The evidence for Evolution.

dad · Apr 28, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Aaron.

Right.

Gene Parmesan · Apr 28, 2017

They probably turned the staff into a snake and then back to wood while it was curled up! Not really a staff anymore but the same thing.

AV1611VET · Apr 28, 2017

Gene Parmesan said:
They probably turned the staff into a snake and then back to wood while it was curled up! Not really a staff anymore but the same thing.

Neat trick ... except for this:

Exodus 7:12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

Kylie · Apr 29, 2017

Doveaman said:
Maybe that's because you did not show me what animal evolved between our chimp ancestors and humans. Your fossil records seem to jump from prehistoric chimps to homos.

Do you have any idea what our chimp ancestors evolved into before becoming humans, or are you just making this stuff up as you go along?
Unless you can provide evidence of that missing animal I will just take your statement with a speck of dust....I mean grain of salt.

I'm fairly certain that you have been told many times that modern humans did NOT come from chimps!

Astrophile · Apr 30, 2017

Doveaman said:
Did you find any other fossils beside homos?

Doveaman said:
Maybe that's because you did not show me what animal evolved between our chimp ancestors and humans. Your fossil records seem to jump from prehistoric chimps to homos.

In post 1822, I mentioned other fossil hominins dating from after the chimpanzee-Homo split.

Astrophile said:
Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus sediba, Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin, Sahelanthropus.

Farther back in time, during the Miocene epoch and therefore before the chimpanzee-Homo split, there were other apes, such as Dryopithecus, Kenyapithecus, Ouranopithecus, Nakalipithecus, Pierolapithecus, Morotopithecus and Afropithecus; some of these may have been ancestors of humans, australopithecines, and the modern African apes (chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas).

dad · Apr 30, 2017

Kylie said:
I'm fairly certain that you have been told many times that modern humans did NOT come from chimps!

Yeah yeah, but until you produce the imaginary ancestor, people can use monkey or ape or chimp for the sake of discussion if they like to get the general idea across.

JonFromMinnesota · Apr 30, 2017

dad said:
Yeah yeah, but until you produce the imaginary ancestor, people can use monkey or ape or chimp for the sake of discussion if they like to get the general idea across.

Several different scientific disciplines all demonstrate evidence that comes to the same conclusion that we share a common ancestor. It's not imaginary no matter how much you wish it was.

AV1611VET · Apr 30, 2017

JonFromMinnesota said:
Several different scientific disciplines all demonstrate evidence that comes to the same conclusion that we share a common ancestor.

After how many tries?

dad · Apr 30, 2017

JonFromMinnesota said:
Several different scientific disciplines all demonstrate evidence that comes to the same conclusion that we share a common ancestor. It's not imaginary no matter how much you wish it was.

Yeah yeah. Religious disciplines don't count no matter what you call em.

Kylie · Apr 30, 2017

dad said:
Yeah yeah, but until you produce the imaginary ancestor, people can use monkey or ape or chimp for the sake of discussion if they like to get the general idea across.

Until you produce every single one of your ancestors going back to Adam and Eve, I can claim that you are not Human. See how ridiculous it is to demand ever single intermediary step? You don't need to show ever single one of your ancestors to prove you are Human because there are a lot of other pieces of evidence.

Likewise, there are a lot of pieces of evidence to show that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

AV1611VET · Apr 30, 2017

Kylie said:
Until you produce every single one of your ancestors going back to Adam and Eve, I can claim that you are not Human.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Let's hear your claim that any one of these between Jesus and God wasn't human.

dad · Apr 30, 2017

Kylie said:
Until you produce every single one of your ancestors going back to Adam and Eve, I can claim that you are not Human.

So unless we produce every man and animal that ever lived, none lived? Gong.

See how ridiculous it is to demand ever single intermediary step? You don't need to show ever single one of your ancestors to prove you are Human because there are a lot of other pieces of evidence.

YOU claim there were such steps you YOU need evidence. I believe man was created so I need none. Thems the rules.

Likewise, there are a lot of pieces of evidence to show that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

False. Nothing anywhere ever shows that. It is all inferred.

Kylie · Apr 30, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Let's hear your claim that any one of these between Jesus and God wasn't human.

But I didn't ask that, did I?

Why don't you try answering the question I actually ask instead of creating a strawman?

Kylie · Apr 30, 2017

dad said:
So unless we produce every man and animal that ever lived, none lived? Gong.

And yet you seem quite happy to use this logic to discount evolution. Funny that.

YOU claim there were such steps you YOU need evidence. I believe man was created so I need none. Thems the rules.

YOU claim there was creation you YOU need evidence. I believe man was evolved so I need none. Thems the rules.

False. Nothing anywhere ever shows that. It is all inferred.

This is totally wrong.

AV1611VET · May 1, 2017

Kylie said:
Why don't you try answering the question I actually ask instead of creating a strawman?

Because I'm not going to trace dad's lineage all the way back to God: that could get expensive.

After all, if you're not going to believe Luke's, you're certainly not going to believe dad's.

Gene Parmesan · May 1, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Neat trick ... except for this:

Exodus 7:12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

Yeah. Aaron's rod. It's curled up in there.

dad · May 1, 2017

Kylie said:
And yet you seem quite happy to use this logic to discount evolution. Funny that.

