for years in school that the primordial soup was the basis for life forms coming out of that, so stop kidding, lying, and subterfuging about that.

The combination of being over simplified and your inability to understand it makes your arguments worthless. I have not lied but you continually admit that evolution is right.

Why do you do that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Because that was never thought to be the case. It is over simplified.

And once again, you keep admitting that you are wrong about evolution every time that you bring it up. Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, it would have occurred if God made the first life. If the first life was from outer space. If the first life was made by little green pixies. It really does not apply to the debate at all which is why you are admitting that you are wrong by shifting the goal posts this far.

Don't worry, once you get evolution down we can revisit this topic.

It didn't matter whether evolution relied upon the primordial soup. That's what was taught and expected to be accepted as the substance which engendered the progression to apes and humans. Stop hiding basic truths from yourself.