Is it a hoax?

[tevans9129]

The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO. Biology categorizes from the simplest cell to the most complex and that work is informative, interesting and should be applauded.

However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species. It is speculation and I do believe the sequence or the timing can be proven. Furthermore, all trees do not agree with one another, which one is correct, if any?

I have seen no one in this group that can prove the immediate predecessor of the Equidae or bovine family nor can any evidence be shown of a different species evolving from either of these.

Is it not amazing how many different species have been on earth for what some claim as millions of years but they have not evolved into any different species during that time? Some have adapted to changing environments so there are some small differences but they are still within the same species.

 

[pitabread]

Is it not amazing how many different species have been on earth for what some claim as millions of years but they have not evolved into any different species during that time?

You do know that "species" is essentially an artificial human categorization right?

FWIW, speciation has been observed, so there is that: Observed Instances of Speciation

At any rate, the sum total of the evidence (fossil, genetic, biogeographic, etc) points to shared ancestry of life on Earth. There's really no debate about it.

I have seen no one in this group that can prove the immediate predecessor of the Equidae or bovine family nor can any evidence be shown of a different species evolving from either of these.

I gave you a link to a paper on Bovidae evolution including a phylogenetic reconstruction based on the fossil evidence and a list of those fossils. You thumbed your nose at it because it didn't have pretty pictures. You can ignore the evidence all you want, but declaring evolution a 'hoax' after the fact is just tacky. You're not fooling anyone here.

 

[Apex]

Not only is abiogenesis nonsensical, but the idea all life on this planet derived from the single cell that came into existence through this preposterous event is even more absurd. The real model of life would look like an orchard of trees. God created the original organisms; those organisms have changed and evolved since that moment.

 

[pitabread]

Not only is abiogenesis nonsensical, but the idea all life on this planet derived from the single cell that came into existence through this preposterous event is even more absurd.

Personal incredulity will get you nowhere...

God created the original organisms; those organisms have changed and evolved since that moment.

The sum total of the evidence points to singular-cellular life being the first life on Earth and then evolving and diversifying into the life we have today (over the 4+ billion years it's been on Earth). Unfortunately there is no evidence of numerous individual, independent organisms being created.

 

[sfs]

Not only is abiogenesis nonsensical, but the idea all life on this planet derived from the single cell that came into existence through this preposterous event is even more absurd. The real model of life would look like an orchard of trees. God created the original organisms; those organisms have changed and evolved since that moment.

Are humans and chimpanzees part of different trees, or part of the same tree?

 

[Zoii]

Its an endictment when our faith is so fragile we cant consider any other evidence outside of a literal translation of the bible

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO. Biology categorizes from the simplest cell to the most complex and that work is informative, interesting and should be applauded.

However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species. It is speculation and I do believe the sequence or the timing can be proven. Furthermore, all trees do not agree with one another, which one is correct, if any?

I have seen no one in this group that can prove the immediate predecessor of the Equidae or bovine family nor can any evidence be shown of a different species evolving from either of these.

Is it not amazing how many different species have been on earth for what some claim as millions of years but they have not evolved into any different species during that time? Some have adapted to changing environments so there are some small differences but they are still within the same species.

You do not know enough to be able to judge the evidence that has been presented to you. And with your lack of education the burden of proof is not upon others. The burden of proof is upon you. The other side can and has supported their beliefs. You have not supported your beliefs at all. You do not win by default. Since you can't present any evidence you lose by default.

By the way, horse evolution has been shown to you all the way back to the common ancestor with hippos and rhinos Your claim that that is "just a horse" means that hippos and rhinos are "just a horse" by your standards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not only is abiogenesis nonsensical, but the idea all life on this planet derived from the single cell that came into existence through this preposterous event is even more absurd. The real model of life would look like an orchard of trees. God created the original organisms; those organisms have changed and evolved since that moment.

And your evidence for this is ..... ?

 

[Apex]

Are humans and chimpanzees part of different trees, or part of the same tree?

Different trees.