False. First I do not discount evolution, I just keep evolving in it's place...as a created trait and gift of God to created creatures. Secondly, the issue is your claim that man and life on earth resulted FROM a long string of mutations of which 99.9% were never observed! Your strategy is to use recent mutations we now see as the measure for everything that is responsible for man.

Total fiction. Total fabrication. Total godless imagination, and fanatical religion labeled as science run amok.

YOU claim there was creation you YOU need evidence.

Jesus rose from the dead. That clinched it.

I believe man was evolved so I need none. Thems the rules.

Believe whatever you like. Hows them apples?

Doveaman · May 1, 2017

LutheranGuy123 said:
But here's the thing: You are saying that evolution is just a theory. It's not. It's a collection of FACTS (things that we OBSERVED and know to be true, such as the FACT that certain fossils exist) and a collection of ideas about why those facts are.

I see what you did there. You are blurring the lines between observed facts and imaginary ideas. They are not the same. Facts are observed. Ideas are made up.

A scientific theory is a made up idea intended to explain facts until the idea is falsified.

As a side note, you are misunderstanding Einstein's theory of relativity. Spacetime curves around mass, which pulls things together. Earth's mass causes its gravity. Also, if you want to try to dismiss Einstein's theory of relativity, you're gonna have a bad

Einstein's theory of relativity can take a hike. Just show me the facts and I'll make up my own theory.

Yes, there are other fossils not in the genus Homo. Specifically, those of the genus Australopithecus. You don't seem to understand how this works though, because there aren't necessarily genii between a common ancestor of two species. Our system for naming things was designed to categorize only the species that we can observe, with the assumption that one species will never split into multiple species. I can think of two examples already (Loxodonta and Pan) where we decided that that has happened, but we still don't have a protocol for when a species has diverged into so many new species that we need to create a new genus to separate them. So I'll attempt to explain this with that in mind.

At least you are admitting your system is designed based on assumptions.

There was an animal. It was a vertebrate, a mammal, a therian, a eutherian, a placental, a primate, a hominoid (which is a fancy word for ape), a hominid, a hominin, and a homininan. Notice how this animal, and therefore every animal descended from it, is an ape. No matter what, all of these labels will apply to the descendants of this animal. It will never stop being an ape, no matter how different it begins to look.

What does this have to do with humans? :scratch:

Now, a population of these animals was separated in some way into two groups. We don't know for sure why, but it was most likely related to a social split, not a physical one. That is to say, there wasn't anything preventing the two groups from interbreeding, they just didn't want to. Basically they were racist. These two groups were isolated enough that the occasional gene flow from interbreeding didn't occur enough to prevent mutations from building to the point of making the two groups incompatible. Now these two groups would be two species in the same genus if they were named using our current system, but at some point the groups split more and became diverse enough that subgroups of these groups would be separate species and each full group would be called a genus. Think of it like how an extended family grows and grows until eventually they split into two families and don't really talk to each other anymore. But our current system doesn't have any way to deal with this event because it's only existed for a few hundred years.

These two groups were Pan (chimpanzee) and Australopithecus (or possibly Orrorin). Homo still didn't exist. Some people say that the starting animal should be Pan and that Australopithecus should be an offshoot, some people say that after a speciation event neither new species should get to carry on the original name. Again, the system doesn't work with speciation very well.

The Pan group changed a lot over time, and these early Pan animals would be genetically and probably very visually different from modern Pan. But depending on who you ask, the population either never split or split exactly once. Understand that, again, our system for names just doesn't work well here. There are very large changes occurring, but no new species are being named because there was never a separation. If these early chimpanzee still existed alongside modern chimpanzee, they would absolutely be different species. In case you were wondering, those who believe a speciation occurred believe that the bonobo should be a separate species, not just a subspecies of chimpanzee.

Now Australopithecus began as a single species, A. afarensis, which split into two groups, A. africanus and early Homo. Or, some people now believe that Orrorin split into Australopithecus and Homo. Either way, there was probably never a full split and they continued to interbreed. Australopithecus went extinct (or was fully combined with Homo) and Homo continued to change over time like Pan did, only for some reason scientists are totally okay with giving the same population a different species name depending on how recent the specimen is. There are a few times when distinct groups are formed, but they continue to interbreed and never truly speciate. The big one you'll hear about is the Neanderthal and Denisovan separation, but again, they never truly speciated. Eventually this ancient Homo population changed over time to become modern humans.

It is important that you understand that Homo erectus, H. habilis, H. sapiens, etc. are NOT different species. They are the same population at different time periods. They look different and are genetically distinct, probably to the point that they wouldn't be able to interbreed if you did some time machine shenanigans to help them meet each other, but they are not split lineages. At least, we aren't entirely sure that they are. There are a few splits that occurred, but they either never speciated and were mixed back in, or one of the two groups went extinct.

It's amazing how you guys make stuff up out of thin air, then convince yourselves it actually happened.

That's how scientific theories work, I guess. :doh:

Doveaman · May 1, 2017

Kylie said:
I'm fairly certain that you have been told many times that modern humans did NOT come from chimps!

Hey, I'm not the one with pictures all over the internet of humans evolving from chimps!

Doveaman · May 1, 2017

Astrophile said:
Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus sediba, Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin, Sahelanthropus.

I think you are listing the ancient ancestors of Sasquatch.

The evidence for Evolution.

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

Newbie

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Undefeated!

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Undefeated!

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Similar threads