A very specific question for evolutionists.

[AV1611VET]

Yes, it is a scientific theory.

Then it's a theory with holes in it --- literally.

Only you guys call them "missing links".

 

[MoonLancer]

and I don't need to take a course in evolution just to learn I can't answer questions like, "Where did Eve come from"?

then why did you ask the question you asked, if not to specifically try to show where eve came from?

 

[Bombila]

Well, I've got news for you, Bombilla: I do know where we came from --- and I don't need to take a course in evolution just to learn I can't answer questions like, "Where did Eve come from"?

I stand by by my comment.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Then it's a theory with holes in it --- literally.

Only you guys call them "missing links".

Every theory has missing details. Scientists don't even really know the mechanism behind gravity. However, it's not necessary to have a complete narrative of life from beginning to present in order to see patterns and see what has happened in the past, and what is happening now.

Science never claims to know everything about everything. But at least scientists try.

 

[pgp_protector]

Then it's a theory with holes in it --- literally.

Only you guys call them "missing links".

AV you believe you descended from Adam & Eve correct ?

 

[MoonLancer]

Then it's a theory with holes in it --- literally.

Only you guys call them "missing links".

no, missing link was coined by creationists.

our understanding of evolution as a process has no holes, only the amount of generations we have in fossils. with the ones we do have on file, the evidence shows we came earlier life.

 

[AV1611VET]

then why did you ask the question you asked, if not to specifically try to show where eve came from?

As I stated in POST 24, I was under the impression that where we came from was clearly known. (I've learned a lot in this thread [despite the fact that a couple of you contradicted each other], and I'm impressed with how well some of you know your doctrine.)

 

[AV1611VET]

AV you believe you descended from Adam & Eve correct ?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

no, missing link was coined by creationists.

What would you call them then, if you were in charge of the naming conventions? Gaps?

 

[pgp_protector]

Yes.

So can you provide a complete linage between you and Adam or is your theory full of holes ?

 

[MoonLancer]

As I stated in POST 24, I was under the impression that where we came from was clearly known. (I've learned a lot in this thread [despite the fact that a couple of you contradicted each other], and I'm impressed with how well some of you know your doctrine.)

its clear as a life form we came from early life. You want a child's book explain where non exists (at least thats what it seems like this argument is about).

as seen by the gradient example, we have enough fossils to show the gradient occurs, and thats all that's required to show we came from earlier life. what? you want labels? Evolution is counter intuitive. thats why it took so long to figure out.

Your attempt at trying to raise religion to the same standards as science by trying to imply we have a doctrine is humerus.

 

[AV1611VET]

So can you provide a complete linage between you and Adam or is your theory full of holes ?

No, I cannot --- but what's changed between me and [after-the-Fall] Adam? Nothing. Whereas your line is full of changes and mutations and morphs and who-knows-what-all.

Besides --- I don't present it as "theory".

 

[MoonLancer]

What would you call them then, if you were in charge of the naming conventions? Gaps?

missing link imply that if one link is missing, the chain or "idea" falls apart, and this simply is not the case.

I wouldn't call it anything. I would simply say "scientists do not have all the fossils of every generation that lived. The fossils currently found show an evolutionary path. they show humans came from earlier life."

I also might say that their is a gap in the fossil recorded but also explain that theirs no gap in our understanding of how the fossils we do have and how they fit together, or that we will suddenly discover that humans diden't came from earlier life.

you see those words are used to imply something about science that just isn't true. Basically they have become loaded words with creationists supplying the ammo.

 

[pgp_protector]

No, I cannot --- but what's changed between me and [after-the-Fall] Adam? Nothing. Whereas your line is full of changes and mutations and morphs and who-knows-what-all.

Besides --- I don't present it as "theory".

But you have no evidence either.

 

[MoonLancer]

No, I cannot --- but what's changed between me and [after-the-Fall] Adam? Nothing. Whereas your line is full of changes and mutations and morphs and who-knows-what-all.