Remember, I am assuming these trees have progenitors that were originally created by a single creator. If this creator wanted to produce a mature and functioning ecosystem from the moment of creation, they would need to incorporate a vast amount of variety in these original organisms. We wouldn't see a single bird tree, but possibly thousands of bird trees. Each bird tree would have progenitors that had similar anatomical features with the other created birds, like feathers and beaks. These similarities logically would also be expressed in having similar genetic coding - not from having common ancestors but from having a common creator.

 

[Apex]

And your evidence for this is ..... ?

I'm basing my conclusions on philosophical grounds. Just like you are. I don't have explicit proof abiogenesis didn't happen and you don't have proof that it did.

 

[sfs]

Different trees.

Then why do the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look exactly like accumulated mutations in genomes that were originally identical? Parts of the genome that mutate faster are more genetically different between the two species, for example. Particular kinds of mutation that happen more commonly also show up more commonly when comparing the two, and kinds that happen very frequently show up very frequently.

In other words, if they didn't evolve from a common ancestor, why do they look exactly like they did?

 

[pitabread]

These similarities logically would also be expressed in having similar genetic coding - not from having common ancestors but from having a common creator.

What about differences? If similarities are evidence of a 'common creator', would differences be evidence of different creators?

 

[pitabread]

However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species. It is speculation and I do believe the sequence or the timing can be proven. Furthermore, all trees do not agree with one another, which one is correct, if any?

True answer? None of them.

Phylogenetic reconstruction of the 'tree of life' is at best an approximation of the relationships of biological lifeforms. It may very well be a good approximation, but that's all it is. It will never be 100% because we're never working with 100% perfect knowledge. If we had perfect knowledge, we wouldn't need to do science.

I had a professor once who liked to state that "all theories are false". His point wasn't necessarily that theories were wrong. But rather, that because they are approximations, or rather simplifications of reality, they would never be 100% representative of reality.

Understanding this is a key to understanding how science works. Science is about learning the most we can about our universe we live in based on the tools, measurements and observations available to us. And then taking that knowledge and trying to form explanations on how things work, and then use those explanations to solve problems, develop technologies and do further research.

If you can accept that science is never going to provide you with definitive, 100% answers, then you'll get much more out of it.

 

[Apex]

Then why do the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look exactly like accumulated mutations in genomes that were originally identical? Parts of the genome that mutate faster are more genetically different between the two species, for example. Particular kinds of mutation that happen more commonly also show up more commonly when comparing the two, and kinds that happen very frequently show up very frequently.

In other words, if they didn't evolve from a common ancestor, why do they look exactly like they did?

How can I give a scientific explanation for something that involved supernatural creation?

 

[sfs]

How can I give a scientific explanation for something that involved supernatural creation?

I didn't ask for a scientific explanation; I asked for an explanation. What's the supernatural explanation for humans and chimpanzees looking genetically like they're descended from a common ancestor?

 

[Apex]

I didn't ask for a scientific explanation; I asked for an explanation. What's the supernatural explanation for humans and chimpanzees looking genetically like they're descended from a common ancestor?

I personally don't have an explanation. I am unable to understand all the processes involved in special creation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Bible states that because of the disobedience of those who stoutly refuse to believe that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God and that He rose from the dead, and who irreversably refused to accept Christ as Saviour, God Himself will send on them a strong delusion so that they will be blocked from every knowing the truth of the Gospel. I believe that Evolution is one of those delusions. This is borne out by those who believe in it will fight tooth and nail to support it, even in the face of clear scientific facts that show that it is a complete fantasy. Evolution is a type of religion, rather than a credible science, and those who believe in it, rather than the Bible account of creation are deceived so as to show their separation from those who are genuine believers in Christ. If that is so, no reasonable of logical arguments will convince these people of anything that will show them that their belief in Evolution is an error. This is because the delusion comes from not an intellectual source but a spiritual one.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Different trees.

