Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hey now I realize its tempting to make snappy comebacks sometimes but you know that isnt true, repeating things like that even in jest might get you lumped in with that crowd.Well do you mean is it going to falsify evolution, no, evolution is not falsifiable.
Hey now I realize its tempting to make snappy comebacks sometimes but you know that isnt true, repeating things like that even in jest might get you lumped in with that crowd.
well a duck in the cambrian would do pretty nicely.lol what crowd is that?
Tell me Exiledo, what do you think would falsify evolution?
Actually, I was thinking that was more what you were doing.
One billion years ago was before the Cambrian and complex life forms.
It doesn't work.
Well do you mean is it going to falsify evolution, no, evolution is not falsifiable.
It depends on the event.
No, it isn't reappearing. Clearly it's been used all along. It may have a slightly different use in algae than in land plants, but that doesn't mean it somehow disappeared and then reappeared.I don't know if you understand the implications of this discovery. This is a very complex mechanism that was thought to have only been present in land plants. This finding puts nearly one billion years of evolutionary history in a completely different light.
If lignin was indeed attributed to a common ancestor over a billion years ago, that means that something that is suppose to be very simplistic and relatively in the first stages of evolution as responsible for the lignin for both the green and red algae.
The genetic history is buried deep, a billion years or more. So yes, it is reappearing if it just pops up that long after the fact.
I have spoken to the differences umpteen times, and at length, including yesterday and the day before. ...and YES, the differences are obvious. None of these replies of yours even mention my assertion of discontinuity due to lack of sophisticated language, higher reasoning ability and perception. In what language would you like me to repeat it in? You are trying to deflect out of desperation, a common evolutionists ploy when they are gobsmacked.
I have given no definition of evolution at all. I am only interested in getting you to provide evidence for your claim that humans are not apes.I also have no obligation to provide what any evolutionist would consider 'satisfactory', particularly given you have no satisfactory theory that does not evoke the non plausible.
You also have ignored the fact that you do not have to describe nephalim from an opposing view as a basis for evoluion. You are trying to divert atention fron the fact that you have no idea how to speak to my points that demonstrate science in favour of creation.
You are not only going to keep asking me to repeat this you are going to keep ignoring my reply and the fact that the evidence is more supportive of a creationist paradigm.
The definition of ape is one derived and defined on the presumption of ancestry then applied as are your classification systems. Please see my reply below demonstrating your researchers have no clue!.
I have never seen my dog praying!
The point is, as you conceded, humans have sophisticted language alone as well as higher reasoning capability, both requirements necessary to communicate with God, understand His Law, discern right from wrong, and pay Him homage. This is the most reliable and distinguishing feature that separates mankind from beast. Mankind alone is created in the image of God.
I tried to see what answers were out there from an evolutionary standpoint to my points that support creation and are refuted by wild and non plausible evolutionary scenarios. I found a truly vague and contradictory state of affairs.
I have spoken to the fall of Lucy and Ardi, which you have ignored and taken no stance. Wiki also reflects this conundrum. Homo Erectus, it appears, is seriously being challenged as the ancestor of homo sapiens. Scientists are postulating eragaster, and are seeing Turkana Boy as eragaster, conveniently, as well. He can be both it appears, whatever flavour of the month is.
There are a plethora of scenarios presented in the article, and with cited research, to try to address your dilemma. However a contradictory dilemma it remains. Again non plausible scenarios are offered like 1my of speciation and then interbreeding. Your proposed evidence for evolution is no more robust than flavour of the month being offered up as irrefutable evidence for evolution, until next week.
You have Ardi at 4.4myo found with ape feet, then Selam with defined curved fingers at 3.3mya, demonstrating she was arboreal and also human footprints dated in between. So in under 1my (around 700,000 years) ape feet evolved' into human feet, did they? Not plausible. This is on the backdrop scenario that some apes 7mya remained apart for 1my of speciation and still were able to successfully interbreed, meaning they had not speciated at all really.
What you have are footprints dated 3.6myo and older. You have an ape, australopithicus afarensis at 3.3myo. You have Selam, that has curved fingers at 3 years old, meaning she was arboreal, as the curvature become defined in the ape fingers once the child starts climbing! These are obviously apes misrepresented and humanized in desperation. This is the only plausible explanation.
This is definitive evidence for mankind being here around 3.6mya according to your dating methods, while your supposed intermediates were still apes. You have found other apes that predate the human footprint. Clearly apes were created and then mankind was created independently, and this is supported by the evidence.
Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy.