Besides --- I don't present it as "theory".

no but you believe it right? you think its the truth? you think your a descendant of Adam? An unbroken line?

showing we came from earlier different life is alot easier to show then trying to prove specific lineage. you cant have any gaps in genealogy. Now dna can help with this, but we don't have Adams dna, so we cant show you are his breathen. who knows, maybe I was the sun of Lilith?

 

[Bombila]

I have to ask who creationists think all those later hominids were. We have their bones, buried with their hearths and their tools (and the evidence left from making their tools, and the evidence that they travelled distances to get the best stone for their tools, in one case even a sample of the pitch they made for hafting some weapons) and sometimes even their decorations. These families and tribes walked upright, hunted animals, cooked, cleaned hides (we have the tools they used). Yet no human alive today would mistake them for being one of us - they would look far too different. Who else could they be, if not our ancestors, or at least the cousins of our ancestors?

Note: most of them were far too short for Nephilim, if someone is considering going there.

Note 2: I will really laugh if one of you claims that this is what humans looked like before the flood/split.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have to ask who creationists think all those later hominids were. We have their bones, buried with their hearths and their tools (and the evidence left from making their tools, and the evidence that they travelled distances to get the best stone for their tools, in one case even a sample of the pitch they made for hafting some weapons) and sometimes even their decorations. These families and tribes walked upright, hunted animals, cooked, cleaned hides (we have the tools they used). Yet no human alive today would mistake them for being one of us - they would look far too different. Who else could they be, if not our ancestors, or at least the cousins of our ancestors?

Note: most of them were far too short for Nephilim, if someone is considering going there.

Note 2: I will really laugh if one of you claims that this is what humans looked like before the flood/split.

I get this question in different form - (same answer though): who were the cavemen?

Keep in mind that back then, people were ostracized for one reason or another --- mainly disease. So it wouldn't be strange back then for a community to pop up that had "different" physical characteristics.

In addition, people were lazy, people were hermits, people were anti-social, and people also were criminal. These are the ones who lived in caves, hunted with crude tools, etc.

Jephthah in the Bible (Judges 11) comes to mind as just one of these types of persons.

 

[Bombila]

I get this question in different form - (same answer though): who were the cavemen?

Keep in mind that back then, people were ostracized for one reason or another --- mainly disease. So it wouldn't be strange back then for a community to pop up that had "different" physical characteristics.

In addition, people were lazy, people were hermits, people were anti-social, and people also were criminal. These are the ones who lived in caves, hunted with crude tools, etc.

Jephthah in the Bible (Judges 11) comes to mind as just one of these types of persons.

This different?

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/pics/10_2002/hominid.jpg

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Thank you, Split Rock --- at least I have something to work with now.

Let's assume Homo ergaster.

So now my question is --- according to evolutionary logic, if Homo ergaster gave birth to a Homo sapien girl, wouldn't this girl eventually have mated with a Homo ergaster? Or is it that all of a sudden, Homo ergasters started giving birth to Homo sapiens, who then mated with each other?

Individuals do not evolve, populations do. if we were discussing lingustic evolution it would be like saying "if english is derived from german, who did the first englishspeaker speak to?". the answer is: thats not how it happened. anglo-saxons were separated from germany and over time their dialect accumulated local colloquiallisms and slang and eventually over hundreds of generations english became a distinct language, unintelligible to both ancestral and contemporary german. biologic evolution works the same way. populations become separated, changes accumulate (mutations), and eventually the isolated population becomes reproductively incompatable with ancestral & contemporary populations.

 

[Washington]

then why did you ask the question you asked, if not to specifically try to show where eve came from?

These are issues AV1611VET's been over many times before, and knows exactly what kind of answers he will get, but he likes to have people to dialog with. And sometimes, lacking a true topic, he manufacture one, ridiculous as it is. I don't believe AV1611VET really cares what answers he gets, other than to have something to respond to, because he's not about to serious consider what anyone says or waver one iota in his beliefs. Other than that the guy is a pleasant and amusing diversion.

My suggestion is to not take him too seriously (sorry about that AV). Only a suggestion of course.