Remember, I am assuming these trees have progenitors that were originally created by a single creator. If this creator wanted to produce a mature and functioning ecosystem from the moment of creation, they would need to incorporate a vast amount of variety in these original organisms. We wouldn't see a single bird tree, but possibly thousands of bird trees. Each bird tree would have progenitors that had similar anatomical features with the other created birds, like feathers and beaks. These similarities logically would also be expressed in having similar genetic coding - not from having common ancestors but from having a common creator.

We share around 200,000 ERVs with Chimpanzees, each ERV has approximately 1 in 1.6 million chance at being inherited and passed on in exactly the same loci as in another species - You're suggesting that not only did that 1 in 1.6million chance event happen, but that it happened 200,000 times over in these separately created Human and Ape lineages??

Excuse me while I laugh hysteically at that proposition..... BAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahaha!

I'm basing my conclusions on philosophical grounds. Just like you are. I don't have explicit proof abiogenesis didn't happen and you don't have proof that it did.

We all have proof - We are here, aren't we? It has to have happened one way or another, whether by divine creation or by natural means, it happened... All of the evidence available to us suggests chemical reactions leading to first forms of life, then of course the fossil record after that clearly shows simple forms of life becoming more complex over time, this is undisputed in the scientific world.

The Bible states that because of the disobedience of those who stoutly refuse to believe that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God and that He rose from the dead, and who irreversably refused to accept Christ as Saviour, God Himself will send on them a strong delusion so that they will be blocked from every knowing the truth of the Gospel. I believe that Evolution is one of those delusions.

Well, Evolution is what the evidence shows.

This is borne out by those who believe in it will fight tooth and nail to support it, even in the face of clear scientific facts that show that it is a complete fantasy

except there isn't any evidence showing any such fantasy, I'm afraid... feel free to point it out - I'm still waiting for your 400 page list of respected scientists that dissent the Theory of Evolution btw...

Evolution is a type of religion, rather than a credible science,

False, nobody follows any 'priests' of evolution, or dogmatically practice 'rituals' of faith in evolution's honour, this is a Science and you just don't like the implications on your particular flavour of worldview.

and those who believe in it, rather than the Bible account of creation are deceived so as to show their separation from those who are genuine believers in Christ. If that is so, no reasonable of logical arguments will convince these people of anything that will show them that their belief in Evolution is an error. This is because the delusion comes from not an intellectual source but a spiritual one.

Wrong! Evidence!! Evidence would clear this matter up quick-smart! All you have to have, is Evidence!

 

[ViaCrucis]

The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO.

Your opinion, though wrong, is noted.

Biology categorizes from the simplest cell to the most complex and that work is informative, interesting and should be applauded.

However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species. It is speculation and I do believe the sequence or the timing can be proven. Furthermore, all trees do not agree with one another, which one is correct, if any?

So your problem is that we do not have a perfect and completely exhaustive record of every living organism that ever lived?

I have seen no one in this group that can prove the immediate predecessor of the Equidae or bovine family nor can any evidence be shown of a different species evolving from either of these.

What we call equidae is a convenience, taxonomical groupings are helpful for us to classify things which are related to others; but you are demonstrating one of the fundamental flaws they have: the expectation that life is neatly organized into these strict groups--it isn't.

Is it not amazing how many different species have been on earth for what some claim as millions of years but they have not evolved into any different species during that time? Some have adapted to changing environments so there are some small differences but they are still within the same species.

New species have arisen constantly throughout earth's history.

Your argument is one from ignorance.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jimmy D]

The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO. Biology categorizes from the simplest cell to the most complex and that work is informative, interesting and should be applauded.

However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species. It is speculation and I do believe the sequence or the timing can be proven. Furthermore, all trees do not agree with one another, which one is correct, if any?

I have seen no one in this group that can prove the immediate predecessor of the Equidae or bovine family nor can any evidence be shown of a different species evolving from either of these.

Is it not amazing how many different species have been on earth for what some claim as millions of years but they have not evolved into any different species during that time? Some have adapted to changing environments so there are some small differences but they are still within the same species.

The earliest life that we find in the fossil record dates back to the Archean eon I believe (starting around four billion years ago). Do you know what we find in those rocks? Single celled life and nothing else.