Do you think if the fossil record only went back 6000 years, and showed the sudden appearance of modern animals and no others, that would falsify Evolution?
well a duck in the cambrian would do pretty nicely.
As would one kind of animal giving birth to entirely different kind.
An appearance over a span of millions of years is not sudden. Unless you somehow think that hundreds of times the entire span of human civilization is sudden.There was a sudden appearance of all modern phyla, which would have falsified the gradual evolution required by ToE but Gould came to the rescue with punctuated equilibrium. No falsification there.
Tell me Exiledo, what do you think would falsify evolution?
Here's another one: the family trees inferred from genetic comparisons routinely fail to give the same trees if we use different bits of DNA. This one is particularly strong because the statistics of nested hierarchies are just so absurd. By the time you get to a comparison of, say, 20 species, the probability that two different genes would show the same family tree just by chance is very roughly in the range of one part in 10^20. So when you see phylogenetic trees routinely and repeatedly coming up with the same result, that is proof positive of evolution.Ooooo, Much like my "kinds" list, I have a long one that Creationists seem to avoid. You can also check out Douglas Theobald's 29 Evidences essays and note that for every one of them he presents a verification and a potential falsification.
So, let's see, potential falsifications of evolution.
An iguana with mammary glands.
A crow with wings and arms.
A rose with melanocites.
A sponge with a vertebrate brain.
A lobster with a backbone.
A sloth with chlorophyl.
The proverbial rabbit in the Cambrian.
A mouse in the Devonian.
A crow in the Ordovician with an iguana and pollen from a rose in it's stomach.
Orthologous ERVs in humans, orangutans and lemurs, but not in other primates.
A trout with fur.
A dolphin who lacked the genes for fur, but had the genes for scales.
The chimeric possibilities for falsifying evolution are endless OD. Whereever did you get the notion that there were no possible falsifications?
The fact is, we haven't found any yet so that means something after 150 years.
The question was what would falsify evolution, I answered it.This counters the way God created as well.
An appearance over a span of millions of years is not sudden. Unless you somehow think that hundreds of times the entire span of human civilization is sudden.
Uncertainty about the precise details of where Lucy fits in our family tree really doesn't place any doubt whatsoever on the theory of evolution. Having no evidence for your claim should worry you! Your objection here might as well be saying that because some things fall faster than others, our theory of gravity must be wrong.Astronauts always get to the moon but Lucy, Ardi and Erectus never made it to human. My objection demonstrates that you have a mess as opposed to a sound theory of common descent. It is a mess that you hold up as evidence for evolution, and human evolution is just one example of the mess you actually have. It is fraudulent and deceitful to represent what you have as uncontested evidence of anything that only a fool would not accept.
Do you think if the fossil record only went back 6000 years, and showed the sudden appearance of modern animals and no others, that would falsify Evolution?
Here's another one: the family trees inferred from genetic comparisons routinely fail to give the same trees if we use different bits of DNA. This one is particularly strong because the statistics of nested hierarchies are just so absurd. By the time you get to a comparison of, say, 20 species, the probability that two different genes would show the same family tree just by chance is very roughly in the range of one part in 10^20. So when you see phylogenetic trees routinely and repeatedly coming up with the same result, that is proof positive of evolution.
Of course, we don't expect exact concordance of different measures of these family trees, because no measurement of a family tree is perfect. But they had better match up nearly all of the time or there's a big problem, and any time they don't match up there had better be a good explanation as to why.
Yes. Completely and utterly.So you are discounting the predictions that claimed this could not be consistent with Darwinian evolution?
You do realize that not every animal fossilizes, right?And yes, this is sudden due to the fact that almost all of the forms found in the Cambrian do not have any precursors. This too is inconsistent with the predictions of Darwin.
Ooooo, Much like my "kinds" list, I have a long one that Creationists seem to avoid. You can also check out Douglas Theobald's 29 Evidences essays and note that for every one of them he presents a verification and a potential falsification.
So, let's see, potential falsifications of evolution.
An iguana with mammary glands.
A crow with wings and arms.
A rose with melanocites.
A sponge with a vertebrate brain.
A lobster with a backbone.
A sloth with chlorophyl.
The proverbial rabbit in the Cambrian.
A mouse in the Devonian.
A crow in the Ordovician with an iguana and pollen from a rose in it's stomach.
Orthologous ERVs in humans, orangutans and lemurs, but not in other primates.
A trout with fur.
A dolphin who lacked the genes for fur, but had the genes for scales.
The chimeric possibilities for falsifying evolution are endless OD. Whereever did you get the notion that there were no possible falsifications?
The fact is, we haven't found any yet so that means something after 150 years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?